大智度論 菩薩行品Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Bodhisattva's Practice

The Bodhisattva's Practice: Why the Bodhisattva's Practice Is Answered in Full with the One Sentence of Practice for the Sake of Awakening; Why the Buddha Must Count All the Way from Practising Form Being Empty to Practising the Conditioned Nature and the Unconditioned Nature before Saying That He Makes No Two; Why the Meaning by Which One Is Named Buddha Must Be Spoken Four Times; Why the Meaning of Awakening Must Be Spoken in Nine Layers and Is Not Fixed in One Meaning; Why Practising the Six Perfections with No Gain and No Loss within Dharmas Is Not Practising for Nothing; Why, since It Comes Forth Not for the Sake of Gain and Loss, One Can Still Take Up the Six Perfections and So On up to Entering the Bodhisattva's Position; Why Practising Not by Reason of Two Dharmas Is the Pivot of the Whole Chapter; Why for One Who Practises Two Dharmas the Roots of Goodness Do Not Increase; Why, Asked Whether One Practises Prajñā for the Sake of the Roots of Goodness, the Buddha Answers ‘No’; Why Not Practising for the Sake of the Roots of Goodness and Yet Saying That One Who Has Not Fulfilled the Roots of Goodness Cannot Obtain the Omniscience of All Kinds Do Not Contradict Each Other; Why, since Prajñā Gathers All Dharmas, One Must Still Ask Further about the Bodhisattva's Practice; Why the Saying That the Deeds of Body, Speech, and Mind Are All Named the Bodhisattva's Practice Has the One Word ‘Right’ Sifted Out of It by the Buddha's Answer; Why Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, and Great Bodhisattvas, Who Also Know the Real Meaning, Are Not Named Buddha; Why, on the Difference of the Four Names, the Treatise-Author Does Not Set Up a Saying of His Own but Sets Out ‘Someone Says’ Side by Side; Why Awakening Being Suchness and Not Different Must Be Spoken of by Surpassing in Turn, One above Another; Why the Seven Sayings of the Various Houses Explaining Awakening Are Kept Together without Judgement; Why the Treatise-Author's Taking Up Again of the Sūtra Text Must Be Read Apart from the Sūtra Text; Why Obtaining Wealth in a Dream and the Raft Simile Speak of One and the Same Matter; Why the Two Kinds of Dhāraṇī and the Two Kinds of Unobstructedness, True and in Name, Both Lie in Distinguishing Depth and Shallowness; Why the Purity of the Deep Mind Is Tied to Compassion, Not Abandoning, and Rescuing and Delivering; Why the Three Things of the Good Physician, the Medicinal Herbs, and the One Who Tends the Sick Gather In the Conclusion of the Whole Chapter

What Is Being Asked

What this chapter asks is a question that looks the most ordinary of all: what, in the end, is it that the bodhisattva practises. The chapters before this one spoke broadly of the marks of prajñā and broadly of the method of training in prajñā, and what they distinguished was mostly the dharmas trained in; in this chapter Subhūti moves the question onto the person—the one matter the bodhisattva does through his whole life, what is it called.

The Buddha's answer is surprisingly short: 「菩薩行者，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行，是名菩薩行。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's practice is practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; this is named the bodhisattva's practice." He does not speak of the dharmas practised; he speaks only of the place faced toward. This answer at once draws out a second question: since it is practice for the sake of awakening, then how does it count as practice for the sake of awakening? Only then does the Buddha open out an extremely long list, counting all the way from practising form being empty to practising the conditioned nature and practising the unconditioned nature, and gathering it in with one sentence: 「如阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不作二。」 tr. "Just as with anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he makes no two." The longer the list, the weightier the last sentence—the hundreds and thousands of Dharma gates listed all come to rest in making no two.

From this Subhūti presses on with two names: by reason of what meaning one is named Buddha, and by reason of what meaning it is named awakening. The Buddha answers the naming of the Buddha with four meanings, and answers awakening with nine layers. That the answers are so many is not a waste of words: what is asked is the meaning contained in a name, and meaning is from the first without fixed mark, so the saying differs according to what it faces. This passage is the thickest section of the chapter in doctrine, and the treatise-author too spends the most space on explaining it—first setting up three rounds of question and answer himself, then setting out the sayings of the various houses side by side without judgement.

After this the whole chapter turns into a set of difficulties on the gate of practice. Since practising prajñā comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, increase and decrease, arising and ceasing, purity and stain, then how are the six perfections and so on up to the bodhisattva's position to be taken up? Since one practises not by reason of two dharmas, then from the first arousing of intent to the last intent, how do the roots of goodness increase? Since the roots of goodness are to increase, then does one practise prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness? The Buddha's answers come one step tighter than the last: one practises not by reason of two dharmas; for one who practises two dharmas the roots of goodness do not increase; one practises neither for the sake of the roots of goodness nor for the sake of what is not the roots of goodness; and at the end he further says that one who has not made offerings to the buddhas, has not fulfilled the roots of goodness, and has not obtained true friends cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds. It looks as though earlier and later resist each other, but in fact these are two faces of the same matter—the roots of goodness are not what is prized, and yet one cannot be without them.

In the last passage the Buddha opens out a real road: from the first arousing of intent one makes offerings to the buddhas, hears and retains the twelve divisions of the scriptures, recites until fluent, contemplates in the mind, and penetrates clearly, obtains dhāraṇī and gives rise to unobstructed knowledge, plants roots of goodness and is protected by the roots of goodness, obtains the purity of the deep mind, is able to purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment, and is never apart from true friends. Here the treatise-author glosses sentence by sentence, and concludes with the three things of the good physician, the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick. The whole chapter, beginning from 「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」 tr. "practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" and ending at 「親近善知識」 tr. "keep close to good friends," speaks of the head and tail of one matter—once what one faces toward is settled, what one relies on, what one trains in, and whom one keeps company with are all settled from it.

Passage by Passage

1. Subhūti asks what the bodhisattva's practice is. At the head of the chapter Subhūti addresses the Buddha. He does not ask how the bodhisattva trains, nor what fruit the bodhisattva obtains; he asks only 「何等是菩薩行」 tr. "what is the bodhisattva's practice." In reading this question one must see clearly where it asks: the chapters before have spoken broadly of prajñā and broadly of training, and the three Chinese characters 「菩薩行」 tr. "the bodhisattva's practice" are spoken of again and again in the sūtra and yet have never been defined. Whenever there is a term in the sūtra that is in constant use and yet undefined, a later chapter often makes it a question—the arising of this chapter is precisely such an arising. He also adds a sentence of origin: 「世尊說菩薩行」 tr. "The World-Honored One speaks of the bodhisattva's practice," showing that what is asked does not come from himself; he is pressing for the meaning of words the Buddha himself has used.

2. The Buddha answers that it is practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The Buddha's answer is only one sentence: 「菩薩行者，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行，是名菩薩行。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's practice is practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; this is named the bodhisattva's practice." The key of this answer is that what it answers is ‘what it faces toward’ and not ‘what is done’. Had he answered with the six perfections or with the thirty-seven limbs of the path, it would become a table of items, and a table of items cannot distinguish the bodhisattva from the one who is not a bodhisattva—the same giving and keeping of precepts, if what they face toward differs, are different practices. With this answer the Buddha sets the dividing line at the place it is done for, so below Subhūti must ask once more 「云何」 tr. "how" before the items can be invited out.

3. Subhūti goes on to ask how it is practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Subhūti takes it up with the utmost precision: since it is said to be practice for the sake of awakening, then 「云何菩薩摩訶薩為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." The previous question asked about the name; this question asks about the marks. Whenever in reading the sūtra one sees the same matter asked twice, one must first distinguish that the two askings ask different things—the former seeks its definition, the latter seeks the marks of its practice; if the two questions are seen as a repetition, one will feel that the long passage the Buddha gives below is something extra.

4. The Buddha lists throughout the dharmas practised and concludes with making no two, as with awakening. In response to this question the Buddha opens a long list: practising form being empty, practising feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness being empty; practising the eye being empty and so on up to the mind, practising forms being empty and so on up to dharmas; practising the eye element being empty and so on up to the mind-consciousness element; next practising the six perfections; next practising inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; next practising the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions; next practising the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path; next practising the three samādhi; next practising the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions; next practising the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion; next practising purifying buddha-lands and bringing beings to accomplishment; next practising all the eloquences, practising letters entering into what is without letters, and practising all the dhāraṇī gates; last practising the conditioned nature and practising the unconditioned nature. What is listed begins from the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, and the eighteen elements, passes through the six perfections, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, and the samādhis, and reaches the merits of the Buddha ground and the matters of transforming others, and with the one pair of the conditioned and the unconditioned gathers everything in. The first of the limbs of the path is called the four foundations of mindfulness; elsewhere this treatise itself lists its items and its contemplations: 「身念處，受、心、法念處，是為四念處」 tr. "the foundation of mindfulness of the body, and the foundations of mindfulness of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas—these are the four foundations of mindfulness," and 「觀身不淨，觀受是苦，觀心無常，觀法無我」 tr. "contemplate the body as impure, contemplate feeling as suffering, contemplate mind as impermanent, contemplate dharmas as non-self"—the foundation of mindfulness of the body contemplates this body as not pure and breaks the inversion of purity; the foundation of mindfulness of feeling contemplates the feelings as suffering and breaks the inversion of pleasure; the foundation of mindfulness of mind contemplates this mind as not abiding from thought to thought and breaks the inversion of permanence; the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas contemplates dharmas as without a master and breaks the inversion of self; therefore this treatise says plainly, 「破是四顛倒故，說是四念處」 tr. "because they break these four inversions, these four foundations of mindfulness are spoken of." The inversions that the four contemplations face each differ, and yet their use in this passage is one: the bodhisattva practising these four contemplations makes no two between the contemplating mind and the contemplated body, feeling, mind, and dharmas, nor does he further set up a difference upon the marks of pure and impure, suffering and not suffering—only so does he accord with the judgement of the last sentence; if the four contemplations each grasp at marks and so become two, then, though he practises the four foundations of mindfulness throughout, it is still not named practice for the sake of awakening. The list being as broad as this, the last sentence is the judgement: 「如阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不作二。」 tr. "Just as with anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he makes no two." In reading this passage the weight should be put on the last sentence—no matter how many or how few the dharmas practised, so long as one makes no two upon them, it is practice for the sake of awakening; if one makes two upon them, even if one practises each and every one throughout, it is still not named practice for the sake of awakening.

