大智度論 次第學品之上Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Training in Sequence, Part 1 of 2

Training in Sequence, First Part: Where Compliant Acceptance Lies; Existent and Non-existent Dharmas as Path and as Fruit; the Buddha's Own Witness of Entering Dhyāna and Giving Rise to the Powers; Because Self-Nature and Other-Nature Are Both Without Anything Existent, One Can Part and Can Enter

What Is Being Asked

When the discourse on prajñā reaches this point it is near its close, and the meaning of ultimate emptiness has been spoken again and again. The more completely it is spoken, the harder a doubt becomes to hold down: since dharmas are ultimately empty, can the stages of practice, the afflictions that are cut off, and the fruit that is obtained still stand? The First Part of this chapter, as one unit, raises this doubt head-on, and raises it more hardly than the earlier chapters did.

Subhūti's first question is put in a reversed way. He does not ask ‘once it is empty, can one still cultivate’; he asks: 「世尊！若有法相者，尚不得順忍，何況得道！」 tr. "World-Honored One! If there is the mark of dharmas, one still does not obtain compliant acceptance—how much less the path!"—with the mark of dharmas one does not, on the contrary, obtain compliant acceptance; then 「若無法相者，當得順忍不？」 tr. "if there is no mark of dharmas, should one obtain compliant acceptance?" And in one breath he lists the whole road: the ten grounds, cultivating the path, cutting off the afflictions, passing beyond the grounds of the two vehicles, entering the bodhisattva's position, obtaining the omniscience of all kinds, and cutting off all the afflictions and their habitual residues. At the end he presses one more sentence: 「若無有法，是諸法則不生；若不生是諸法，則不能得一切種智。」 tr. "If there are no dharmas, these dharmas do not arise; if these dharmas do not arise, one cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds." What is asked is really one matter—whether being without any existent nature and sequence, in the end, obstruct each other or complete each other.

The Buddha's answer is the first joint of the whole unit: 「如是！如是！若無有法者，則有順忍乃至斷一切煩惱習。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! If there is no dharma, then there is compliant acceptance and so on up to the severance of all the afflictions and their habitual residues." It is not a reluctant concession; it says that precisely because there is no dharma there is compliant acceptance and so on up to the severance of the residues. Following this answer, Subhūti asks again whether, when practising prajñā, there is the mark of dharmas, and the Buddha answers more clearly still: 「無有法相、非法相，即是菩薩順忍。」 tr. "There is no mark of dharmas and no mark of what is not a dharma; this is the bodhisattva's compliant acceptance."—compliant acceptance does not lie where marks are, nor where a ‘signless’ is set up; where neither side is set up, that place is compliant acceptance, 「即是修道，亦是道果」 tr. "this is cultivating the path, and it is also the path and its fruit". Then the Buddha establishes path and fruit as well: 「有法是菩薩道，無法是菩薩果。」 tr. "An existent dharma is the bodhisattva's path; a non-existent dharma is the bodhisattva's fruit."

The third question pushes the difficulty onto the Buddha himself: 「佛云何知一切法無所有性故得成佛，於一切法得自在力？」 tr. "How is it that the Buddha, because he knows that all dharmas are without any existent nature, came to become a Buddha and obtained the power of sovereignty over all dharmas?" The Buddha's answer is not reasoning; it is citing himself as witness—how, when I formerly practised the bodhisattva path, I parted from desire and entered the four dhyānas, how by the four dhyānas I gave rise to the five supernormal powers, how with the wisdom associated with a single thought I obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. And on every step he presses the same sentence: not thinking that there is this dhyāna, not receiving the flavour of dhyāna, not obtaining this dhyāna. Subhūti still does not let it go, and asks again how, within being without any existent nature, the dhyānas and powers can be given rise to, and how the three groups can be distinguished; the Buddha then lays the reason out entire: precisely because the desires and evil and unwholesome dharmas are without any existent nature, 「若自性、若他性皆是無所有性故」 tr. "because whether self-nature or other-nature they are all without any existent nature", could I part from them and enter; if they really had a fixed nature, I could, on the contrary, neither part from them nor enter.

The treatise section explains these point by point, and sets up two rounds of question and answer of its own: one asks why Subhūti asks again by various causes and conditions; one asks why, when one parts from the afflictions of the first dhyāna and obtains the second dhyāna, it is not named born of separation. What the First Part has to answer is these three questions—why emptiness does not break sequence, why the names of path and fruit can be established, and why within being without any existent nature the four dhyānas and the six supernormal powers can be given rise to.

Passage by Passage

1. Subhūti asks: with the mark of dharmas one still does not obtain compliant acceptance; without the mark of dharmas, should one obtain compliant acceptance; he lists the ten grounds, cultivating the path and cutting off the defilements, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. The sūtra section opens with a pair set against each other: 「世尊！若有法相者，尚不得順忍，何況得道！」 tr. "World-Honored One! If there is the mark of dharmas, one still does not obtain compliant acceptance—how much less the path!" and then turns to ask about the side of no mark of dharmas. The grounds listed are ten in all, and the sūtra lists their names itself—「若乾慧地、若性地、若八人地、若見地、若薄地、若離欲地、若已辦地、若辟支佛地、若菩薩地、若佛地」 tr. "whether the ground of dry wisdom, or the ground of the stage of nature, or the ground of the person of the eight, or the ground of seeing, or the ground of thinning, or the ground of freedom from desire, or the ground of what has been done, or the pratyekabuddha ground, or the bodhisattva ground, or the Buddha ground"; the treatise in this passage only raises their names and does not explain their marks, and here too they are raised as they are, without a gloss given on the treatise's behalf; their marks must wait for the treatise's text elsewhere. The last two sentences push the doubt to the bottom: 「若無有法，是諸法則不生；若不生是諸法，則不能得一切種智。」 tr. "If there are no dharmas, these dharmas do not arise; if these dharmas do not arise, one cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds."—this is the difficulty the whole unit sets out to resolve, and also what the Buddha's answer below faces.

2. The Buddha approves his question: if there is no dharma, then there is compliant acceptance and so on up to the severance of all the afflictions and their habitual residues. The Buddha's answer is only one sentence: 「如是！如是！若無有法者，則有順忍乃至斷一切煩惱習。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! If there is no dharma, then there is compliant acceptance and so on up to the severance of all the afflictions and their habitual residues." What is to be looked at is that 「則有」 tr. "then there is"—it is not ‘though there is no dharma, there can still reluctantly be’; it is that there being no dharma is exactly where compliant acceptance comes from. The 「則不生」 tr. "then do not arise" that Subhūti feared, the Buddha replaces with 「則有」 tr. "then there is". Between one question and one answer, the relation between emptiness and sequence has already been turned round.

3. Subhūti asks again: when practising prajñā is there the mark of dharmas; he lists the marks and the marks of severance of the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. The second question draws the place of asking back to the very moment of practising prajñā. What he lists is extremely broad: from 「色相乃至識相」 tr. "the mark of form and so on up to the mark of consciousness", through 「眼相乃至意相」 tr. "the mark of the eye and so on up to the mark of the mind", 「眼界相乃至意識界相」 tr. "the mark of the eye element and so on up to the mark of the mind-consciousness element", 「四念處相乃至一切種智相」 tr. "the mark of the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the mark of the omniscience of all kinds", and again, in the sentence pattern 「若色相、若色斷相」 tr. "whether the mark of form or the mark of the severance of form", he raises 「相」 tr. "mark" and 「斷相」 tr. "the mark of severance" once more in pairs, ending at 「斷一切煩惱習相」 tr. "the mark of the severance of all the afflictions and their habitual residues". Raising them in pairs is the crucial point: what is doubted is not only that dharmas have marks, but that even ‘severance’ has a mark—if severance has a mark, then the defilements severed also become really existent.