5. Subhūti asks by reason of what meaning one is named Buddha. Here the sūtra text turns into the meaning of names. Subhūti asks: 「世尊說言佛，何義故名佛？」 tr. "The World-Honored One speaks of the Buddha; by reason of what meaning is one named Buddha?" This question is of the same form as the first question—taking a name the Buddha himself constantly uses and pressing for its reason. Note that what he asks is 「何義」 tr. "what meaning" and not ‘what marks’: he does not ask what marks and minor signs or merits the Buddha has; he asks on what meaning this one name is set up. A name is set up upon a meaning; when the meaning is clear the name is not empty—this is the consistent method of this sūtra in distinguishing names.

6. The Buddha answers the naming of the Buddha with four meanings. The Buddha's answer goes four times: because he knows the real meaning of all dharmas he is named Buddha; furthermore, because he obtains the real mark of all dharmas he is named Buddha; furthermore, because he penetrates the real meaning he is named Buddha; furthermore, because he knows all dharmas as they really are he is named Buddha. What the four times say looks repetitive, but in fact each meaning is wider than the one before—the first speaks in terms of ‘knowing the meaning’, the second in terms of ‘obtaining the mark’, the third in terms of ‘penetrating’, the fourth in terms of ‘knowing all dharmas throughout’. Here one need not yet hurry to distinguish how the four differ, because the treatise-author below sets up a question specially to distinguish this; at this point the reader need only remember: the name of Buddha is set up not on supernormal power and not on the bodily marks, but on knowing with regard to dharmas.

7. Subhūti asks by reason of what meaning it is named awakening. Subhūti asks again: 「何義故名菩提？」 tr. "By reason of what meaning is it named awakening?" Since the Buddha has set up the name of Buddha by knowing dharmas, what the dharma known is becomes the next question. This question and the previous one are a pair: the previous asks the name of the person, this asks the name of the dharma; the name of the person is set up upon the dharma, and upon what in turn the name of the dharma is set up is the deepest section of this chapter in doctrine.

8. The Buddha answers the meaning of awakening in nine layers. The Buddha's answer pushes out layer upon layer, and can be counted one by one: first, the meaning of emptiness is the meaning of awakening; second, the meaning of suchness; third, the meaning of the nature of dharmas; fourth, the meaning of the limit of reality; fifth, names, marks, and verbal expression are the meaning of awakening; sixth, the real meaning of awakening is indestructible and indiscriminable; seventh, the real mark of all dharmas is not deceptive and not different; eighth, this awakening is what the buddhas possess, therefore it is named awakening; ninth, it is the buddhas' right and complete knowing, therefore it is named awakening. The saying ‘nine layers’ is present-day wording set up for convenience in counting; the sūtra text itself does not give the number. Of the nine layers, the first four speak in terms of the substance of dharmas, the fifth turns to speak in terms of verbal expression, the sixth and seventh speak in terms of its being unbreakable and indestructible, not deceptive and not different, and the eighth and ninth speak in terms of the Buddha. Most worth savouring is the fifth layer—the first four layers all speak of emptiness and of suchness, and suddenly it says 「名相言說是菩提義」 tr. "names, marks, and verbal expression are the meaning of awakening," precisely so that one does not, upon emptiness, form one further clinging to what is apart from words.

9. Subhūti asks what is gained and what is lost within dharmas in practising the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. The meaning of the names being clear, Subhūti turns to ask about the gate of practice: if the bodhisattva for the sake of this awakening practises the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, 「於諸法何得何失、何增何減、何生何滅、何垢何淨」 tr. "within dharmas what is gained, what is lost, what is increased, what is decreased, what arises, what ceases, what is stained, what is purified." Four pairs and eight questions are asked in one breath, and what they ask is all one matter: since what is practised relies on the awakening that is ultimate emptiness, then what in the end happens upon dharmas. This question is asked in an extremely down-to-earth way—the doubt that touches the practitioner most closely lies precisely here.

10. The Buddha answers no gain and no loss and so on up to no stain and no purity. The Buddha too answers with four pairs: no gain and no loss, no increase and no decrease, non-arising and non-ceasing, no stain and no purity, and himself gives the reason: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，不為得失、增減、生滅、淨垢故出。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, it is not for the sake of gain and loss, increase and decrease, arising and ceasing, purity and stain that he comes forth." One must see clearly this ‘not for the sake of … that he comes forth’—it does not say that after prajñā is practised there is no gain and no loss within dharmas; it says that prajñā from the first does not arise for the sake of these matters. What is asked lies in the fruit; what is answered lies in the cause; the answer being at the place of the cause, the doubt about the fruit naturally falls empty.

11. Subhūti asks how, since it comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, one can take up dharmas and so on up to entering the bodhisattva's position. Following this, Subhūti raises a difficulty again: since it comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss and so on up to not for the sake of purity and stain, then how does the bodhisattva practise prajñā and yet 「能取」 tr. "is able to take up" the six perfections, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, the three gates of liberation, the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas and great kindness and great compassion; how does he practise the ten grounds of the bodhisattva; how does he pass beyond the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha grounds and enter into the bodhisattva's position. This difficulty is asked with great force: practice is all along a matter of having something taken up, something passed beyond, something entered; and since prajñā comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, taking up, passing beyond, and entering have nowhere to be set up. The tightest knot of the whole chapter is tied here.

12. The Buddha answers that one practises not by reason of two dharmas. The Buddha unties this knot with only one sentence: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，不以二法故行檀波羅蜜」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, it is not by reason of two dharmas that he practises dānapāramitā" and so on up to 「不以二法乃至行一切種智」 tr. "not by reason of two dharmas, and so on up to, practises the omniscience of all kinds." He does not speak of taking up, nor of not taking up; he only changes the place where one sets one's hand—practice is practised as before, but not by reason of two dharmas. What are called two dharmas are the pairs of the taker and the taken, of obtaining and not obtaining. This one sentence is the pivot of the whole chapter: 「不作二」 tr. "makes no two" above speaks of what one faces toward; 「不以二法故行」 tr. "practises not by reason of two dharmas" here speaks of the one who practises; when in both places, facing toward and practising, one makes no two, taking up, passing beyond, and entering all cease to be a problem.

13. Subhūti asks how, not by reason of two dharmas, the roots of goodness increase from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent. The knot untied, another knot arises. Subhūti asks: if one practises the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds not by reason of two dharmas, then for the bodhisattva 「從初發意乃至後意云何善根增益」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent, how do the roots of goodness increase." This question comes especially close to the practitioner—making no two, there is nothing increased; nothing being increased, the first arousing of the mind and the last mind are without difference; then what, in the end, has a whole life of practice accumulated. The more real the question, the more clearly the answer must be distinguished.

14. The Buddha answers that for one who practises two dharmas there is no increase, and that the many evils cannot break one who practises the dharma of non-duality. The Buddha's answer turns the question wholly over: 「若行二法者，善根不得增益」 tr. "For one who practises two dharmas, the roots of goodness do not increase," and he gives the reason—「一切凡夫皆依二法，不得增益善根」 tr. "All ordinary people rely on two dharmas and do not increase the roots of goodness"; conversely, the bodhisattva practises the dharma of non-duality, and from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent, in between, he increases the roots of goodness. From this he further draws out a string of things that cannot break him: none among all the world's gods, humans, and asuras can subdue him, none can break his roots of goodness and cause him to fall to the grounds of the two vehicles; the many evil, unwholesome dharmas cannot overpower the bodhisattva and cause him to be unable to practise dānapāramitā and increase the roots of goodness, and so on up to prajñāpāramitā, which is likewise so. In reading this passage one must know that the Buddha has not denied increase; what the Buddha denies is seeking increase by relying on two dharmas. The reason ordinary people do not obtain increase is precisely that what they rely on is two; the reason the roots of goodness cannot be broken is precisely that what they rely on is non-duality.

15. Subhūti asks whether the bodhisattva practises prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness. Since the increase of the roots of goodness has been spoken of, Subhūti asks a question following the momentum: 「菩薩摩訶薩為善根故行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the roots of goodness?" This question is the seam left by the previous answer. Whoever, listening to the Dharma, can follow the answer and press one step further will usually ask questions of this kind—since what is increased is the roots of goodness, then is not the aim of practising prajñā this?

16. The Buddha answers ‘No,’ and brings out the three matters such as not having made offerings to the buddhas. The Buddha answers decisively: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" and blocks both sides together—one practises neither for the sake of the roots of goodness nor for the sake of what is not the roots of goodness. He at once states the reason: 「菩薩摩訶薩法，未供養諸佛、未具足善根、未得真知識，不能得一切種智。」 tr. "It is the dharma of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva that, never having made offerings to the buddhas, never having fulfilled the roots of goodness, never having obtained true friends, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds." Here it is extremely easy to see a contradiction between earlier and later: since it is not for the sake of the roots of goodness, why is it further said that one who has not fulfilled the roots of goodness cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds? Two layers must be distinguished—what is blocked is taking the roots of goodness as the aim one acts for; what is set up is the roots of goodness as a cause and condition one must have. Not practising for its sake is not the same as being able to do without it.

17. Subhūti asks how one makes offerings to the buddhas, fulfils the roots of goodness, and obtains true friends so as to be able to obtain the omniscience of all kinds. Taking up the three matters the Buddha has brought out, Subhūti asks again about the method of practising them: 「云何菩薩摩訶薩供養諸佛、具足善根、得真知識能得一切種智？」 tr. "How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva make offerings to the buddhas, fulfil the roots of goodness, and obtain true friends, so as to be able to obtain the omniscience of all kinds?" This question pulls the whole chapter back from doctrine to real matters, and also opens the way for the long answer of the next passage. By this point in the sūtra text, what is asked is no longer the meaning of names, no longer two and not two; it is a road that can be walked.

18. The Buddha answers from making offerings to the buddhas from the first arousing of intent up to never being apart from true friends. The Buddha's answer forms a sequence: from the first arousing of intent one makes offerings to the buddhas; in the presence of the buddhas one hears the twelve divisions of the scriptures, from sūtra and so on up to upadeśa—hearing, retaining, reciting until fluent, contemplating in the mind, penetrating clearly; because one penetrates them one obtains dhāraṇī; because one obtains dhāraṇī one is able to give rise to unobstructed knowledge; because one gives rise to unobstructed knowledge, wherever one is born, and so on up to sarvajñā (omniscience), one never forgets this Dharma; also in the presence of the buddhas one plants roots of goodness, and because one is protected by the roots of goodness one never falls into the evil destinies and the difficulties; because of the causes and conditions of these roots of goodness one obtains the purity of the deep mind; because one obtains the purity of the deep mind one is able to purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment; because one is protected by the roots of goodness one is never apart from true friends, namely the buddhas, the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, and those among the śrāvakas who are able to praise the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha. At the end it concludes with three matters: 「應供養諸佛、種善根、親近善知識。」 tr. "should make offerings to the buddhas, plant roots of goodness, and keep close to good friends." In this passage every sentence takes the sentence before as its cause, link giving rise to link; the reader can examine himself link by link to see where what he lacks lies, and need not demand that it all be complete.