4. The Buddha answers: there is no mark of dharmas and no mark of what is not a dharma—this is the bodhisattva's compliant acceptance; this is cultivating the path, and it is also the path and its fruit; an existent dharma is the bodhisattva's path, a non-existent dharma is the bodhisattva's fruit. The Buddha first flatly denies it: 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "Not so, Subhūti!" and then gives the right understanding of this chapter: 「無有法相、非法相，即是菩薩順忍。」 tr. "There is no mark of dharmas and no mark of what is not a dharma; this is the bodhisattva's compliant acceptance." Where compliant acceptance lies is not in marks, nor in setting up a separate signless—「若無有法相、無有非法相，即是修道，亦是道果」 tr. "if there is no mark of dharmas and no mark of what is not a dharma, this is cultivating the path, and it is also the path and its fruit". Within one sentence, the three names—acceptance, cultivating the path, and the path and its fruit—stand in one place; they are not three stages each occupying a place of its own. Then he establishes path and fruit: 「有法是菩薩道，無法是菩薩果。」 tr. "An existent dharma is the bodhisattva's path; a non-existent dharma is the bodhisattva's fruit." The closing sentence is 「當知一切法無所有性」 tr. "one should know that all dharmas are without any existent nature"—since path and fruit are so established, that all dharmas are without any existent nature can thereby be known.

5. Subhūti asks: all dharmas being without any existent nature, how could the Buddha become a Buddha and obtain the power of sovereignty over all dharmas. The third question moves the difficulty onto the Buddha himself: 「世尊！若一切法無所有性，佛云何知一切法無所有性故得成佛，於一切法得自在力？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If all dharmas are without any existent nature, how is it that the Buddha, because he knows that all dharmas are without any existent nature, came to become a Buddha and obtained the power of sovereignty over all dharmas?" The question is very down-to-earth—in principle, speaking of emptiness can be made to hold; in fact, the Buddha has indeed become a Buddha and indeed has the power of sovereignty; how do these two things stand in one place? Only once this question is out does the Buddha below have need to cite himself as witness.

6. The Buddha cites himself as witness: formerly practising the bodhisattva path and cultivating the six perfections, he parted from desire and entered the four dhyānas, and as to the dhyānas and their limbs he grasped at marks, did not think that there was this dhyāna, did not receive its flavour, did not obtain this dhyāna, and did not receive the retribution; by the four dhyānas he gave rise to the five supernormal powers without grasping at marks, practising without discrimination; with the wisdom associated with a single thought he obtained awakening, accomplished the ten powers and so on up to great kindness and great compassion, and distinguished beings into the three groups. The Buddha gives not a proof by principle but a proof by fact, and what is proved is a stretch of his own road. First the dhyānas: 「我本行菩薩道修六波羅蜜，離諸欲、離惡不善法，有覺有觀，離生喜樂入初禪，乃至入第四禪」 tr. "When I formerly practised the bodhisattva path and cultivated the six perfections, I parted from the desires and parted from evil and unwholesome dharmas, and with initial and sustained thought, with the joy and pleasure born of separation, I entered the first dhyāna, and so on up to entering the fourth dhyāna"; at once he presses on a string of negations—「於是諸禪及支取相，不念有是禪，不受禪味，不得是禪，無染、清淨行四禪，我於是諸禪不受果報。」 tr. "As to these dhyānas and their limbs I grasped at marks; I did not think that there was this dhyāna, did not receive the flavour of dhyāna, did not obtain this dhyāna; undefiled and pure, I practised the four dhyānas, and in these dhyānas I did not receive the retribution." Next the powers: 「依四禪住，起五神通：身通、天耳、知他人心、宿命通、天眼證」 tr. "Abiding by the four dhyānas, I gave rise to the five supernormal powers: the bodily power, the divine ear, knowing the minds of others, the supernormal power of former lives, and the realisation of the divine eye"; the names of the five supernormal powers the sūtra lists itself; and then likewise he presses on a string of negations—「於諸神通不取相，不念有是神通，不受神通味，不得是神通，我於是五神通不分別行。」 tr. "As to the supernormal powers I did not grasp at marks, did not think that there was this supernormal power, did not receive the flavour of the supernormal powers, did not obtain this supernormal power; in these five supernormal powers I practised without discrimination." Last the path: 「我爾時用一念相應慧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "At that time I, with the wisdom associated with a single thought, obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; what is known is the four truths of suffering, origination, cessation, and the path; what is accomplished is the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion; what is done is 「分別三聚眾生：正定、邪定、不定」 tr. "distinguished beings into the three groups: the group assured of rightness, the group assured of wrongness, and the unassured group"; the names of the three groups too the sūtra lists itself; this passage does not explain their marks, and here they are not supplied. The bones of the whole passage lie entirely in those ‘not’s: not one matter fewer, and not one matter taken up.

7. Subhūti asks: within being without any existent nature, how are the four dhyānas and the six supernormal powers given rise to, and, there being no beings either, how are the three groups distinguished. Subhūti does not take the proof by fact as enough, and presses one layer further: 「云何世尊於諸法無所有性中起四禪、六神通，亦無眾生而分別作三聚？」 tr. "How is it that the World-Honored One, within dharmas without any existent nature, gave rise to the four dhyānas and the six supernormal powers, and, there being no beings either, distinguished them into the three groups?" What is asked is possibility—since it is said there is nothing existent, where is the one who gives rise to them, and where are the beings who are distinguished? The earlier question was how the Buddha could become a Buddha; this question is how these matters can arise; the former asks about the fruit, the latter about where it comes from.

8. The Buddha answers: the desires, evil and unwholesome dharmas, and the supernormal powers, whether self-nature or other-nature, are all without any existent nature; therefore one can part, can enter, can know, and obtains awakening. The Buddha's answer is the most crucial turn of this unit, and it is set up from the reverse side: 「若諸欲、惡不善法當有性——若自性、若他性，我本為菩薩行時，不能觀諸欲、惡不善法無所有性入初禪」 tr. "If the desires and evil and unwholesome dharmas were to have their nature—whether self-nature or other-nature—then when I formerly practised as a bodhisattva, I could not have contemplated the desires and evil and unwholesome dharmas as without any existent nature and entered the first dhyāna"—if they really had a fixed nature, I could, on the contrary, not have entered the first dhyāna. Straight after, he speaks from the front side: 「以諸欲、惡不善法無所有性——若自性、若他性皆是無所有性故，我本行菩薩道時，離諸欲、惡不善法入初禪，乃至入第四禪。」 tr. "Because the desires and evil and unwholesome dharmas are without any existent nature—because whether self-nature or other-nature they are all without any existent nature—when I formerly practised the bodhisattva path, I parted from the desires and evil and unwholesome dharmas and entered the first dhyāna, and so on up to entering the fourth dhyāna." The supernormal powers follow the same pattern, the last sentence reading 「以神通無有性——若自性、若他性皆無所有性，以是故，諸佛於神通，知無所有性，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Because the supernormal powers do not have their nature—whether self-nature or other-nature, they are all without any existent nature—for this reason the buddhas, as to the supernormal powers, know them to be without any existent nature, and obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi."—being without any existent nature is not an obstacle to practice; it is that by which practice is possible. Here Subhūti's doubt is turned over.

9. The treatise-author sets up a question: that all dharmas are empty is one meaning; why does Subhūti ask again by various causes and conditions? The treatise section asks at its very opening: 「諸法空一義，何以故須菩提種種因緣重問？」 tr. "That all dharmas are empty is one and the same meaning; why does Subhūti ask again and again by various causes and conditions?" and cites word for word the places asked again: 「有法相者不得順忍，乃至若不生是諸法，不能得薩婆若！」 tr. "One who has the mark of dharmas does not obtain compliant acceptance, and so on up to: if these dharmas do not arise, one cannot obtain sarvajñā!" The question is utterly natural—since the meaning is only one, why ask and ask again?

10. The treatise-author answers himself: the meaning of ultimate emptiness is very deep and hard to understand; as prajñā is about to be spoken to the end, fearing that people would have much doubt and much confusion, he asks again. The answer has two layers. First he speaks of the depth of the difficulty: 「是諸法畢竟空義，甚深難解！說者尚難，何況受者、行者！」 tr. "This meaning of the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas is very deep and hard to understand! Even for the one who speaks it, it is hard—how much more for the one who receives it and the one who practises it!" Even the one who speaks finds it hard; the one who receives it and the one who practises it find it harder still—this ties the reason for asking again to the depth of the dharma, not to the dullness of the asker. Next he speaks of the season: 「是故須菩提以般若垂訖，恐人多疑多惑故，種種因緣重問。」 tr. "Therefore, because prajñā was about to be spoken to the end, Subhūti, fearing that people would have much doubt and much confusion, asked again and again by various causes and conditions." The two Chinese characters ‘about to be spoken to the end’ are crucial: the whole text is about to close, and the chances to ask are few, so he seizes this moment to ask out every doubt one by one.

11. The treatise-author, again: though the meaning asked is one, the place it rests on differs; because the gates of approach differ, the meaning comes to have differences. The second answer takes another angle: 「復次，所問義雖一，所因處異。」 tr. "Again, though the meaning asked is one, the place it rests on differs." And he gives three ways of asking as examples—「若一切法空，云何分別有五道？」 tr. "If all dharmas are empty, how are the five destinies distinguished?" 「若一切無所有相，云何分別有三乘？」 tr. "If all are of the mark of there being nothing existent, how are the three vehicles distinguished?" 「有相者乃至不得順忍，云何當觀八地、入菩薩位？」 tr. "One who has marks, and so on up to, does not obtain compliant acceptance—how can he contemplate the eight grounds and enter the bodhisattva's position?" One and the same meaning of emptiness, asked from the five destinies, asked from the three vehicles, asked from the eight grounds—what is answered naturally differs. The closing sentence is 「異門故義得差別，般若無一定相故」 tr. "because the gates of approach differ, the meaning comes to have differences, because prajñā has no single fixed mark"—since prajñā has no single fixed mark, the gates by which it is spoken cannot be only one either.

12. The treatise-author cites the Buddha's words of approval. 「佛可須菩提意：「如是！如是！」」 tr. "The Buddha approved Subhūti's meaning: ‘Just so! Just so!’"—the treatise-author first marks out the Buddha's approval so that the reader knows that what is explained below is the meaning under this approval, not something started afresh. Approving without adding argument is precisely a real instance of what the previous passage answered: ‘the meaning is one, the place differs’.

13. The treatise-author distinguishes two kinds of compliant acceptance: what was asked earlier is the compliant acceptance of the Small Vehicle; what is asked now is the dharma of the bodhisattva's compliant acceptance. This sentence is the watershed of the whole passage: 「須菩提先問順忍者，是小乘順忍；今須菩提問菩薩順忍法。」 tr. "The compliant acceptance Subhūti asked about earlier is the compliant acceptance of the Small Vehicle; what Subhūti asks about now is the dharma of the bodhisattva's compliant acceptance." One and the same name, compliant acceptance, points to different things earlier and later. Once this distinction is set up, the reason the sūtra's two questions do not repeat each other has its footing—it is not that one thing was asked twice; two kinds were asked.

14. The treatise-author cites the sūtra's question. 「若菩薩行般若時，有法相不？」 tr. "If the bodhisattva practises prajñā, is there the mark of dharmas?" The treatise-author cites the sūtra's question again, as what the Buddha's answer below faces. Citing the sūtra without adding words is this treatise's customary form: first set up the text to be explained, then bring out its meaning.

15. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answer: not giving rise to a mark of dharmas, whether existent or non-existent; seeing existence and seeing non-existence both have faults; within all dharmas not giving rise to a mark of existence is cultivating the path. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answer: 「菩薩行般若時，無法生相若有、若無。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva practises prajñā, he does not give rise to a mark of dharmas, whether existent or non-existent." And then he brings out the reason himself: 「何以故？見有、無二俱有過故，則是菩薩順忍。」 tr. "Why? Because seeing existence and seeing non-existence both have faults; this is the bodhisattva's compliant acceptance."—both sides have faults, so on both sides nothing is given rise to; this is exactly the meaning of the sūtra's 「無有法相、非法相」 tr. "no mark of dharmas and no mark of what is not a dharma". The last sentence ties cultivating the path to this place too: 「於一切法中不生有相，即是修道。」 tr. "Within all dharmas he does not give rise to a mark of existence; this is cultivating the path." It is not that besides not giving rise there is a separate cultivating of the path; not giving rise is itself that.

16. The treatise-author cites the sūtra's sentence on path and fruit. 「須菩提！有法是菩薩道，無法是果。」 tr. "Subhūti! An existent dharma is the bodhisattva's path; a non-existent dharma is the fruit." The treatise-author cites this one sentence to lay the ground for the three sayings below. The sūtra's original sentence reads 「無法是菩薩果」 tr. "a non-existent dharma is the bodhisattva's fruit"; the treatise-author cites it as 「無法是果」 tr. "a non-existent dharma is the fruit", dropping words without changing the meaning.

17. The treatise-author's first explanation: an existent dharma is a conditioned dharma, a non-existent dharma is an unconditioned dharma; practising the conditioned eightfold noble path, one obtains the unconditioned fruit. The first saying is the plainest: 「有法名有為法，無法是無為法；行有為八聖道，斷諸煩惱，得無為果。」 tr. "An existent dharma is named a conditioned dharma; a non-existent dharma is an unconditioned dharma. One practises the conditioned eightfold noble path, cuts off the afflictions, and obtains the unconditioned fruit." The path is conditioned, so it can be practised and can sever; the fruit is unconditioned, so it is not obtained from making. Obtaining the unconditioned fruit by conditioned practice involves no obstruction—this is exactly a ready answer to what this chapter asks: ‘how is there sequence within emptiness’.

18. The treatise-author records another's saying, the first: the five perfections are named existent dharmas and are the path; prajñā, because of ultimate emptiness, is without any existent dharma and is the fruit. 「復次，有人言：五波羅蜜名有法，是菩薩道；般若波羅蜜畢竟空故無有法，是菩薩果。」 tr. "Again, someone says: the five perfections are named existent dharmas, and are the bodhisattva's path; prajñāpāramitā, because of ultimate emptiness, is without any existent dharma, and is the bodhisattva's fruit." This saying lays the division of existent and non-existent within the six perfections: the first five perfections have something they do, so they are named existent dharmas and are the path; prajñā is ultimate emptiness, so it is named without any existent dharma and is the fruit. The treatise-author records it without adding approval or disapproval.

19. The treatise-author records another's saying, the second: prajñā is the mark of wisdom and, being conditioned, is the path; suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality, not being born from causes and conditions, are the fruit. 「有人言：般若波羅蜜智慧相，有為法故，是為道；如、法性、實際，不從因緣生、常有故，名為果。」 tr. "Someone says: prajñāpāramitā is the mark of wisdom; because it is a conditioned dharma, it is the path; suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are not born from causes and conditions and exist always, and so are named the fruit." This saying is the exact reversal of the previous one—the previous saying took prajñā as the fruit; this saying takes prajñā as the path. One and the same prajñā: tied to the mark of wisdom, it belongs to the conditioned and is the path; tied to the suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality that are realised, these are the fruit. The two sayings are set side by side and the treatise-author does not judge between them—this is exactly a real instance of 「異門故義得差別」 tr. "because the gates of approach differ, the meaning comes to have differences".

20. The treatise-author gathers it up: such as these are the differences of existent and non-existent dharmas; therefore one knows that all dharmas are without any existent nature, and this is named a non-existent dharma. 「如是等，有、無法差別。」 tr. "Such as these are the differences between an existent dharma and a non-existent dharma." The three sayings out, the treatise-author takes none of them, and gathers up with only one sentence: 「以是因緣故，須菩提！當知一切法皆是無所有性，名為無法。」 tr. "Because of such causes and conditions, Subhūti! one should know that all dharmas are without any existent nature; this is named a non-existent dharma."—what the sayings dispute is where the boundary between existent and non-existent lies; where they agree is that at the end they return alike to being without any existent nature. He gathers up very quickly, because what this treatise wants is not the boundary but that place of common return.