19. The explanation says: the question on prajñā in the previous chapter gives rise to this chapter's question on the bodhisattva's practice. The treatise-author begins his explanation by first setting this chapter in place between what comes before and after: in the previous chapter Subhūti asked the Buddha, 「經常說般若波羅蜜，何以故名般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "The sūtras constantly speak of prajñāpāramitā; why is it named prajñāpāramitā?" and the Buddha answered by all kinds of causes and conditions; because of this matter, in this chapter he again asks the World-Honored One, 「經常說菩薩行，何等是菩薩行？」 tr. "The sūtras constantly speak of the bodhisattva's practice; what is the bodhisattva's practice?" The two questions are of the same form—both take words the Buddha constantly uses and press for their reason; so this chapter does not set up a new stove; it is the continuation of the previous chapter's way of asking. Whenever in reading the treatise one sees that at its opening it first relates the previous chapter, one knows that the treatise-author wants the two chapters to be read as one section.

20. Question: since prajñā gathers all dharmas, why ask further? The treatise-author at once sets up a question himself: if all dharmas are gathered within prajñāpāramitā, and moreover prajñā is precisely the bodhisattva's practice, why ask further? This question is asked extremely well—it speaks on the reader's behalf a doubt that the reader may not be able to put into words: since prajñā gathers everything, and the bodhisattva's practice is of itself within it, is not Subhūti's question superfluous? The places where the treatise-author sets up questions are often precisely the places a reader easily slides past and that really hold an obstruction.

21. Answer: the sameness and difference of the bodhisattva path and prajñā. The treatise-author answers with two faces: 「一切菩薩道名菩薩行，悉遍知諸法實相智慧名般若波羅蜜，是為異」 tr. "The whole of the bodhisattva path is named the bodhisattva's practice; the wisdom that knows throughout the real mark of all dharmas is named prajñāpāramitā; this is the difference"; and 「若般若經、菩薩行等共相攝，無異」 tr. "if it is said that the Prajñā Sūtra and the bodhisattva's practice and so on contain one another, there is no difference." Speaking of the breadth and narrowness of what is referred to, there is a difference—the bodhisattva path is all that is practised, prajñā is the knowledge that knows the real mark throughout; speaking of containing one another, there is no difference—the knowledge is within the practice, and the practice is not apart from the knowledge. The answer keeps both and does not take one side alone; this is the constant method of this treatise in distinguishing names: first grant their separation, then grant their union; when separation and union are both had, the dispute over names and marks ceases of itself.

22. Someone says that whatever is done by deeds of body, speech, and mind is all named the bodhisattva's practice. The treatise-author further brings out a saying: someone says that the bodhisattva's practice is whatever is done by the bodhisattva's deeds of body, speech, and mind; all of it is named the bodhisattva's practice. And he points out that this saying is precisely the reason for Subhūti's question: because of this matter, Subhūti wished only to distinguish 「菩薩正行」 tr. "the bodhisattva's right practice," and therefore asked. This saying is the most current in the world: whatever a bodhisattva does is the bodhisattva's practice. The treatise-author does not first refute it; he says only that Subhūti's question is in order to distinguish the one word ‘right’. In reading the treatise at this point one should take care: ‘someone says’ in this treatise is sometimes a setting out of different understandings side by side, and sometimes set up in order to draw out the sifting below; here it belongs to the latter.

23. The Buddha's answer sifts out the bodhisattva's right practice. The treatise-author takes up the answer in the sūtra text and repeats the Buddha's answer, saying: 「菩薩行者，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提諸善行，是名菩薩正行。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's practice is the wholesome practices for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; this is named the bodhisattva's right practice." And he himself gives the sifting—the bodhisattva's unwholesome, his indeterminate, and his wholesome dharmas practised with a clinging mind are not the bodhisattva's practice; only by reason of the mind of compassion and by the wisdom of emptiness, practising for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—this is named the bodhisattva's practice. This sifting is in three layers: the unwholesome does not enter, the indeterminate does not enter, and the good practised with a clinging mind does not enter either; what is kept is only the practice issuing from the mind of compassion and the wisdom of emptiness. The reason the earlier saying is insufficient is precisely that it gathers all three layers inside. Reading this, one can obtain a way of checking: whether what is done is the bodhisattva's practice is seen not by the appearance of the deed but by whether the mind is unwholesome, indeterminate, good with a clinging mind, or compassion and emptiness.

24. What is pure practice: not discriminating empty and real, conditioned and unconditioned. The treatise-author himself asks 「何等是清淨行」 tr. "what is pure practice" and himself answers: namely the practice of form being empty, the practice of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness being empty, and so on up to the practice of the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature being empty; upon these dharmas he does not discriminate that this is empty or this is real, and so on up to that this is conditioned or this is unconditioned; like anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the extinguishing of idle discourse, the mark of non-duality—this is named the bodhisattva's practice; and he adds a sentence: 「無能壞者，亦無過失」 tr. "No one can break it, and it is also without fault." This section is an abridgement of the long list in the sūtra and its last sentence: the long list is abridged into ‘the practice of form being empty and so on up to the practice of the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature being empty’, and the last sentence 「不作二」 tr. "makes no two" is explained as 「不分別是空、是實」 tr. "does not discriminate that this is empty or this is real." What matters is the five Chinese characters 「不分別是空」 tr. "does not discriminate that this is empty"—not making even emptiness into one side is only then the extinguishing of idle discourse; if one holds fast to an emptiness set against the real, it is still two dharmas.

25. Subhūti, having heard of the bodhisattva's practice, rejoices and asks about the meaning of Buddha. The treatise-author supplies a layer of feeling that the sūtra text does not have: 「須菩提聞是菩薩行已，歡喜問」 tr. "Subhūti, having heard of this bodhisattva's practice, rejoiced and asked," and explains where what he asked came from—「菩薩行果報得作佛；經常言佛，何等是佛義？」 tr. "The retribution of the bodhisattva's practice is to become a Buddha; the sūtras constantly speak of the Buddha; what is the meaning of Buddha?" From the practice he infers the fruit, and from the name of the fruit he asks its meaning; so the path of the questioning becomes clear. At the turning points of the sūtra text the treatise-author often supplies a sentence of state of mind or of origin, and by it the reader can see the joint between the two questions before and after, and not read a string of questions and answers as a scattered list.

26. The Buddha answers that because he knows the real meaning of all dharmas he is named Buddha. The treatise-author cites the first answer of the sūtra text: 「知諸法實義故名為佛。」 tr. "Because he knows the real meaning of all dharmas, he is named Buddha." Of the four answers he first raises the first, and below sets up a difficulty specially for it. This is the treatise-author's constant method of handling a long list—he does not elaborate sentence by sentence; he takes one sentence of it and sets it up as the target, raises a difficulty against it, explains it, and the remaining sentences become clear of themselves.

27. Question: arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and great bodhisattvas also know the real meaning; why are they not named Buddha? The treatise-author sets up a difficulty: if knowing the real meaning of all dharmas is being named Buddha, then arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and great bodhisattvas also know the real meaning of all dharmas; why are they not named Buddha? This difficulty is extremely pointed: the sages of the three vehicles all have the knowledge that sees the real; if the name of Buddha is set up by knowing the real meaning, the name of Buddha is not his alone. Only when the difficulty can stand does the answer have somewhere to land.

28. Answer: the simile of lighting a lamp, and the two kinds of being unable. The treatise-author's answer has three sections. First, he cites 「然燈喻」 tr. "the simile of lighting a lamp" already spoken in the earlier text, and brings out its meaning: 「於凡夫為實，於佛不為實」 tr. "for the ordinary person it counts as real; for the Buddha it does not count as real"—the same lamplight, set against darkness, is light; set against the sun, is dark; the real known by the three vehicles, set against the ordinary person, is real, and set against the Buddha is not yet real. Second, he gives the reason why it is not real: 「以煩惱習所覆故，不名為實」 tr. "because they are covered by the afflictions and their habitual residues, it is not named real." Third, he gives the reason why it is not named the real meaning of right knowledge: 「不能得一切種智、斷一切法中疑悔故」 tr. "because they cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds and cannot cut off doubt and regret within all dharmas." At the end he says 「如上分別」 tr. "as was distinguished above," pointing out that the details are in the earlier text. This answer does not deny that the three vehicles know the real; it only distinguishes the extent of what they know. Here the reader should learn a sense of measure—the depth that one and the same word refers to in different people can be far apart.

29. Question: what difference is there among the four names? The treatise-author sets up a question again, taking the four answers in the sūtra directly and comparing them: 「知諸法實義、得諸法實相、通達實義、一切法如實知，是四有何異？」 tr. "Knowing the real meaning of all dharmas, obtaining the real mark of all dharmas, penetrating the real meaning, and knowing all dharmas as they really are—what difference is there among these four?" This question is the doubt left over from passage 6, which only here does the treatise-author raise head-on. Whenever in reading the sūtra one sees one meaning spoken four times with different wording, this question must be asked—if it is not asked, the four times become repetitive words.

30. Answer: the treatise-author does not set up a saying of his own but cites the various houses. The treatise-author's answer opens with only an 「答曰」 tr. "Answer," and at once sets out the words of the various houses side by side, setting up no saying of his own. This one place shows most clearly the form of this treatise: on the fine points of the extent of names and marks, the treatise-author often records them side by side and does not judge, leaving the choosing to the reader and to later people. Meeting this in reading the treatise, one need not take the treatise-author to be vague; the original text plainly marks two houses with 「有人言」 tr. "someone says"—one saying 「義無異，名字異」 tr. "there is no difference in meaning; the names differ," the other saying 「有差別」 tr. "there is a difference"—and the choice between the two sayings the treatise-author does not make, and this collection too records it without judgement.

31. Someone says: there is no difference in meaning; the names differ. The first saying is the simplest: 「義無異，名字異。」 tr. "There is no difference in meaning; the names differ." What the four times express is one meaning; what differs lies only in the names. The merit of this saying is that it does not add discrimination—the four answers in the sūtra originally turn with the words, and need not each be fixed as four stages. If one holds this saying, then the four times listed in passage 6 should be read as four ways of speaking of one meaning.

32. Someone says: there is a difference; the meaning is the real mark of all dharmas, the mark of dharmas constantly abiding. The second saying sets up a difference: 「義名諸法實相，不生不滅，法相常住，如涅槃」 tr. "the meaning is the real mark of all dharmas, unarisen and unceasing, the mark of dharmas constantly abiding, like nirvāṇa"; because he knows this meaning he is named Buddha; within this meaning he is constantly awake, without error; concerning this meaning, by dharmas of all kinds of names and marks he causes beings to understand the foremost real meaning; therefore among the four unobstructed knowledges the unobstructed knowledge of meaning and the unobstructed knowledge of dharmas are spoken of separately. This saying divides 「義」 tr. "meaning" and 「法」 tr. "dharma" into two matters—meaning is the real mark that is expressed, dharma is the names and marks that express it; and it takes as proof the distinction between the unobstructed knowledge of meaning and the unobstructed knowledge of dharmas among the four unobstructed knowledges. The proof is taken from a classification ready to hand within the Buddhadharma, not made up by himself; this is the usual form of this treatise's citing of proof.