21. The treatise-author cites Subhūti's renewed question: within being without any existent nature, how did the Buddha rightly know and obtain awakening, and obtain sovereignty within dharmas? 「復問：「世尊！若一切法無所有性，佛云何於無所有性中正知得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，於諸法中得自在？」」 tr. "He asks again: ‘World-Honored One! If all dharmas are without any existent nature, how is it that the Buddha, within what is without any existent nature, rightly knew and obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and obtained sovereignty within dharmas?’" The treatise-author cites the sūtra's third question. The sūtra reads 「知一切法無所有性故得成佛」 tr. "because he knows that all dharmas are without any existent nature, came to become a Buddha"; the treatise-author cites it as 「於無所有性中正知得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "within what is without any existent nature rightly knew and obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—marking ‘knowing’ as ‘rightly knowing’; the weight lies on the knowing being without error, and 「以無所有智合行一切法」 tr. "joining with the knowledge of there being nothing existent, practises all dharmas" below comes on from this.

22. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's approval: the bodhisattva, joining with the knowledge of there being nothing existent, practises all dharmas and can cut off all clinging, and so obtains awakening; here the Buddha cites himself as witness. 「佛可其言。」 tr. "The Buddha approved his words." And then the reason is given: 「菩薩以無所有智合行一切法，能斷一切著故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Because the bodhisattva, joining with the knowledge of there being nothing existent, practises all dharmas and can cut off all clinging, he obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." The joint is in the two Chinese characters 「合行」 tr. "joining … practises"—the knowledge of there being nothing existent is not a separate knowledge apart from all dharmas; it joins with all dharmas and practises them; precisely because it joins and practises, it can, right where it practises, cut off the clinging there. The last sentence points out the form of what follows: 「此中佛自引為證」 tr. "here the Buddha himself cites himself as witness", and what is cited is 「我本為菩薩時，行六波羅蜜；離欲、離惡不善法，有覺有觀，離生喜樂入初禪。」 tr. "When I was formerly a bodhisattva, I practised the six perfections; I parted from desire and parted from evil and unwholesome dharmas, and with initial and sustained thought, with the joy and pleasure born of separation, I entered the first dhyāna."

23. The treatise-author explains the names of the first dhyāna: parting from desire is parting from the five desires, parting from evil and unwholesome dharmas is parting from the five hindrances; initial and sustained thought, the joy and pleasure born of separation; the two kinds of pleasure of the form realm, and the difference between the first and the second dhyāna. This is the treatise's first word-by-word gloss, and what it glosses are all names the sūtra itself has. 「離欲者，離五欲；離惡、不善法者，離五蓋」 tr. "Parting from desire is parting from the five desires; parting from evil and unwholesome dharmas is parting from the five hindrances"—the two names each have their own referent and do not overlap. Evil and unwholesome are divided further: 「將人入惡道，名為惡；障善法故，名不善。」 tr. "What can bring a person into the evil destinies is named evil; because it obstructs wholesome dharmas, it is named unwholesome." One is spoken of in terms of the fruit, the other in terms of obstruction. On initial and sustained thought he says 「有覺有觀，初禪所攝善覺觀」 tr. "With initial and sustained thought: this is the wholesome initial and sustained thought included in the first dhyāna", marking the word ‘wholesome’ to set it apart. 「離生喜樂者，捨離五欲生喜樂」 tr. "The joy and pleasure born of separation: this is the joy and pleasure that arise from giving up and leaving the five desires"—where joy and pleasure come from is giving up and leaving, not a separate obtaining. Then he opens the pleasure of the form realm into two: 「色界中有二種樂：一者、有喜樂，二者、無喜樂」 tr. "Within the form realm there are two kinds of pleasure: first, pleasure with joy; second, pleasure without joy", and points to the place of each—pleasure with joy is in the first and second dhyānas, pleasure without joy is in the third dhyāna. At the end he closes with a question: the first dhyāna and the second dhyāna both have joy and pleasure; what is the difference? Answer: 「初禪中喜樂，從離欲故生；二禪喜樂，從定生」 tr. "The joy and pleasure within the first dhyāna arise because of parting from desire; the joy and pleasure of the second dhyāna arise from concentration"—the same joy and pleasure, but what they arise from differs; this is the basis of the question and answer in the next passage.

24. The treatise-author sets up a question: the second dhyāna too is obtained by parting from the afflictions of the first dhyāna; why is it not said to be born of separation? 「問曰：亦離初禪煩惱得二禪，何以不說離生？」 tr. "Question: The second dhyāna too is obtained by parting from the afflictions of the first dhyāna; why is it not said to be born of separation?" The question is extremely fine: since the second dhyāna too is obtained by parting from the defilements of the first dhyāna, why is the first dhyāna alone named born of separation, and the second dhyāna not? Were this question not set up, the distinction in the previous passage between 「從離欲故生」 tr. "arise because of parting from desire" and 「從定生」 tr. "arise from concentration" would be only two sentences and could not stand.

25. The treatise-author answers: because the desire realm is scattered and distracted there is no name of concentration, and because one can part from desire it is named born of separation; within the first dhyāna there is concentration, and because the second dhyāna arises from the concentration of the first dhyāna it is named born of concentration. The answer starts from ‘with concentration or without concentration’: 「欲界中散亂故，無定稱；行者能離欲故，名為離生。」 tr. "Because within the desire realm there is scattering and distraction, there is no name of concentration; because the practitioner can part from desire, it is named born of separation." In the desire realm there is simply no concentration to be named, so the step that comes up out of the desire realm can take its name only from ‘parting’. The second dhyāna is different: 「初禪中有定，二禪因初禪定生故，名為定生。」 tr. "Within the first dhyāna there is concentration; because the second dhyāna arises from the concentration of the first dhyāna, it is named born of concentration." Since what it relies on is concentration, it takes its name from where its ‘arising’ comes from. The difference of the two names does not lie in higher or lower function; it lies in the difference of the place relied on.

26. The treatise-author, again: the afflictions of the desire realm are unwholesome and so obstruct the first dhyāna, and because one parts from the great obstruction it is said to be born of separation; the afflictions of the form realm are indeterminate and the harm they do is slight, and because one loses dhyāna through initial and sustained thought, the Buddha says that by extinguishing initial and sustained thought one obtains the second dhyāna. The second answer starts from the nature of the defilements parted from: 「欲界煩惱不善相故障初禪；行者欲離大障故，是故說離生。」 tr. "The afflictions of the desire realm, because they are of the mark of the unwholesome, obstruct the first dhyāna; because the practitioner wishes to part from the great obstruction, therefore it is said to be born of separation." The defilements of the desire realm are unwholesome and obstruct heavily, so the step of parting from them deserves a name of its own. 「色界煩惱名無記，為患微弱」 tr. "The afflictions of the form realm are named indeterminate, and the harm they do is slight"—the defilements of the form realm are indeterminate and do light harm, not enough to set up a separate name of parting; what really hinders the second dhyāna is something else, namely initial and sustained thought: 「以覺、觀因緣故失禪」 tr. "it is because of the causes and conditions of initial and sustained thought that one loses dhyāna". So he cites the Buddha's words in conclusion: 「是故佛說：「滅諸覺、觀，內心清淨故得二禪。」」 tr. "Therefore the Buddha said: ‘Extinguishing initial and sustained thought, the inner mind being pure, one obtains the second dhyāna.’" Why the second dhyāna is named born of concentration and not born of separation is here complete on both sides.

27. The treatise-author passes briefly over the third and fourth dhyānas, saying they are as was said before. 「三禪、四禪，如先說。」 tr. "The third and fourth dhyānas are as was said before." One sentence carries it past. This treatise has already fully explained the marks of the third and fourth dhyānas elsewhere and does not bring them out again here; the reader should know that this is not a missing explanation but a pointing back to the earlier text. It is recorded as abbreviated, and nothing is supplied on its behalf.