33. The two causes and conditions by which some, though they have obtained the real meaning, cannot penetrate it. The treatise-author goes on to explain the third answer, 「通達實義」 tr. "penetrating the real meaning": there are those who, though they have obtained the real meaning of all dharmas, cannot penetrate it; there are two causes and conditions—first, the afflictions are not yet exhausted; second, they have not yet obtained omniscience. Next he matches persons to them: the srota-āpanna, the sakṛdāgāmin, and the anāgāmin, because they have not yet cut off the afflictions, cannot penetrate it; the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, and the great bodhisattva, though their afflictions are already exhausted, because they have not yet obtained the omniscience of all kinds, cannot penetrate it. Therefore it is said: 「通達實義故名為佛」 tr. "because he penetrates the real meaning, he is named Buddha." This passage and passage 28 illuminate each other: there, the afflictions and their habitual residues and not obtaining the omniscience of all kinds are the two reasons; here, they are assigned to the first three fruits and the latter three persons. The difference between obtaining and penetrating thereby has persons that can be pointed to and obstructions that can be pointed to.

34. Knowing all dharmas as they really are gathers up the three matters above. The treatise-author explains the fourth answer: 「如實知一切法者，總上三事亦義、亦法」 tr. "Knowing all dharmas as they really are gathers up the three matters above; it is both meaning and dharma," because all dharmas, whether existent or non-existent, he knows clearly in all their kinds; and he cites 「如一切種智義中說」 tr. "as is said within the meaning of the omniscience of all kinds" as proof—he knows both the mark of quiescence and the mark of the conditioned. Here the four answers are gathered in: the fourth answer is not a fourth matter; it is the gathering of the first three matters. If matched with the first saying in passage 31, the four differ in name and are the same in meaning; if matched with the second saying in passage 32, the first three each have their extent and the fourth gathers them.

35. Furthermore, awakening is named knowledge; the Buddha is named the knower. The treatise-author further brings out a meaning: 「菩提名智，佛名智者。得是智故，名為智者。」 tr. "Awakening is named knowledge; the Buddha is named the knower. Because he obtains this knowledge, he is named the knower." One sentence joins the questions above and below into one matter—the question above was the naming of the Buddha, this question is the naming of awakening, and the difference between the Buddha and awakening lies only in knowledge and the knower. This saying is extremely simple and very useful: if, among the four answers and nine layers before, the reader feels the threads to be in confusion, holding this one sentence he can grasp the main line—what is distinguished from beginning to end is only one knowledge, and the person who obtains this knowledge.

36. Subhūti asks what awakening is. The treatise-author repeats the question in the sūtra: 「世尊！何等是菩提？」 tr. "World-Honored One! What is awakening?" Below this is the treatise-author's long section explaining the meaning of awakening; the nine layers of the sūtra text and the seven sayings of ‘someone says’ all belong within it. Though the sentence repeating the question is short, it is the marker of a division into sections—in reading the treatise it is fitting to take such sentences repeating a question as the boundaries of passages.

37. The Buddha answers emptiness, suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality, and judges the three in training, the three beyond training, the two beyond training, and the Buddha alone. The treatise-author first repeats the sūtra's answer, 「空、如、法性、實際，名為菩提」 tr. "emptiness, suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are named awakening," and at once explains it himself: the wisdom of the real mark associated with the emptiness samādhi takes suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality as its object; awakening is named real wisdom. Next he sets up a fourfold distinction—the people of the three in training on the path have not yet cut off the afflictions; though they have wisdom, it is not named awakening; the three persons beyond training, because ignorance is forever exhausted without remainder, have wisdom that is named awakening; the two persons beyond training, because they do not obtain omniscience and do not rightly and completely know all dharmas, cannot be named anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; only the wisdom of the Buddha alone is named anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The four layers go from below upward, each layer narrower than the one before. What matters most in this passage is that it draws a boundary between 「菩提」 tr. "awakening" and 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi": the former is obtained as a name already by the wisdom of the three persons beyond training; the latter belongs to the Buddha alone. When in reading the sūtra one sees places where the two names are used interchangeably, one can hold to this boundary and distinguish for oneself.

38. Furthermore, by reason of names, marks, speech, and letters it is named awakening. The treatise-author repeats the fifth layer in the sūtra. This one layer is the most easily skipped over, because it seems the opposite of emptiness, suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality. In fact it is not the opposite: if awakening could not be spoken at all, the buddhas would have no way of speaking it for people; since it is spoken and people obtain understanding, names, marks, speech, and letters too are where the meaning of awakening lies. Reading this one sentence can dissolve a common sticking-point—thinking that whatever can be spoken is not it, and so discarding words and taking oneself to be deep.

39. The real meaning of awakening cannot be discriminated or broken. The treatise-author repeats the sixth layer in the sūtra: the real meaning of awakening cannot be discriminated or broken. This sentence and the sentence above are a pair: the sentence above grants that it can be spoken, this sentence makes clear that what is spoken cannot be broken. Because it can be spoken there is teaching; because it cannot be broken there is somewhere to return to. Only when the two sentences are read together does one not lean to one side.

40. Furthermore, awakening is suchness, not different, constantly not false and deceptive—the principle of surpassing in turn, one above another. The treatise-author repeats the seventh layer and broadens what it says: awakening is suchness, is not different, is constantly not false and deceptive; why—the wisdom of all beings surpasses in turn, one above another, and at the Buddha there is none more surpassing; dharmas too surpass in turn, one above another, the earlier being false and the later true, and at awakening there is nothing more real; therefore awakening is named real. The way this section speaks is very particular: it does not speak directly of the real from the substance; it speaks from a rising series—the later the more surpassing, surpassing up to the place where nothing can surpass further, and that which nothing can surpass further is the real. Holding to this, one can understand the one Chinese character 「實」 tr. "real": the real is not another thing set against the false; it is the place where the false is peeled away layer by layer to the end.

41. Furthermore, the mutual glossing of the Buddha and awakening. The treatise-author repeats the eighth and ninth layers and gathers them in by mutual glossing: 「如得菩提故名為佛，今以佛得故名菩提。」 tr. "As he is named Buddha because he obtains awakening, so now it is named awakening because the Buddha obtains it." The eighth layer in the sūtra says that awakening is what the buddhas possess, therefore it is named awakening; the ninth layer says that it is the buddhas' right and complete knowing, therefore it is named awakening—this is precisely the intent. The two names gloss each other; it seems circular, but in fact it says that the two are from the first not two things—apart from the Buddha there is nothing called awakening, apart from awakening there is nothing called the Buddha. This and the saying of knowledge and the knower in passage 35 are two ways of speaking of the same meaning.

42. Someone says: the knowledge of exhaustion knows that birth is forever exhausted; this is named awakening. From here onward, the treatise-author sets out side by side the sayings of the various houses explaining awakening, saying by saying, without judgement. The first saying takes the knowledge of exhaustion: knowing that birth is forever exhausted, this is named awakening. The meaning it sets up lies in the one word ‘exhausted’—the cause of birth and death is already exhausted, and knowing this is awakening. This saying stays close to a name ready to hand in the śrāvaka dharma, and is the plainest of the sayings.

43. Someone says: the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising are named awakening. The second saying adds the knowledge of non-arising to the knowledge of exhaustion. The knowledge of exhaustion knows what is already exhausted; the knowledge of non-arising knows that it will not arise again; one is in terms of the past, one in terms of the future. Compared with the first saying it adds one layer—not only knowing what is exhausted, but also knowing that it will not arise again. The two sayings are set up one after the other, and the reader can see that when the houses set up meanings they often take adding one layer as advancing.

44. Someone says: unobstructed liberation is named awakening. The third saying takes unobstructed liberation, and itself gives the reason: 「得是解脫，於一切法皆通達。」 tr. "Obtaining this liberation, one penetrates all dharmas." The first two sayings speak in terms of knowledge; this saying speaks in terms of liberation; and the reason it can be called awakening still comes back to penetrating all dharmas. It can be seen that though the sayings take different names, their criterion has not left the one meaning ‘unobstructed with regard to dharmas’.

45. Someone says: the four unobstructed knowledges are awakening. The fourth saying takes the four unobstructed knowledges, and defines them one by one: the Buddha knows the real mark of all dharmas—this is 「義無礙」 tr. "the unobstructed knowledge of meaning"; he knows the names, marks, and distinctions of all dharmas—this is named 「法無礙」 tr. "the unobstructed knowledge of dharmas"; he distinguishes all kinds of speech, causing beings to obtain understanding—this is named 「辭無礙」 tr. "the unobstructed knowledge of expression"; whatever Dharma he speaks to teach and transform is endless and inexhaustible—this is named 「樂說無礙」 tr. "the unobstructed knowledge of delight in speaking"; because he benefits beings with the four unobstructed knowledges complete, it is named awakening. Of the four, the first two face inward—knowing the real mark, knowing names and marks; the latter two face outward—being able with speech to make people understand, being able to speak without end. The reason this saying sets up awakening in the four unobstructed knowledges lies in the last sentence, 「具足利益眾生」 tr. "benefits beings with them complete": awakening is not only knowing oneself; it also includes being able to make others know.

46. Someone says: the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha, such as the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, are all named awakening. The fifth saying is the widest: the ten powers of the Buddha, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, great kindness and great compassion, and the omniscience of all kinds—such immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha are all named awakening; why—「以智慧大故，諸法皆名菩提」 tr. "because the wisdom is great, all dharmas are named awakening." The several sayings before each take one dharma; this saying gathers all the merits of the Buddha ground. Its reason still lies in wisdom: because the wisdom is great, every dharma accomplished by this wisdom obtains the name of awakening. Reading this, one can know that the breadth and narrowness of the sayings in this treatise mostly come from the breadth and narrowness of the criterion they take.

47. Someone says: true awakening is named the Buddha's ten knowledges without outflows. The sixth saying is the finest: true awakening is named the Buddha's ten knowledges without outflows; the feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness associated with these ten knowledges, the deeds of body and deeds of speech, and the constructions not associated with mind are all named awakening; the reason is 「共緣、共生、共相佐助故」 tr. "because they share the object, arise together, and aid one another." This saying takes the ten knowledges as the main body, and gathers in together what arises with them, shares their object with them, and aids in accomplishing with them. Its method of setting up the meaning is the opposite of the fifth saying—the fifth saying sets up the name from the greatness of the merits; this saying sets up the name from being associated and arising together. The two sayings set side by side show how many routes there are under one and the same name.

48. Again someone says: the meaning of awakening is immeasurable and boundless—the simile of the treasury of a wheel-turning sage king. The last saying gathers the sayings before and brings them back to the inexhaustible: the meaning of awakening is immeasurable and boundless; only the Buddha can know it throughout, and the rest know a small share of it; it is as with the jewels in the treasury of a wheel-turning sage king: there is no one who can distinguish and know their worth; when the sage king takes out jewels and bestows them on a person, that person can rightly know what he has obtained. This simile is most wonderful: it is not that the jewels in the treasury cannot be known; it is only that no one can know their worth completely; when the king takes a jewel and bestows it on a person, what the receiver can know is only that one share in his own hand. This saying is tied to 「復有人言」 tr. "again someone says"; it is the words of one house, not a general judgement signed by the treatise-author himself; here the treatise-author still only sets them side by side and does not judge the superiority or inferiority of the sayings.

49. The treatise-author takes up again Subhūti's further question of what roots of goodness are increased within ultimate emptiness. From here the treatise-author turns to taking up the sūtra text again. He says, 「此中，須菩提問佛菩提相已，更問世尊」 tr. "Here, Subhūti, having finished asking the Buddha about the mark of awakening, further asks the World-Honored One"; what he takes up is the question of passage 9, and yet the wording differs from the sūtra text—the sūtra text reads 「於諸法何得何失」 tr. "within dharmas what is gained, what is lost" and so on, while the treatise-author's taking up reads 「若菩提畢竟空不壞相，菩薩行六波羅蜜諸法，增益何等善根」 tr. "if awakening is ultimately empty, of indestructible mark, then when the bodhisattva practises the six perfections and all dharmas, what roots of goodness does he increase." In reading this place two matters must be distinguished: the sūtra text is the sūtra text, and the treatise-author's taking up is the treatise-author's relating according to its meaning. The two cannot stand in for each other, nor should one suspect one of them of error because their wording differs.

50. Taking up again the Buddha's answer: he increases nothing within all dharmas, how much less the roots of goodness. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer: 「若菩薩行是菩提實相，於一切法無所增益，何況善根！何以故？般若波羅蜜不為得失乃至垢淨故出，畢竟清淨故。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva practises this real mark of awakening, he increases nothing within all dharmas, how much less the roots of goodness! Why? Prajñāpāramitā comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss and so on up to stain and purity, because it is ultimately pure." This taking up brings forward the reason of the passage of 「無得無失」 tr. "no gain and no loss" in the sūtra—the reason there is no increase is precisely that prajñā from the first does not come forth for this, and moreover is ultimately pure. The four Chinese characters 「何況善根」 tr. "how much less the roots of goodness" are an added stroke of emphasis in the treatise-author's taking up: if even within all dharmas nothing is increased, the roots of goodness need no saying.

51. The Buddha approved his meaning. The treatise-author uses only four Chinese characters: 「佛可其意。」 tr. "The Buddha approved his meaning." Short sentences of this kind are, in the treatise, the joints between section and section, marking that the previous question and answer are finished and the next question is about to arise. When the reader sees such short sentences he need not take them to be without meaning—it is a break the treatise-author makes for a long passage; without it, the 「復更問」 tr. "again he further asks" below would have nothing to follow on from.

52. Again he further asks: if there is no increase and decrease, how does one take up the practices of the bodhisattva? The treatise-author takes up the difficulty of passage 11: 「若無增減，云何菩薩行般若取檀波羅蜜等諸菩薩行？」 tr. "If there is no increase and decrease, how does the bodhisattva practise prajñā and take up dānapāramitā and the other practices of the bodhisattva?" In the sūtra this question lists throughout the six perfections, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, the gates of liberation, and the ten powers, and so on up to the ten grounds of the bodhisattva and passing beyond the grounds of the two vehicles; the treatise-author, taking it up, gathers it all with the single phrase 「檀波羅蜜等諸菩薩行」 tr. "dānapāramitā and the other practices of the bodhisattva." This is the treatise-author's usual way of writing—where the sūtra text lists things out, the treatise's explanation often sums them up; if the reader wishes to see them in full, he should still go back to the sūtra text itself and count them.

53. Taking up again the Buddha's answer that one practises not by reason of two dharmas, with ultimate emptiness, in coming together, practising along with them added. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, 「菩薩雖行是法，不以二法故行」 tr. "Though the bodhisattva practises these dharmas, he does not practise them by reason of two dharmas," and at once adds a sentence of his own: 「畢竟空和合共行，是故不應難。」 tr. "Ultimate emptiness, in coming together, practises along with them; therefore this should not be taken as a difficulty." This sentence is the reason the treatise-author supplies for the Buddha's answer—practice and ultimate emptiness are not two matters obstructing each other; they come together and practise along with each other, so the difficulty raised does not hold. In reading the treatise one should be able to tell where it takes up the sūtra and where it is the treatise-author's own words: where it takes up the sūtra it cites the text; where it is his own words it gives the reason.

54. Again he asks: if one does not practise two dharmas, how does one grow the roots of goodness? The treatise-author takes up the question of passage 13: 「世尊！若菩薩不行二法，云何從初發意乃至後心增長善根？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If the bodhisattva does not practise two dharmas, how, from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last mind, does he grow the roots of goodness?" Compared with the sūtra text, the sūtra reads 「後意」 tr. "the last intent," while the treatise's taking up reads 「後心」 tr. "the last mind"—the actual wording of the two places is recorded side by side, and the reason for it is not judged.

55. Taking up again the Buddha's answer that practising two dharmas is precisely inversion—the simile of obtaining wealth in a dream. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, 「若人行二法，即是顛倒，不能增長善根」 tr. "If a person practises two dharmas, this is precisely inversion; he cannot grow the roots of goodness," and himself gives a simile: 「如人夢中雖大得財，竟無所得；覺已所得多少，真名為得。」 tr. "It is as a person who in a dream, though he obtains great wealth, in the end has obtained nothing; how much he obtains after waking—this is truly named obtaining." The twofold contrast in the simile is extremely clear—what is obtained in the dream, though great, is really nothing; what is obtained after waking, though little, is true. Matching it with two dharmas and the dharma of non-duality: reckoning increase by relying on two dharmas is the great obtaining in a dream; the roots of goodness increasing of themselves by practising the dharma of non-duality is the true obtaining after waking. This simile is the treatise-author's own, not found in the sūtra text, and yet it speaks the intent of the Buddha's answer most aptly.

56. Taking up again the passage of the Buddha's words to Subhūti, and the treatise-author's explanation of the remaining evils. The treatise-author goes on to take up the Buddha's words: 「一切凡人皆著二法故，不能增益善根。菩薩行諸法實相，所謂不二法，從初發心來乃至後心，增益善根，無有錯謬。是故菩薩，一切天、人、阿修羅無能壞其善根、令墮二乘，及餘眾惡亦不能壞。」 tr. "Because all ordinary people cling to two dharmas, they cannot increase the roots of goodness. The bodhisattva practises the real mark of all dharmas, namely the dharma of non-duality; from the first arousing of the mind and so on up to the last mind he increases the roots of goodness, without error. Therefore, as for the bodhisattva, none among all gods, humans, and asuras can break his roots of goodness and cause him to fall into the two vehicles, and the remaining many evils also cannot break them." Having taken it up, he at once explains one term in the last sentence—「餘惡者，慳貪等煩惱，破檀波羅蜜諸善法等」 tr. "the remaining evils are the afflictions such as stinginess and greed, which break dānapāramitā and the other wholesome dharmas." The treatise-author mostly explains the sūtra like this: he does not explain sentence by sentence; he only takes a term in it that is not yet fixed and fixes it. What is fixed here is the two Chinese characters 「餘惡」 tr. "the remaining evils"; once it is fixed, this passage has no meaning left over.

57. Again he asks: does the bodhisattva practise prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness? The treatise-author takes up the question of passage 15: 「世尊！菩薩為善根故行般若耶？」 tr. "World-Honored One! Does the bodhisattva practise prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness?" The sūtra text originally reads 「菩薩摩訶薩為善根故行般若波羅蜜不」 tr. "Does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the roots of goodness," and the treatise's taking up is simpler. In the sūtra this question is one asked following the momentum; in the treatise it is the starting point of the two rounds of question and answer below—the treatise-author takes it up precisely in order to draw out the difficulty he himself sets up.

58. Taking up again the Buddha's answer that one practises prajñā neither for the sake of the good nor for the sake of the not-good. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer: 「不為善、不為不善故行般若。」 tr. "He practises prajñā neither for the sake of the good nor for the sake of the not-good." Both sides are blocked. The taking up stops here and does not at once explain it—because what is to be made a difficulty is precisely this sentence, so it is left for the question below. At a place he is about to make a difficulty, the treatise-author often first takes up the text in full, so that the difficulty has something to attach to.

59. Question: practising not for the sake of roots that are not good may be so; how can one practise not for the sake of the roots of goodness? The treatise-author sets up a difficulty, and sets it up one-sidedly: he grants one half and makes a difficulty only of the other half—「不為不善根故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā not for the sake of roots that are not good" may be so; what is made a difficulty is 「不為善根故行」 tr. "practising not for the sake of the roots of goodness." Practising not for the sake of the not-good, everyone understands; practising not for the sake of the good runs against ordinary feeling. This ‘half granting, half making a difficulty’ way of asking is seen repeatedly in this treatise, and its merit is that it gathers the difficulty into an extremely narrow place, so that the answer need not touch on side matters.

60. Answer: one practises in order to accomplish the task and does not take them as prized—the Raft Simile Sūtra. The treatise-author answers: 「此中佛意：貴阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故，雖行諸善根，為辦事故行，不以為貴。」 tr. "Here the Buddha's intent is: because he prizes anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, though he practises the roots of goodness, he practises them in order to accomplish the task, and does not take them as prized." Next he cites the Raft Simile Sūtra as proof: 「善法尚應捨，何況不善法！」 tr. "Even wholesome dharmas should be given up, how much more unwholesome dharmas!" Next he himself explains its meaning: the roots of goodness are dharmas that aid the Buddha path; if a person crosses, it is not for the sake of the raft that he crosses; it is in order to reach the other shore that he crosses. The three sections of the answer lock into one another—first bringing out what the Buddha's intent prizes, next citing the sūtra as proof, last making clear their rank by the simile of the raft. It is not that the raft as a thing cannot be prized; only, what is prized lies not in the raft but in the other shore; the roots of goodness are likewise. What is blocked is taking the dharmas that aid the path as where one returns to, not blocking their practice.