28. The treatise-author explains not grasping at the marks of dhyāna: when first training, one grasps at marks until one obtains, and having obtained, fearing clinging to the flavour, one contemplates impermanence; without receiving the flavour, with an undefiled mind one practises the four dhyānas, unlike those of the outside paths; one cultivates the dhyāna that does not receive retribution. The treatise-author cites the sūtra's 「我於是諸禪支取相得已，不念有是禪」 tr. "In these dhyānas and their limbs I grasped at marks; having obtained them, I did not think that there was this dhyāna", and then lays out the sequence very finely: 「初習禪時，取相，乃至得」 tr. "When one first trains in dhyāna, one grasps at marks, until one obtains it"—grasping at marks is not a fault; at the start of training in dhyāna one precisely must grasp at marks. The turn comes after obtaining: 「得已，恐著味故觀無常」 tr. "having obtained it, because one fears clinging to its flavour, one contemplates impermanence", and so 「不念有是禪，不得是禪定相，亦不受味，無染心行四禪，異於外道。」 tr. "one does not think that there is this dhyāna, does not obtain the mark of this meditative concentration, and also does not receive its flavour; with an undefiled mind one practises the four dhyānas, unlike those of the outside paths." After several negations he presses on a verdict—「異於外道」 tr. "unlike those of the outside paths". Those of the outside paths also obtain the four dhyānas; the difference lies not in having or not having dhyāna, but in whether, after obtaining it, one receives its flavour. The last sentence gives the conclusion: 「於是諸禪，修不受果報禪。」 tr. "In these dhyānas one cultivates the dhyāna that does not receive retribution." Not receiving retribution is not taking up even the retribution of dhyāna.

29. The treatise-author explains that the five supernormal powers do not receive the flavour: abiding by the four dhyānas one gives rise to the five supernormal powers, and, as with the dharma of dhyāna, does not receive their flavour. 「依四禪住，起五神通，亦如禪法，不受其味。」 tr. "Abiding by the four dhyānas, one gives rise to the five supernormal powers, and, just as with the dharma of dhyāna, does not receive their flavour." One sentence infers it by the pattern of the previous passage: since dhyāna does not receive the flavour, the powers that arise from dhyāna also do not receive the flavour. The sūtra presses a string of negations on the dhyānas and on the powers each; the treatise-author here gathers them up with the four Chinese characters 「亦如禪法」 tr. "just as with the dharma of dhyāna" and does not explain them again—the text is spare and the meaning is not lacking.

30. The treatise-author explains the use of the two powers of former lives and the divine eye: knowing the original deeds, causes, and conditions of beings and the places where they will be born in the future, and having known the beginning and the end, the mind gives rise to great compassion. The treatise-author picks out two of the five supernormal powers alone to explain, because they bear directly on the obtaining of the path that follows. 「宿命通故，知一切眾生本業因緣，來生是間」 tr. "Because of the supernormal power of former lives, he knows the original causes and conditions of the deeds of all beings, by which they have come to be born here"—this is knowing their beginning; 「天眼通力故，見眾生未來世所生之處」 tr. "Because of the power of the supernormal power of the divine eye, he sees the places where beings will be born in the world to come"—this is knowing their end. When the two combine, 「隨其業行，知一切眾生本、末已，心生大悲」 tr. "following their deeds, having known the beginning and the end of all beings, his mind gives rise to great compassion". What is to be looked at is that word ‘having’—compassion is not aroused out of nothing; it arises of itself once the coming and going of beings has been known to the end; and the matter of the compassion, too, the treatise-author gives word for word: 「云何斷眾生生死相續苦？」 tr. "How can the suffering of the continuity of beings' birth and death be cut off?"

31. The treatise-author explains turning in dedication to the power of the exhaustion of outflows and obtaining awakening: with the wisdom associated with a single thought he knows the four truths, and because he penetrates the four truths he obtains the ten powers and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; he distinguishes the three groups and, abiding in three supernormal powers, delivers beings. Once great compassion has arisen, 「爾時，心迴向入漏盡通」 tr. "at that time his mind turned in dedication and entered the supernormal power of the exhaustion of outflows"—the two Chinese characters ‘turned in dedication’ join the five supernormal powers before with the obtaining of the path after; the five supernormal powers are not an end point but a resource for dedication. 「即時以一念相應慧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "and at once, with the wisdom associated with a single thought, he obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; what is known, the treatise-author explains as the four truths in four phrases: 「所謂是苦相，苦因是愛，愛斷苦盡，為到苦盡是道」 tr. "that is: this is the mark of suffering; the cause of suffering is craving; when craving is cut off, suffering is exhausted; what leads to the exhaustion of suffering is the path"—the sūtra only lists the names of the four truths; the treatise-author here explains them in words of cause and effect giving rise to one another, so the meaning of the four truths need not be sought outside. What is accomplished is 「通達四諦故，得十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法」 tr. "because he penetrated the four truths, he obtained the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, and the eighteen unshared dharmas". Last he speaks of the matter of delivering beings: 「分別眾生作三聚；住三神通，度是眾生，所謂天耳、知他心、身通；為眾生說法，令度生死。」 tr. "He distinguished beings into the three groups; abiding in three supernormal powers, he delivers these beings, namely the divine ear, knowing the minds of others, and the bodily power; he expounds the Dharma for beings, causing them to be delivered from birth and death." Taking these three of the five supernormal powers as the means of delivering beings is likewise the treatise-author's own.

32. The treatise-author cites Subhūti's renewed question: if dharmas are without anything existent, how are the four dhyānas and the six supernormal powers given rise to, and the three groups distinguished? 「須菩提復問：「若諸法無所有，云何佛為菩薩時起四禪、六神通？若無眾生，云何分別眾生作三聚？」」 tr. "Subhūti asks again: ‘If dharmas are without anything existent, how is it that the Buddha, when he was a bodhisattva, gave rise to the four dhyānas and the six supernormal powers? If there are no beings, how did he distinguish beings into the three groups?’" The treatise-author cites the sūtra's fourth question. The sūtra originally reads 「於諸法無所有性中」 tr. "within dharmas without any existent nature"; the treatise-author cites it as 「若諸法無所有」 tr. "if dharmas are without anything existent", dropping the one word ‘nature’ without changing what is doubted—the doubt lies between there being nothing existent and being able to give rise.

33. The treatise-author cites the Buddha's answer, stated from the reverse side. 「佛答：「諸欲、諸惡若當有性——若自性、若他性，我本為菩薩時，不能觀諸欲、惡不善法無所有性入初禪。」」 tr. "The Buddha answers: ‘If the desires and the evils were to have their nature—whether self-nature or other-nature—then when I was formerly a bodhisattva, I could not have contemplated the desires and evil and unwholesome dharmas as without any existent nature and entered the first dhyāna.’" The treatise-author first cites the reverse sentence, and does not cite the front sentence first. Stating from the reverse side is the form of speaking of this passage: first say ‘if there were a fixed nature, one could not’, and the front side, ‘now there is no fixed nature, therefore one can’, appears of itself.