61. Here the Buddha states the causes and conditions: though one plants roots of goodness, one does not take them as prized. The treatise-author goes on to cite the causes and conditions brought out in the sūtra: 「菩薩未供養諸佛、未得真知識，不能得一切種智」 tr. "If the bodhisattva has not made offerings to the buddhas and has not obtained true friends, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds," and concludes: therefore, though he plants roots of goodness, he does not take them as prized; it is only for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This conclusion unties head-on the doubt of contradiction left by passage 16—the roots of goodness are a matter one must pass through, so one cannot be without them; what is prized lies in awakening, so one does not rest content with the roots of goodness. Only when the two statements stand together does one stand firm in the gate of practice.

62. Subhūti asks again how, though not for the sake of the roots of goodness, one is able to make offerings to the buddhas. The treatise-author takes up the question of passage 17, worded as: 「云何菩薩雖不為善根，而能供養諸佛乃至得一切種智？」 tr. "How is it that the bodhisattva, though not for the sake of the roots of goodness, is able to make offerings to the buddhas and so on up to obtain the omniscience of all kinds?" Compared with the sūtra text, the treatise's taking up raises the phrase 「雖不為善根」 tr. "though not for the sake of the roots of goodness" plainly to the front, so that the intent of the question shows more clearly—what is doubted lies precisely between not being for the sake of and being able to obtain. When the treatise-author takes up the sūtra he often makes this kind of lifting-out, and by it the reader can grasp the crux of the sūtra's question.

63. Taking up again the Buddha's answer of making offerings to the buddhas from the first arousing of the mind, and explaining hearing, retaining, reciting until fluent, contemplating in the mind, and penetrating clearly, and the two kinds of dhāraṇī. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, 「菩薩從初發心已來，供養諸佛」 tr. "the bodhisattva, ever since the first arousing of the mind, makes offerings to the buddhas," passes over the rest with the four Chinese characters 「如經中說」 tr. "as is said in the sūtra," and at once glosses term by term. First, he explains why only the Buddha is spoken of: 「供養佛大故，但說佛，當知已供養辟支佛乃至住乾慧地。」 tr. "Because making offerings to the Buddha is the greatest, only the Buddha is spoken of; it should be known that he has already made offerings to pratyekabuddhas and so on up to people abiding in the ground of dry wisdom." Second, he explains the reason for receiving and retaining: the ordinary person, for the sake of hearing the Dharma, hears the twelve divisions of the scriptures from them, and because he cannot always obtain a teacher he should receive and retain them all. Third, he explains the reason for reciting until fluent: because they are easily forgotten, he recites and reads them until they are fluent. Fourth, he explains contemplating in the mind: 「常繫心經卷，次第憶念。」 tr. "Constantly binding the mind to the sūtra scrolls and recollecting them in sequence." Fifth, he explains the sequence of penetrating clearly and obtaining dhāraṇī: first he proclaims the meaning in words, later he comes to penetrate it, and then he obtains dhāraṇī. Sixth, he divides dhāraṇī into two: first, the dhāraṇī of hearing and retaining; second, the dhāraṇī of obtaining the real mark of all dharmas; and gives the cause of each—because of reading, reciting, cultivating, and constantly recollecting, he obtains hearing and retaining; because of penetrating the meaning, he obtains the real mark. The sūtra text is only a string of verbs; the treatise-author gives the reason for each one, and thereby this string becomes a sequence that can be practised.

64. Abiding within the two dhāraṇī gates, one is able to give rise to unobstructed knowledge and fulfil the four unobstructed knowledges. The treatise-author continues from the text above: 「住是二陀羅尼門中，能生無礙智；為眾生說法故，具足四無礙智。」 tr. "Abiding within these two dhāraṇī gates, he is able to give rise to unobstructed knowledge; because he speaks the Dharma for beings, he fulfils the four unobstructed knowledges." This sentence connects the four unobstructed knowledges cited in passage 45 back to the gate of practice—there, the four unobstructed knowledges were one saying explaining awakening; here, the four unobstructed knowledges are a virtue the bodhisattva possesses. The same name has a different rank, and the reader should fix its extent according to the text, and must not take the four unobstructed knowledges here to be the awakening there.

65. Question: if the bodhisattva has unobstructed knowledge, what difference is there from the Buddha? The treatise-author sets up a difficulty: if the bodhisattva has unobstructed knowledge, what difference is there from the Buddha? This difficulty is woven on the same loom as passage 27—whenever the name of Buddha is set up by one virtue, if others have this virtue then the name of Buddha is not his alone. Where names and marks are exclusive or shared, this treatise repeatedly sets up difficulties of this kind; when the reader sees one, he can infer the rest.

66. Answer: true unobstructedness and unobstructedness in name. The treatise-author answers with a twofold division: 「無礙有二種：一、真無礙，二、名字無礙。此中除佛無礙，餘者隨菩薩所得無礙。」 tr. "Unobstructedness is of two kinds: first, true unobstructedness; second, unobstructedness in name. Here, setting aside the unobstructedness of the Buddha, the rest is the unobstructedness according to what the bodhisattva has obtained." True unobstructedness belongs to the Buddha alone; what the bodhisattva obtains is given the name of unobstructedness according to his share. This answer is of the same sense of measure as 「於凡夫為實，於佛不為實」 tr. "for the ordinary person it counts as real; for the Buddha it does not count as real" in passage 28—it does not deny that the bodhisattva has unobstructedness; it only fixes it as a name according to share. The same name with a different extent is this treatise's general method of resolving difficulties of this kind.

67. Because of reading and reciting, wherever he is born he does not forget, and the afflictions are broken down and thinned. The treatise-author explains the sentence in the sūtra 「所生處，乃至薩婆若，終不忘失是法」 tr. "wherever he is born, and so on up to sarvajñā, he never forgets this Dharma": because of the causes and conditions of this bodhisattva's reading the sūtras and so on, wherever he is born, and so on up to obtaining the omniscience of all kinds, he never forgets; why—「深入讀誦諸法故，煩惱折薄」 tr. "because he deeply enters into reading and reciting all dharmas, the afflictions are broken down and thinned." Here a concrete cause and effect is given: the reason for forgetting lies in the afflictions, and the thinning of the afflictions comes from deeply entering into reading and reciting; so not forgetting is not a matter of memory; it is a matter of the thickness or thinness of the afflictions. This turn is extremely useful—it turns a matter that seems to belong to one's faculties into a place where one can set one's hand.

68. Because he is protected by the roots of goodness he does not fall into the evil destinies—the simile of the blind person guided and protected by one who has eyes. The treatise-author explains in the sūtra 「為是善根所護，終不墮惡道諸難」 tr. "protected by these roots of goodness, he never falls into the evil destinies and the difficulties," and gives a simile: 「如盲人為有目者所將護故，終不墜落溝壑。」 tr. "Just as a blind person, because he is guided and protected by one who has eyes, never falls into ditches and gullies." What the simile takes is not that the blind person can see by himself; it is that one who has eyes is at his side. The protection of the roots of goodness is likewise—it does not mean that the practitioner already has no possibility of falling; it is that, having protection, he does not fall. Holding this simile one can avoid two losses: neither giving oneself up because one's own seeing has not yet opened, nor, because one has protection, taking oneself to be already able to see.

69. Because he gathers roots of goodness and merit he obtains the purity of the deep mind. The treatise-author explains 「得深心清淨」 tr. "obtains the purity of the deep mind," and gives the mark of the purity of the deep mind: 「慈愛一切眾生，雖怨賊中人亦不加惡，所謂奪命等。」 tr. "Kind and loving toward all beings; even to a person among enemies and thieves he does no harm, namely taking their life and so on." The definition speaks not from the substance of the mind but from where one deals with people—doing no harm even to enemies and thieves is the proof of the purity of the deep mind. When this treatise explains an inner virtue it often takes its marks upon objects as proof; only so is there somewhere it can be checked.

70. Furthermore, because wisdom and merit are greatly gathered, the afflictions are slight and few. The treatise-author further gives a cause: 「智慧、福德大集故，煩惱微少，不能遍覆菩薩善心。」 tr. "Because wisdom and merit are greatly gathered, the afflictions are slight and few, and cannot cover the bodhisattva's wholesome mind throughout." The wording of this sentence has an extremely fine sense of measure—it does not say that the afflictions are already cut off; it says they are slight and few and cannot cover throughout. That in the bodhisattva's position the afflictions are not yet exhausted and yet the wholesome mind is not covered is precisely the mark this passage sets up. When the reader applies it to himself, he too should take this sense of measure: he need not wait until the afflictions are wholly absent before counting that he has advanced; he need only see whether they can cover his wholesome mind.

71. Furthermore, the marks of the deep mind, and being able to teach and transform beings and obtain the purifying of buddha-worlds. The treatise-author explains the deep mind again, in two faces: toward beings he obtains the mind of kindness and compassion, the mind that does not abandon, and the mind of rescuing and delivering; toward dharmas he obtains the mind of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, and ultimate emptiness; and so on up to, even toward the Buddha, he does not give rise to the thought of a Buddha or the thought of nirvāṇa; this is named the deep mind being pure. Next he gives its use: because the deep mind is pure he is able to teach and transform beings; why—because the afflictions are thin he does not give rise to a haughty mind, a mind of self, or a mind of hatred; therefore beings love and delight in him and believe and accept his words; because he teaches and transforms beings he obtains the purifying of buddha-worlds. At the end he cites the Vimalakīrti's "Buddha-Land" chapter as proof: 「眾生淨故，世界清淨。」 tr. "Because beings are pure, the world is pure." This section fills out the sequence of the sentence in the sūtra 「能淨佛國土、成就眾生」 tr. "is able to purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment"—from the deep mind to not giving rise to the three minds, from not giving rise to the three minds to people being willing to accept his words, from accepting his words to beings being pure, from beings being pure to the world being pure. The accomplishing of a pure land thereby comes down to the moment of dealing with people.

72. Because he is protected by the roots of goodness he is never apart from good friends. The treatise-author explains 「常不離真知識」 tr. "never apart from true friends" at the end of the sūtra, and sets up the name and the mark of the good friend: 「善知識者，諸佛、大菩薩、阿羅漢」 tr. "Good friends are the buddhas, the great bodhisattvas, and the arhats"; and further speaks briefly of its mark—「能讚歎三寶者」 tr. "a person who is able to praise the Three Jewels." The former raises its utmost; the latter gives a mark that can be verified. The reason the mark is set up so broadly is to let people make use of it in what is before them: one need not always meet buddhas and great bodhisattvas; anyone who can praise the Three Jewels is within this share. Conversely, one who does not praise the Three Jewels, however close, is not named a good friend; the standard for choosing friends also lies here.