34. The treatise-author explains self-nature and other-nature: self-nature means the impure nature of one's own body, other-nature means clothing and the other implements that adorn the body; within the inner and outer five desires there is no reality of permanence, pleasure, self, or purity, therefore one can contemplate emptiness and enter the first dhyāna. This is the most concrete gloss of this unit. The treatise-author first unfolds the Buddha's meaning: 「佛意：若諸欲、不善法有定性實法若多、若少自相者，若自身中若有淨、常等性。」 tr. "The Buddha's meaning: if the desires and unwholesome dharmas were real dharmas with a fixed nature, whether many or few, having marks of their own, if within one's own body there were natures of purity, permanence, and the like." And then he sets out the names: 「性有二種：若自性、若他性。」 tr. "Nature is of two kinds: whether self-nature or other-nature." The meaning of the two names the treatise-author gives himself, one by one—「自性名自身不淨性，他性名衣服等莊嚴身具。」 tr. "Self-nature means the impure nature of one's own body; other-nature means clothing and the other implements that adorn the body." Self-nature is spoken of the body itself, other-nature of the implements of adornment outside the body; the reason the two are raised together is that what is craved in the five desires does not go beyond these two places, inner and outer. At once he judges them: 「此皆無常、虛誑、苦惱因緣。」 tr. "These are all causes and conditions of impermanence, of what is false and deceptive, and of suffering and vexation." The conclusion lands on 「內外五欲中，無有常、樂、我、淨實」 tr. "within the inner and outer five desires there is no reality of permanence, pleasure, self, or purity"—inside and outside alike there is no reality of the four, so one can contemplate and enter dhyāna. At the end he gathers it up from both the reverse and the front side: 「若有者，我本行菩薩道時，不能觀五欲空無所有性入初禪」 tr. "if there were, then when I formerly practised the bodhisattva path, I could not have contemplated the five desires as empty and without any existent nature and entered the first dhyāna"; 「今欲、惡不善法無有實性——若自性、若他性，是故我為菩薩時，離五欲、惡不善法，入初禪，乃至入第四禪。」 tr. "Now desire and evil and unwholesome dharmas have no real nature—whether self-nature or other-nature—and therefore when I was a bodhisattva I parted from the five desires and evil and unwholesome dharmas, entered the first dhyāna, and so on up to entering the fourth dhyāna." The passage on the supernormal powers follows the same pattern, and so the treatise-author carries it past with only one sentence.

35. The treatise-author cites Subhūti's further question: dharmas being definitely without any existent nature and empty, how did the Buddha obtain the power of sovereignty within dharmas? 「須菩提問：「若諸法定無所有性空，佛云何於諸法中得自在力？」」 tr. "Subhūti asks: ‘If dharmas are definitely without any existent nature and empty, how is it that the Buddha obtained the power of sovereignty within dharmas?’" This question changes the earlier question's ‘giving rise to dhyānas and powers’ into asking about ‘obtaining the power of sovereignty’. What is doubted does not change, but the place of asking is tighter: giving rise is a matter of one time, sovereignty is a use at all times; giving rise to something within emptiness can still be said to be momentary, but to have, within emptiness, the use of sovereignty at all times is harder still to settle.

36. The treatise-author cites the Buddha's answer: because of the four dhyānas he obtained liberation from the afflictions; because of the six supernormal powers he obtained sovereignty within dharmas and delivers beings. 「佛答：「我以四禪故，於諸煩惱得解脫；六神通故，於諸法得自在度眾生。」」 tr. "The Buddha answers: ‘Because of the four dhyānas, I obtained liberation from the afflictions; because of the six supernormal powers, I obtained sovereignty within dharmas and deliver beings.’" One answer splits into two roads: what the four dhyānas face is the afflictions; what the six supernormal powers face is dharmas and beings. The power of sovereignty is not one vague general name; it has its own use according to what it faces; the fineness of this answer is precisely to break the vagueness of the earlier question.

37. The treatise-author brings out Subhūti's meaning: the four dhyānas and the six supernormal powers are existent; how is the power of sovereignty obtained within emptiness? 「須菩提意：以四禪、六神通是有，云何於空得自在力？」 tr. "Subhūti's meaning is this: taking the four dhyānas and the six supernormal powers as existent, how is the power of sovereignty obtained within emptiness?" Here the treatise-author does not cite the sūtra text but brings out the meaning directly—the sūtra at this point no longer has this question; it is the treatise-author who points out, on Subhūti's behalf, where his doubt lies. The root of the doubt is in one word, ‘existent’: since the four dhyānas and six powers are taken as existent, then to rely on the existent and speak of sovereignty within emptiness contradicts and obstructs itself. Were this meaning not pointed out, the Buddha's words shown in the next passage would have nothing to face.

38. The treatise-author explains what the Buddha shows: because he contemplated the five desires and the rest as empty, false and deceptive, and without a fixed mark, he did not cling to these dhyānas and gave rise to the supernormal powers; because the dhyānas have marks and have measure they can be given up; cause and fruit are both without anything existent, so there should not be an objection. The last passage gathers the whole unit into one place. First he resolves that ‘existent’: 「我觀五欲等空、虛誑、無定相故，不著此禪，而起諸神通。」 tr. "Because I contemplated the five desires and the rest as empty, false and deceptive, and without a fixed mark, I did not cling to these dhyānas, and gave rise to the supernormal powers." Dhyāna was indeed given rise to, but not clung to—so it does not amount to ‘existent’. Next he judges that dhyāna can be given up: 「諸禪有相、有量故可捨，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Because the dhyānas have marks and have measure, they can be given up, and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is obtained." Whatever has marks and has measure can all be given up; given up, and then awakening can be obtained. Then he speaks of the unity of cause and fruit: 「初離欲時，以無所有性為因，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提果亦無所有。」 tr. "When one first parts from desire, one takes there being no existent nature as the cause, and the fruit obtained, anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, is also without anything existent." Since the cause is without anything existent, the fruit too is without anything existent; cause and fruit are one and the same absence of anything existent, and there is no break between them. At the end he cuts off the objection with one sentence: 「若禪定空，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不空，可有是難；今皆空故，不應有難！」 tr. "If meditative concentration were empty while anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi were not empty, there could be such an objection; now, because both are empty, there should not be this objection!"—for the objection to stand, one must first suppose one side empty and one side not empty; now both ends are empty, and the objection has nowhere to stand. Here the questions of the unit all come to rest.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「無有法相、非法相」 tr. "no mark of dharmas and no mark of what is not a dharma" as there being nothing at all. What the sūtra says is that marks are not set up, and the signless is not set up either; if it is read as ‘acknowledging only non-existence’, that falls exactly into the one side the treatise-author sets aside—「見有、無二俱有過故，則是菩薩順忍」 tr. "because seeing existence and seeing non-existence both have faults; this is the bodhisattva's compliant acceptance". Both sides have faults, so on both sides nothing is given rise to; where nothing is given rise to is compliant acceptance, not a separate mark of emptiness to be guarded.

Do not read 「有法是菩薩道，無法是菩薩果」 tr. "an existent dharma is the bodhisattva's path; a non-existent dharma is the bodhisattva's fruit" as two halves: first cultivating the conditioned, afterwards obtaining the unconditioned. Here the treatise-author gives three sayings and judges none to be the one—the conditioned eightfold noble path and the unconditioned fruit; the five perfections and prajñā; prajñā as the mark of wisdom, and suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality—and the boundaries the three sayings draw each differ; to fix on one of them as the exact explanation would instead lose the treatise-author's intent, 「異門故義得差別」 tr. "because the gates of approach differ, the meaning comes to have differences". What the three sayings share is only the final sentence: 「當知一切法皆是無所有性，名為無法。」 tr. "One should know that all dharmas are without any existent nature; this is named a non-existent dharma."

Do not read the Buddha's citing of his own four dhyānas and five supernormal powers as the Buddha speaking of his own merit. The weight of the whole passage lies not in the matters obtained but in that string of ‘not’s—「不念有是禪，不受禪味，不得是禪」 tr. "did not think that there was this dhyāna, did not receive the flavour of dhyāna, did not obtain this dhyāna", and the five supernormal powers likewise. Not one matter fewer, and not one matter taken up—this is what makes it witness; if it is read as an account of merit, this passage has nothing to do with the questions and answers before and after it.

Do not read 「不受果報」 tr. "not receiving the retribution" as meaning that cultivating dhyāna has no fruit. What is not received is the retribution of dhyāna; it does not mean the practice is without effect. Here the treatise-author marks out a verdict: 「異於外道。」 tr. "Unlike those of the outside paths." Those of the outside paths can also obtain the four dhyānas; where they differ is precisely whether, after obtaining, one receives the flavour; receiving the flavour, one falls into retribution; not receiving the flavour, dhyāna becomes a resource of the path. If it is read as ‘cultivating dhyāna is of no use’, then the whole road below—giving rise to the five supernormal powers by the four dhyānas, turning in dedication to the exhaustion of outflows, and obtaining awakening—has no footing.

Do not read the absence of anything existent in self-nature and other-nature as a denial of the matter of meditative concentration. The Buddha's statement is put in reverse: 「若諸欲、惡不善法當有性——若自性、若他性，我本為菩薩行時，不能觀諸欲、惡不善法無所有性入初禪」 tr. "If the desires and evil and unwholesome dharmas were to have their nature—whether self-nature or other-nature—then when I formerly practised as a bodhisattva, I could not have contemplated the desires and evil and unwholesome dharmas as without any existent nature and entered the first dhyāna"—with a fixed nature one could, on the contrary, not enter. Being without any existent nature does not cancel practice; it is that by which practice is possible; if one cannot turn this sentence round, the whole chapter will be read as emptiness and practice contending with each other.

Do not read Subhūti's asking again as repeating because he does not understand. The treatise-author has already explained it for him: 「所問義雖一，所因處異」 tr. "though the meaning asked is one, the place it rests on differs", giving as examples three gates of questioning—the five destinies, the three vehicles, and the eight grounds; and he ties its season to 「以般若垂訖，恐人多疑多惑故」 tr. "because prajñā was about to be spoken to the end, fearing that people would have much doubt and much confusion". So asking again is asking for those who come after, not because he himself is unclear.

Do not read 「一念相應慧」 tr. "the wisdom associated with a single thought" as a lucky stroke of one instant. The treatise-author places it at the end of a long line—the four dhyānas, the five supernormal powers, knowing the beginning and the end of beings, the mind giving rise to great compassion, turning in dedication to enter the power of the exhaustion of outflows, and only then 「即時以一念相應慧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "at once, with the wisdom associated with a single thought, he obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". That a single thought can be associated is because the sequence before it is complete; to speak of a single thought apart from sequence is exactly what this chapter sets out to remedy.

Do not take the ten grounds and the three groups listed in the sūtra as already explained in their marks by the treatise here. The names of the ten grounds and the names of the three groups are both listed by the sūtra itself, and the treatise text of this passage gives no gloss on these two lists here; raising their names as they are, without a gloss given on the treatise's behalf, is to keep within the limit of the treatise's text, not to abridge and leave them untaught. What is lacking must wait for the treatise's text elsewhere, and is not supplied here by conjecture.

Bearing on Practice

Use 「不受味」 tr. "not receiving the flavour" to check one's own states of concentration. When one's effort has gained a little strength, a feeling of enjoyment arises naturally in the mind, and that is precisely the beginning of clinging to the flavour. The sequence the treatise-author gives is very clear: 「初習禪時，取相，乃至得」 tr. "when one first trains in dhyāna, one grasps at marks, until one obtains it"—grasping at marks is not the sickness; 「得已，恐著味故觀無常」 tr. "having obtained it, because one fears clinging to its flavour, one contemplates impermanence"—not contemplating impermanence after obtaining is the sickness. So each time one feels ‘this sitting went well’ is exactly the time to take up impermanence, not the time to savour it.

Use 「所因處異」 tr. "the place it rests on differs" to allow oneself to ask again. When one has heard the same principle many times and still has not penetrated it, it is mostly not that one's memory is poor, but that the gate of asking differs—one has asked from the side of the fruit but not yet from the side of matters; one understands in principle, yet facing circumstances one still does not understand. Since the treatise-author allows Subhūti 「種種因緣重問」 tr. "to ask again and again by various causes and conditions", the learner need not refuse himself another asking because ‘I have already learned this’. What one should really guard against is asking without waiting for the answer, not asking again and again.

Use the division of self-nature and other-nature to remedy craving for the five desires. The treatise-author divides the objects of craving very concretely: 「自性名自身不淨性，他性名衣服等莊嚴身具。」 tr. "Self-nature means the impure nature of one's own body; other-nature means clothing and the other implements that adorn the body." One is the body itself; the other is the adornment outside the body. When facing circumstances, one can put a question at each of these two places: is what I crave this body, or the things added onto the body? Only when each of the two places has been looked at does the sentence 「內外五欲中，無有常、樂、我、淨實」 tr. "within the inner and outer five desires there is no reality of permanence, pleasure, self, or purity" cease to be empty words.

Use the division of 「離生」 tr. "born of separation" and 「定生」 tr. "born of concentration" to settle the sequence of one's effort. In the step that comes up out of scattering, what one relies on lies only in ‘parting’—the treatise-author says it plainly: 「欲界中散亂故，無定稱；……」 tr. "Because within the desire realm there is scattering and distraction, there is no name of concentration; ……" So when first applying effort one need not seek the mark of concentration; first seek parting; if one can part, concentration comes of itself. Once there is a measure of concentration, seeking further progress does not apply force at parting but arises from the concentration relied on—「二禪因初禪定生故，名為定生」 tr. "because the second dhyāna arises from the concentration of the first dhyāna, it is named born of concentration". Where force is applied turns with the stage; mistake the stage, and the force is spent in vain.

Take great compassion as the place to which what is obtained is dedicated. In narrating the Buddha's obtaining of the path, the treatise-author inserts in the middle an extremely important turn: having known the beginning and the end of beings, 「心生大悲：「云何斷眾生生死相續苦？」」 tr. "his mind gives rise to great compassion: ‘How can the suffering of the continuity of beings' birth and death be cut off?’", and only then 「心迴向入漏盡通」 tr. "his mind turned in dedication and entered the supernormal power of the exhaustion of outflows". Whatever is seen, whatever is obtained, if it stops only at ‘I know it now’, the road is cut off there; turn what is seen into compassion for beings, and what is obtained has somewhere to go.

Use 「諸禪有相、有量故可捨」 tr. "because the dhyānas have marks and have measure, they can be given up" to loosen one's grip on states. The criterion for what can be given up the treatise-author states very sparely: having marks, having measure. Whatever can be described, whatever can be weighed as deep or shallow, is among what can be given up. For one who applies effort, the hardest thing is often not obtaining but whether, having obtained, one is willing to let go; this sentence can be taken up at any time as a check: this thing I am now holding—has it marks, has it measure?

Use 「今皆空故，不應有難」 tr. "now, because both are empty, there should not be this objection" to still the objections one sets up for oneself. Many knots in practice, looked at closely, are one end empty and one end not empty—the world is empty but my practice is not; the afflictions are empty but my fruit and position are not. The treatise-author points out the condition under which such an objection stands: 「若禪定空，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不空，可有是難；……」 tr. "If meditative concentration were empty while anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi were not empty, there could be such an objection; ……" The condition not met, the objection does not stand of itself. When the mind ties itself in a knot, first ask oneself whether one has secretly kept one end not empty.