73. Concluding exhortation to make offerings to the buddhas, plant roots of goodness, and keep close to good friends—the simile of the good physician, the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick. The treatise-author concludes with the three matters at the end of the sūtra, and gives a simile: as a sick person should seek a good physician and medicinal herbs; the Buddha is the good physician, the roots of goodness are the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick is the good friend; because the sick person is complete with these things the illness is cured; the bodhisattva is also like this: because he extinguishes all the afflictions, he is able to benefit beings. In the simile three things are matched with three matters, in good order and countable: the reason the Buddha is the good physician is that he knows the illness and knows the medicine; the reason the roots of goodness are the medicinal herbs is that they can counteract; the reason the good friend is the one who tends the sick is that he is at one's side and does not abandon one. The whole chapter, beginning from 「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」 tr. "practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," here gathers to its close with a simile of a sick person seeking to be cured—though what one faces toward lies in unsurpassed awakening, the place one sets one's hand is only three such plain matters as seeking a physician, taking medicine, and having someone to look after one.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「不作二」 tr. "makes no two" and 「不以二法故行」 tr. "practises not by reason of two dharmas" as not permitting anything to be practised. The marks of practice listed in the sūtra text are set out all the way from practising form being empty to practising the conditioned nature and practising the unconditioned nature, and not one item is deleted; what the Buddha adds is only the judgement of the last sentence. When the treatise-author explains pure practice he says it still more clearly—「於是諸法不分別是空、是實」 tr. "upon these dharmas he does not discriminate that this is empty or this is real"; what is blocked is discrimination, not the dharmas practised. If it is read as meaning that, since practice is non-dual, dharmas may be discarded, then it runs directly against the real road brought out in passage 18 of making offerings to the buddhas, hearing and retaining the twelve divisions of the scriptures, planting roots of goodness, and keeping close to good friends.

Do not read the four explanations of naming the Buddha as four stages. The treatise-author sets up a question specially for these four names, and what he answers is setting out two sayings side by side: one saying, 「義無異，名字異」 tr. "there is no difference in meaning; the names differ," the other saying that there is a difference and taking as proof the distinction between the unobstructed knowledge of meaning and the unobstructed knowledge of dharmas among the four unobstructed knowledges; the treatise-author himself has not decided for either. Under the four names there is further the sentence 「如實知一切法者，總上三事」 tr. "knowing all dharmas as they really are gathers up the three matters above," making clear that the fourth is a gathering and not a separate item. If one straightway arranges the four names into four grades from shallow to deep, then the first saying has nowhere to stand, and the treatise-author's intent in setting them side by side is lost too.

Do not read 「於諸法無得無失、無增無減」 tr. "within dharmas there is no gain and no loss, no increase and no decrease" as meaning that practice increases nothing. The Buddha himself gives the reason—「不為得失、增減、生滅、淨垢故出」 tr. "it is not for the sake of gain and loss, increase and decrease, arising and ceasing, purity and stain that he comes forth"; what is blocked is the motive of practising prajñā, not the effect of practising prajñā. Right after it the Buddha further says positively that the bodhisattva practises the dharma of non-duality, and 「從初發意乃至後意，於其中間增益善根」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent, in between, he increases the roots of goodness," and that gods, humans, asuras, and the many evils cannot break him. Reading the two passages together one can know: one who seeks increase by relying on two dharmas does not obtain increase; for one who does not rely on two dharmas the roots of goodness increase of themselves. If one takes only the former passage and discards the latter, one will read words that counteract grasping as words that discard practice.

Do not read the 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" of the various houses as sayings the treatise-author sets up himself. Where the treatise-author explains the meaning of awakening he raises the sayings one after another—the knowledge of exhaustion; the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising; unobstructed liberation; the four unobstructed knowledges; the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha ground; the ten knowledges without outflows—and at the end gathers them with 「菩提義無量無邊，唯佛能遍知，餘人知其少分」 tr. "the meaning of awakening is immeasurable and boundless; only the Buddha can know it throughout, and the rest know a small share of it," and gives the simile of the treasury of a wheel-turning sage king. The phrase 「餘人知其少分」 tr. "the rest know a small share of it" is still within the last saying's 「復有人言」 tr. "again someone says"; it is the words of that house, not a general ruling the treatise-author passes on the sayings before. If the reader takes one saying and regards it as the treatise-author's settled conclusion, the intent of recording them side by side is lost.

Do not read 「不為善根故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā not for the sake of the roots of goodness" as meaning that one need not plant roots of goodness. Within the same passage of sūtra text, the Buddha both says that one practises neither for the sake of the roots of goodness nor for the sake of what is not the roots of goodness, and says 「未供養諸佛、未具足善根、未得真知識，不能得一切種智」 tr. "never having made offerings to the buddhas, never having fulfilled the roots of goodness, never having obtained true friends, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds"; the treatise-author explains it by saying that though one practises the roots of goodness 「為辦事故行，不以為貴」 tr. "one practises them in order to accomplish the task, and does not take them as prized," and cites the Raft Simile Sūtra's 「善法尚應捨，何況不善法！」 tr. "Even wholesome dharmas should be given up, how much more unwholesome dharmas!" and himself explains—「若人不為栰故渡，為到彼岸故渡」 tr. "if a person crosses, it is not for the sake of the raft that he crosses; it is in order to reach the other shore that he crosses." The one who crosses must still ride the raft; it is only that what he seeks does not lie in the raft. What is blocked is taking the roots of goodness as where one returns to, not blocking their practice.

Do not read 「菩薩行」 tr. "the bodhisattva's practice" as everything the bodhisattva does. The treatise-author first brings out a saying—「菩薩身、口、意業諸有所作，皆名菩薩行」 tr. "whatever is done by the bodhisattva's deeds of body, speech, and mind is all named the bodhisattva's practice"—and at once sifts it with the Buddha's answer: the bodhisattva's unwholesome, indeterminate, and wholesome dharmas practised with a clinging mind are not the bodhisattva's practice; only practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi by the mind of compassion and the wisdom of emptiness is named the bodhisattva's practice. It can be seen that the word ‘right’ in 「菩薩正行」 tr. "the bodhisattva's right practice" is a sifting. If it is read as meaning that whatever a bodhisattva does is the bodhisattva's practice, then the question at the opening of this chapter would be asked for nothing.

Bearing on Practice

The first use is to set up 「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」 tr. "practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" as the aiming-point of daily use. The Buddha's answer on the bodhisattva's practice does not raise a list of items; it only points to what one faces toward; the treatise-author's sifting likewise lies not in the appearance of deeds but in whether the mind is unwholesome, indeterminate, good with a clinging mind, or compassion and emptiness. Upon what he does each day the practitioner can add one question: what am I doing this for. If he can answer that what he faces toward lies in awakening, then giving, keeping the precepts, reading and reciting, and work are all the bodhisattva's practice; if he cannot answer, or answers with fame and gain, then though the deed is good, it is not yet in accord with the practice this chapter speaks of.

The second use is to take the sayings of the various houses explaining awakening as a set of mirrors to look at oneself in, without choosing one and setting it up. The knowledge of exhaustion shows whether the cause of one's birth and death is exhausted or not; the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising show whether the momentum of further birth is present or not; unobstructed liberation shows whether one penetrates dharmas or not; the four unobstructed knowledges show whether one can make people understand; the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha ground show the virtues one has accomplished; the ten knowledges without outflows show the association of one's mind and its activities. The last saying further says that only the Buddha knows it throughout, and the rest each know a small share. Holding these six mirrors to examine himself, what the practitioner obtains, though a small share, is the real share in his own hand—just as with the jewels of the treasury, only after the king bestows them can one know what one has obtained.

The third use is to apply 「不以二法故行」 tr. "practises not by reason of two dharmas" to the six perfections. What is made a difficulty in the sūtra is how, since it comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, one can take up the six perfections and so on up to entering the bodhisattva's position; the Buddha's answer only changes the place where one sets one's hand—practise as before, but not by reason of two dharmas. When the practitioner gives, he does not make the reckoning of a giver and what is given; when he keeps the precepts, he does not make the reckoning of a keeper and what is kept; and so on up to reading the sūtras and doing work, it is all so. The treatise-author further adds a sentence, 「畢竟空和合共行」 tr. "ultimate emptiness, in coming together, practises along with them," saying precisely that the two do not obstruct each other. This one move can best be tried in daily use: in doing one and the same good deed, whether in the mind there is a self reckoning gain and loss, one knows best oneself.

The fourth use is to look at the simile of obtaining wealth in a dream and the raft simile together, so as to settle what is prized. The simile of obtaining wealth in a dream speaks of what is obtained—for one who reckons by relying on two dharmas, what is obtained, though great, is really nothing; what is obtained after waking, though little, is true. The raft simile speaks of what is prized—the one who crosses must still ride the raft, and what is prized lies in the other shore. The two similes together make one sense of measure on the gate of practice: toward the roots of goodness one may not fail to practise, and toward the roots of goodness one may not rest content; not practising, there is no raft to ride; resting content, one never reaches the shore. When the practitioner has some accomplishment in practice and self-satisfaction arises in the mind, he can at once take up these two similes to look at himself.

The fifth use is to take the mark of the good friend and the simile of the three things as a standard for choosing friends and for conducting oneself. The treatise-author gives for the good friend an extremely plain verifiable mark—「能讚歎三寶者」 tr. "a person who is able to praise the Three Jewels"; and further matches the good physician, the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick with the Buddha, the roots of goodness, and the good friend. By this the practitioner can make a check of three matters: whether the physician relied on is the Buddha, whether the medicine taken is the roots of goodness, whether the one at one's side looking after one is able to praise the Three Jewels. When the three are complete, then, as the sūtra says, the illness is cured. Conversely, if a person at one's side, though close, constantly disparages the Three Jewels, by this chapter's judgement he is not among the number of good friends, and in matters of closeness and distance one should have one's own measure.

Further Resonances

The backbone of this chapter is one section of sūtra text and one section of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins from Subhūti asking what the bodhisattva's practice is, and the Buddha answers that practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is named the bodhisattva's practice; next Subhūti asks how it is practice for the sake of awakening, and the Buddha then lists throughout practising form being empty, practising feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness being empty, practising the eye being empty and so on up to the mind, practising the eye element being empty and so on up to the mind-consciousness element, practising the six perfections, practising inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, practising the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions, practising the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, practising the three samādhi, practising the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions, practising the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion, practising purifying buddha-lands and bringing beings to accomplishment, practising all the eloquences, practising letters entering into what is without letters, practising all the dhāraṇī gates, practising the conditioned nature and practising the unconditioned nature, and concludes that, just as with anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he makes no two; next he asks by reason of what meaning one is named Buddha, and the Buddha answers four times: knowing the real meaning of all dharmas, obtaining the real mark of all dharmas, penetrating the real meaning, knowing all dharmas as they really are; next he asks by reason of what meaning it is named awakening, and the Buddha answers with the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of suchness, the meaning of the nature of dharmas, the meaning of the limit of reality, names, marks, and verbal expression, indestructible and indiscriminable, the real mark of all dharmas being not deceptive and not different, what the buddhas possess, and the buddhas' right and complete knowing; next he asks, in practising the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, what within dharmas is gained, lost, increased, decreased, arises, ceases, is stained, is purified, and the Buddha answers no gain and no loss and so on up to no stain and no purity, and brings out the reason that prajñā comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, increase and decrease, arising and ceasing, purity and stain; next he asks how, since it comes forth not for the sake of these, one can take up the six perfections, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, the gates of liberation, and the ten powers, and so on up to the ten grounds of the bodhisattva and passing beyond the grounds of the two vehicles to enter the bodhisattva's position, and the Buddha answers that one practises not by reason of two dharmas; next he asks how, not by reason of two dharmas, the roots of goodness increase from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent, and the Buddha answers that for one who practises two dharmas there is no increase, that all ordinary people rely on two dharmas, and that the bodhisattva, because he practises the dharma of non-duality, increases the roots of goodness in between, and gods, humans, asuras, and the many evils cannot break him; next he asks whether one practises prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness, and the Buddha answers ‘No’ and blocks both the good and what is not the good, and brings out the reason that one who has not made offerings to the buddhas, has not fulfilled the roots of goodness, and has not obtained true friends cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds; last he asks how one makes offerings to the buddhas, fulfils the roots of goodness, and obtains true friends so as to be able to obtain the omniscience of all kinds, and the Buddha answers: from the first arousing of intent making offerings to the buddhas, hearing and retaining the twelve divisions of the scriptures, reciting until fluent, contemplating in the mind, and penetrating clearly, and so obtaining dhāraṇī and giving rise to unobstructed knowledge, planting roots of goodness and being protected by the roots of goodness so as not to fall into the evil destinies, obtaining the purity of the deep mind and being able to purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment, never being apart from true friends; and concludes that one should make offerings to the buddhas, plant roots of goodness, and keep close to good friends. Treatise ① opens with its explanation and explains following the text: first it relates the question of the previous chapter and so raises this chapter's question; next it sets up a question and answer to distinguish the sameness and difference of prajñā and the bodhisattva's practice; next it brings out the ‘someone says’ that whatever is done by deeds of body, speech, and mind is all named the bodhisattva's practice, and sifts out the right practice by the Buddha's answer; next it explains pure practice's not discriminating that this is empty or this is real; next, following Subhūti's rejoicing, it enters the section on the meaning of names and sets up three rounds of question and answer—why arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and great bodhisattvas, who also know the real meaning, are not named Buddha, answered with the simile of lighting a lamp and the two reasons of being covered by the afflictions and their habitual residues and not obtaining the omniscience of all kinds; what difference there is among the four, knowing the real meaning, obtaining the real mark, penetrating the real meaning, and knowing as they really are, with two sayings set out side by side without judgement; and it explains the two causes and conditions of not being able to penetrate and knowing all dharmas as they really are gathering up the three matters above; next it brings out that awakening is named knowledge and the Buddha is named the knower, repeats the nine layers of awakening in the sūtra and explains each, and judges the extent of the three in training, the three beyond training, the two beyond training, and the Buddha alone; next it sets out side by side the sayings of the various houses explaining awakening—the knowledge of exhaustion; the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising; unobstructed liberation; the four unobstructed knowledges; the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha ground; the ten knowledges without outflows—and at the end gathers them with the meaning of awakening being immeasurable and boundless, only the Buddha knowing it throughout and the rest knowing a small share, and the simile of the treasury of a wheel-turning sage king; next it takes up again, section by section, the questions and answers of the sūtra, each with the treatise-author's words attached—increasing nothing, how much less the roots of goodness; the Buddha approved his meaning; ultimate emptiness, in coming together, practising along with them; the simile of obtaining wealth in a dream; the remaining evils being the afflictions such as stinginess and greed; next it sets up a question and answer to distinguish the meaning of practising not for the sake of the roots of goodness, citing the Raft Simile Sūtra and the simile of crossing by raft, and explains the causes and conditions the Buddha states here; last, following the sūtra text, it explains the sequence of the gate of practice—only the Buddha being spoken of because making offerings to the Buddha is the greatest; the reasons for receiving and retaining, reciting until fluent, and contemplating in the mind; the two kinds of dhāraṇī; the four unobstructed knowledges; the distinction between true unobstructedness and unobstructedness in name; the afflictions being broken down and thinned because of reading and reciting; the simile of the blind person guided and protected by one who has eyes; the marks of the purity of the deep mind; the afflictions being unable to cover throughout because wisdom and merit are greatly gathered; the two faces of the deep mind and the cited proof that because beings are pure the world is pure; the name and the mark of the good friend; and it concludes with the simile of the three things of the good physician, the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick.

The vein of meaning between this chapter and the chapters before and after it can be seen in three lines. First, inheriting from before: the very first sentence of the treatise-author's explanation faces the previous chapter, saying that in the previous chapter Subhūti asked why it is named prajñāpāramitā and the Buddha answered by all kinds of causes and conditions, and because of this matter in this chapter he again asks what the bodhisattva's practice is; the two questions are of the same form, so the arising of this chapter is the continuation of the previous chapter's way of asking, not the setting up of a separate thread. Second, within the chapter it makes two turns of itself: the first turn moves from 「何等是菩薩行」 tr. "what is the bodhisattva's practice" into the distinguishing of the meaning of names, its pivot being that Subhūti, having heard of the bodhisattva's practice, rejoices and asks about the meaning of Buddha; the second turn moves back from the distinguishing of the meaning of names to the difficulties of the gate of practice, its pivot being the question 「若菩提畢竟空不壞相」 tr. "if awakening is ultimately empty, of indestructible mark." Between the two turns, 「不作二」 tr. "makes no two" and 「不以二法故行」 tr. "practises not by reason of two dharmas" are one saying used in two ways: the former speaks of what one faces toward, the latter of the one who practises. Third, reaching to what follows: this chapter ends with making offerings to the buddhas, planting roots of goodness, and keeping close to good friends, and the meaning of why the roots of goodness are not taken as prized is already settled in this chapter; the next chapter takes planting roots of goodness as its title, and the reader can look at the two chapters together to see the continuity of not acting for the sake of the roots of goodness and yet not being able to be without the roots of goodness.

As for the explanations of the ancient masters and the differences among the editions, three matters can be recorded for this chapter. First, the chapter title has two forms: this collection's base text reads 「菩薩行品第七十二」 tr. "Chapter Seventy-Two, The Bodhisattva's Practice," while the Palace edition calls it otherwise 「道行品」 tr. "Practice of the Path," the chapter order still being seventy-second; the Shōgozō manuscript and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript both place the chapter one position earlier than the base text, and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript further attaches a sūtra name besides the chapter name. The sūtra explained itself also has the chapter heading 「道行品」 tr. "Practice of the Path," while the other editions of the sūtra mostly read 「菩薩行品」 tr. "The Bodhisattva's Practice," which crosses exactly with the two forms of this treatise's base text and Palace edition. Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, in its general table of contents at the head of the scroll and in the heading of its explanation, alike reads 「道行品第七十二」 tr. "Practice of the Path, Chapter Seventy-Two," using the same name as this treatise's Palace edition and the sūtra's base text. The two forms of the variant name are recorded side by side without judgement, and the full account of the variant readings of the editions is detailed in the Apparatus layer. Second, Jizang has a real explanation of this chapter in one passage, running from his explanation of the title up to before the title of the next chapter; what it explains centres on the Buddha's intent, and its words are extremely brief; five things in it can be recorded word for word. Explaining the setting of the chapter's name, he says 「今云道行品者，上譬說得名，今法說為因也。」 tr. "Now it is called the Practice of the Path chapter: above, the name was obtained by speaking in simile; now speaking in Dharma is the cause."—dividing where the two names come from by the previous chapter's speaking in simile and this chapter's speaking in Dharma, which is of the same intent as this chapter's arising being tied to the previous chapter's question. Judging the general and the particular of prajñā and the bodhisattva's practice, he says 「若是菩薩行，具實方便二慧，則知般若別，菩薩行通也。」 tr. "If it is the bodhisattva's practice, complete with the two wisdoms, the real and skilful means, then it is known that prajñā is particular and the bodhisattva's practice is general."—the dividing line drawn differs from the treatise-author's answer 「一切菩薩道名菩薩行」 tr. "the whole of the bodhisattva path is named the bodhisattva's practice": the treatise divides by path and wisdom, Jizang divides by whether the two wisdoms are complete or not; the two houses are recorded side by side without judgement. Explaining the last of the four sentences on the meaning of Buddha, he says 「第四句總上三法，謂知義亦知有知無，故云一切也。」 tr. "The fourth sentence gathers the three dharmas above, that is, knowing the meaning and also knowing existence and knowing non-existence; therefore it says ‘all’."—returning to the same place as the treatise's 「總上三事亦義、亦法」 tr. "gathers up the three matters above; it is both meaning and dharma," while the three matters raised differ slightly. Explaining awakening, he says 「第三義外即名相為菩提，第四義內絕念想為菩提，第五舉人釋法。」 tr. "The third: outwardly, names and marks themselves are awakening; the fourth: inwardly, the cutting off of thought and conception is awakening; the fifth raises the person to explain the dharma."—dividing the sūtra's nine layers by the three faces of outer, inner, and person, which differs in form from the treatise side's setting out side by side of ten instances of ‘someone says’. Explaining practising not for the sake of the roots of goodness, he says 「如百論為除惡善行，若入道則須捨善也。」 tr. "As in the Hundred Treatise, good practice is for the sake of removing evil; if one enters the path, one must give up the good."—taking entering the path as requiring the giving up of the good, which is of exactly the same intent as the treatise's citing of the Raft Simile Sūtra's 「善法尚應捨，何況不善法！」 tr. "Even wholesome dharmas should be given up, how much more unwholesome dharmas!" and its matching of crossing by raft. The word-for-word citations and their sameness and difference from what this treatise explains are detailed in the Apparatus layer. Third, on examining now the Tiantai line's Great Calming and Contemplation, Supporting Practice and Broad Resolution of Calming and Contemplation, Profound Meaning of the Lotus, and Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus, as well as Huiying's Commentary and Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises, none is found to cite the title of this chapter, nor are word-for-word citations found of this chapter's sentences such as 「空義是菩提義」 tr. "the meaning of emptiness is the meaning of awakening," 「知諸法實義故名為佛」 tr. "because he knows the real meaning of all dharmas, he is named Buddha," and 「不以二法故行檀波羅蜜」 tr. "it is not by reason of two dharmas that he practises dānapāramitā." The witness of the ancient masters attached to this chapter is very thin, unlike the thick ones of the other chapters of this treatise; it is recorded according to the facts, without drawing inferences.