Further Resonances

The First Part, as one unit—one sūtra section, one treatise section—sets up the pivot of this chapter. The sūtra asks from the point that with the mark of dharmas one, on the contrary, does not obtain compliant acceptance, passing through the ten grounds, cultivating the path, and cutting off the defilements, up to the omniscience of all kinds; the Buddha answers with 「若無有法者，則有順忍乃至斷一切煩惱習」 tr. "if there is no dharma, then there is compliant acceptance and so on up to the severance of all the afflictions and their habitual residues", continues with 「無有法相、非法相，即是菩薩順忍」 tr. "there is no mark of dharmas and no mark of what is not a dharma; this is the bodhisattva's compliant acceptance" to settle where compliant acceptance lies, and with 「有法是菩薩道，無法是菩薩果」 tr. "an existent dharma is the bodhisattva's path; a non-existent dharma is the bodhisattva's fruit" to settle the names of path and fruit, and at the end gives as witness his own entering of dhyāna, giving rise to the powers, and obtaining the path. The treatise-author explains sentence by sentence: with 「所問義雖一，所因處異」 tr. "though the meaning asked is one, the place it rests on differs" he explains the reason for asking again; with the compliant acceptance of the Small Vehicle and the bodhisattva's compliant acceptance he divides the two questions, earlier and later; with three sayings—the conditioned and the unconditioned, the five perfections and prajñā, prajñā and suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality—he explains existent and non-existent dharmas, all returning alike to being without any existent nature; with the division of born of separation and born of concentration he explains the names of the four dhyānas; with 「異於外道」 tr. "unlike those of the outside paths" he judges whether or not the flavour is received; with the absence of anything existent in self-nature and other-nature he gives that by which one parts from desire and enters dhyāna; and at the end, with 「今皆空故，不應有難」 tr. "now, because both are empty, there should not be this objection", he cuts off Subhūti's objection. The weight of the whole section can be gathered into one sentence: being without any existent nature does not break sequence; it is exactly that by which sequence is accomplished.

On the chapter title the editions are not uniform, yet the three sources return alike to one name. The base text's treatise title is "Training in Sequence", the seventy-fifth; the Palace edition gives this title of nine Chinese characters instead as the ten Chinese characters 「釋第七十五品上三次品」 tr. "Explanation of the Seventy-fifth Chapter, Upper: The Three Sequences", plainly marking that this chapter is also called "The Three Sequences"; the main title of the sūtra explained is itself "The Three Sequences", the seventy-fifth, and below the chapter title there is an interlinear note 「丹本次第行品」 tr. "the Khitan edition: ‘Sequential Practice’ chapter"; the Ming edition notes below the treatise title 「之上經作三次第行品」 tr. "for the First Part, the sūtra reads ‘The Three Sequential Practices’ chapter"; the Song and Yuan editions add below the title the one Chinese character 「上」 tr. "Upper" to distinguish the First Part from the Last Part; the Shōgozō and Ishiyama manuscripts lack the title at this place. Jizang's commentary text also titles it "The Three Sequences", the seventy-fifth. The three sources are seen together, and each name has its own basis; here they are recorded side by side without judgement.

Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra gives a structural division right at the opening of this chapter, and ties this chapter to the sequence of entering the position: 「此下第四、明菩薩次第漸增得入菩薩位，為三：……」 tr. "From here down is the fourth: making clear that the bodhisattva, increasing gradually in sequence, obtains entry into the bodhisattva's position; it is in three: ……" On the sentence 「有法是菩薩道，無法是菩薩果」 tr. "an existent dharma is the bodhisattva's path; a non-existent dharma is the bodhisattva's fruit", Jizang first gives his own explanation—「因中行有法，故有法為道；果地行無法，無法是果也」 tr. "In the cause one practises an existent dharma, therefore an existent dharma is the path; at the ground of the fruit one practises a non-existent dharma; a non-existent dharma is the fruit"—and at once states clearly that this treatise's explanation differs from it: 「論之不爾，三釋」 tr. "The treatise is not so: three explanations", and records them one by one: 「一云、八聖道是法，行八聖道斷煩惱得無為，得無為是果也。二、解云，五度為是法，道般若無法為果。三、解云，如法性無為法是果」 tr. "The first says: the eightfold noble path is a dharma; practising the eightfold noble path one cuts off the afflictions and obtains the unconditioned; obtaining the unconditioned is the fruit. The second explanation says: the five perfections are taken as the dharma, the path; prajñā, a non-existent dharma, is taken as the fruit. The third explanation says: suchness and the nature of dharmas, unconditioned dharmas, are the fruit". The three explanations Jizang records correspond to the three sayings the treatise-author gives in this unit; the commentary's own explanation and the treatise's explanation are seen together, and recorded without judgement.

Jizang further sets up a question and answer here, taking the meaning of "Gathering and Dispersal" as a difficulty: 「前集散品明實相能生般若，般若是果，實相是因，今何故般若是道，實相為果？」 tr. "The earlier chapter ‘Gathering and Dispersal’ makes clear that the real mark can give rise to prajñā: prajñā is the fruit and the real mark is the cause; why now is prajñā the path and the real mark the fruit?" His answer says: 「般若就境智敬故，實相能生般若，般若是果；今明由般若斷煩惱得悟實相故，實相是果，般若是因也。」 tr. "Because prajñā is taken in terms of object and knowledge, the real mark can give rise to prajñā, and prajñā is the fruit; now it is made clear that through prajñā one cuts off the afflictions and awakens to the real mark, therefore the real mark is the fruit and prajñā is the cause."—because what is looked to differs, cause and fruit take each other's place, and so earlier and later do not contradict. The treatise-author does not set up this difficulty here; the two sources are fuller and briefer each in its turn.

In the passage on the four dhyānas, Jizang's and the treatise-author's explanations largely agree, each fuller or briefer in places. Explaining parting from evil, Jizang says 「離惡者，離五蓋」 tr. "Parting from evil is parting from the five hindrances", the same as the treatise-author; explaining the difference between the first and the second dhyāna, Jizang says 「初禪喜樂從離五欲生，二禪喜樂從宣生」 tr. "The joy and pleasure of the first dhyāna arise from parting from the five desires; the joy and pleasure of the second dhyāna arise from xuan", and on the question of born of separation and born of concentration he answers 「亦得如此，但初禪無說離生，二禪說定生也」 tr. "It may also be so; only, for the first dhyāna there is no speaking of born of separation, and for the second dhyāna born of concentration is spoken of"—allowing that it may also be so, yet speaking only from the custom by which the names are set up; compared with the treatise-author's explanation by the desire realm being scattered and without a name of concentration and the afflictions of the form realm being indeterminate and doing slight harm, the fullness differs. Explaining grasping at marks, Jizang says 「此是脩初禪時取禪枝相皃而脩也」 tr. "This is cultivating by grasping at the marks and appearance of the limbs of dhyāna when cultivating the first dhyāna"; explaining not grasping, he says 「不念有禪者，得禪念恐著禪味故現無光，不念有禪異外道也，從禪五通也」 tr. "‘Not thinking that there is dhyāna’: having obtained dhyāna, the thought fears clinging to the flavour of dhyāna, and so manifests no light; not thinking that there is dhyāna differs from those of the outside paths; from dhyāna come the five supernormal powers"—the verdict 「異外道」 tr. "differs from those of the outside paths" agrees with the treatise-author's sentence 「異於外道」 tr. "unlike those of the outside paths". Explaining the sequence of obtaining the path, Jizang says 「一念相應慧者，此是從禪發五通竟，迴心入偏盡通，以一念相應菩提見四諦故得十力等，其文次第也」 tr. "‘The wisdom associated with a single thought’: this is, having finished bringing forth the five supernormal powers from dhyāna, turning the mind to enter the power of partial exhaustion, and, because with the awakening associated with a single thought one sees the four truths, obtaining the ten powers and the rest; such is the sequence of the text", the same sequence as the treatise-author gives in 「爾時，心迴向入漏盡通」 tr. "at that time his mind turned in dedication and entered the supernormal power of the exhaustion of outflows"; his text reads 「偏盡」 tr. "partial exhaustion", a difference of transcription in the commentary text, recorded as it is without change.

Huiying's Commentary, in its extant text, stops at fascicle twenty-four; what it comments on does not reach this chapter, and for this chapter it has no explanation—not that his view differs. Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises, searched through the whole book, has no word-for-word citation of either the name or the meaning of this chapter; it is recorded as not found, and nothing is sought on its behalf.

As for how bodhisattvas new to the training, within being without any existent nature, practise in sequence, train in sequence, and follow the path in sequence, the four kinds of practice in the six perfections and the six recollections item by item, and on to the difficulty 「若一切法無所有性者，是則無道、無智、無果」 tr. "if all dharmas are without any existent nature, then there is no path, no knowledge, no fruit"—the Last Part of this chapter unfolds them following on from this; they are not anticipated here.