大智度論 四攝品之下Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Four Means of Gathering, Part 3 of 3

The Four Means of Gathering, Last Part: The Listing of the Eighty Minor Marks and the Separate Explanation of Two Items among Them; the Close of the Four Means of Gathering and the Opening of the Forty-two Gates of Letters; How, within Ultimate Unfindability, the Dharma Can Still Be Taught; How Teaching the Dharma While Seeing Emptiness Does Not Lose the Mark of Emptiness; the Simile of the Conjured Person without Mind; Neither Bound nor Liberated, and Abiding by Not Abiding; Since Form Does Not Differ from the Nature of Dharmas, How Retribution Is Still Distinguished; the Weight of the Sentence That Ordinary People Do Not Know the Two Truths; the Four Alternatives on Whether Cultivating the Path Obtains the Fruit, All Denied; Since All the Fruits Are Unconditioned, on What the Teaching of Obtaining the Fruit by Cutting Off the Fetters Rests; the Treatise-Author Explains Consciousness Full and Secure in His Dwelling-Place; the Mutual Entering of One Letter and the Forty-two Letters; the Form of Named Question and Answer; the Three Ways of Losing, in Not Losing Emptiness; Space Does Not Abide in Space and Fire Does Not Abide in Fire; Why Only Two Emptinesses Are Spoken of as Named the Dharma; an Objection Made on the Highest Meaning, and a Refutation Only at Not Knowing; Seeking the Fruit with a Clinging Mind Is Like Taking Oil from Sesame; Even Cultivating, It Is Not Obtained, How Much Less without Cultivating; the Close Returns to Thoroughly Penetrating the Nature of Dharmas

What Is Being Asked

The First Part unit has sūtra without treatise; the Middle Part unit has treatise without sūtra. The Last Part unit has both complete—its first half is the later portion of this chapter's sūtra text, its second half is the treatise-author's commentary on that later portion. Sūtra and treatise adjoin each other within the same fascicle, and in reading one can set what comes before and what comes after side by side: the openings the sūtra leaves, the treatise-author takes up and settles at once within the same fascicle.

This passage of the sūtra sets out from the listing of the eighty minor marks. The listing itself has one strange point: of the eighty items, by far the most are bodily marks—nose, eyebrows, ears, bones, nails, knees, fingers, veins, ankles, hair, body hairs, teeth, tongue, navel, belly; yet in the middle there is inserted a ‘consciousness full’, and inserted again a ‘secure in his dwelling-place, and nothing can shake him’, and these two are not features of appearance; and in the later section there appears a whole string—‘he looks upon beings equally’, ‘he does not belittle beings’, ‘he teaches the Dharma without error’, ‘he teaches the Dharma for beings following their languages’, ‘he teaches the Dharma in sequence and with causes and conditions’, ‘those who look upon him are never sated’—and these are already wholly not matters of the body, but matters of the Buddha's meeting with beings. Here the sūtra lists without explaining, the eighty items one sentence to an item, and reading on it is like a list. In the later section the treatise-author picks out only two items to explain—precisely the two inserted among the bodily marks that look least like bodily marks: ‘consciousness full’ and ‘secure in his dwelling-place’. This picking out is itself an indication of how to read: what truly needs accounting for in the list is those few places that look out of kind.

When the eighty items have been listed, the sūtra uses one sentence to gather up the gift of wealth and the gift of Dharma spoken of in the two preceding units, and then with three extremely short sentences finishes kind speech, beneficial action, and shared endeavour. The four means of gathering were given their general heading in the First Part unit, and the single gate of giving was spoken of broadly from there all the way to here; for the remaining three things, the sūtra gives only one sentence each. In the Middle Part unit the treatise-author has already answered the reason for the breadth and the brevity—within giving are contained the two things of wealth and Dharma, and the first is raised as the pattern for what follows. So the shortness of the three sentences here is not an omission; it is the method of brevity already accounted for earlier, carried out here.

When the three means of gathering are finished, the sūtra suddenly turns to the forty-two gates of letters: beings are taught to train well in one letter, and so on up to forty-two letters; one letter enters the forty-two letters, and the forty-two letters enter one letter; having trained well in the dharma of letters one can then speak well of the dharma of letters, and having spoken well of the dharma of letters one can then speak well of the dharma without letters. At first sight this turn is abrupt—the four means of gathering were just speaking of shared endeavour; how does it pass to knowing letters? Yet Subhūti's question that follows forces out the purpose of this turn: since beings are unfindable, dharmas are unfindable, and the nature of dharmas is unfindable, by what does the bodhisattva still abide in the five supernormal powers obtained as retribution and teach the Dharma for beings? Letters are names, and names are what teaching the Dharma relies on; passing from the four means of gathering to the gates of letters is exactly coming down from ‘gathering’ to ‘speaking’; and from the one question about ‘speaking’ it comes down to the difficulty that ‘what is spoken is ultimately unfindable’. From here on, the doctrinal centre of gravity of this unit lies wholly on this one difficulty.

The Buddha answers this difficulty not by resolving it but by deepening it. Subhūti says that beings are unfindable, and the Buddha, following that sentence, counts down through the eighteen emptinesses all the way—the five aggregates are empty, the twelve sense-fields are empty, the eighteen elements are empty, the twelve links of causes and conditions are empty, the four truths are empty, the self and its sixteen kinds of different names are all empty, the four dhyānas are empty, the limbs of the path are empty, the ten powers are empty, the four fearlessnesses are empty, and so on up to the four fruits of the śramaṇa being empty, the path of the pratyekabuddha being empty, the bodhisattva ground being empty, and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi being empty. In the answer not one reason for ‘how one can speak’ is given; he only pushes ‘emptiness’ through more thoroughly. Only then does he say: the bodhisattva, thus seeing all dharmas as empty, teaches the Dharma for beings and does not lose the marks of the emptinesses. The reason comes after, and the simile comes after that—a person conjured by the Buddha further conjures immeasurable people and teaches them giving and keeping morality: does this conjured person discriminate and destroy dharmas? Subhūti answers himself: no; the conjured person is without mind and without mental-factor dharmas. What the simile illustrates lies not in the dharma that is spoken but in the mind of the one who speaks: what is spoken is still giving and keeping morality, not one sentence less; that discriminating and destroying do not come about is because on the speaker's side there is no mind that can discriminate.

Below this, the sūtra pushes all the way to the two truths. Do form and the nature of dharmas, suchness, and the limit of reality differ? They do not differ. Since they do not differ, why are black dharmas with black retribution and white dharmas with white retribution still distinguished, and so on up to the four fruits of the śramaṇa? By reason of worldly truth retribution is spoken of with distinctions; it is not the highest meaning. Subhūti immediately pushes this sentence back: if so, ordinary people too should have the fruit of the srota-āpanna. The Buddha's way of refuting is extremely simple and falls on only one sentence—ordinary people really do not know worldly truth and do not know the truth of the highest meaning. That distinction stands up for the sages and does not stand up for ordinary people lies not in the matter of distinguishing itself but in knowing and not knowing. This sentence is the pivot of the whole unit's account of the two truths, and in the later section it is precisely on this sentence that the treatise-author spends the most ink.

In Treatise ② there is one point of form that must be explained first. When the treatise-author has explained as far as the forty-two gates of letters, he suddenly changes to using named question and answer such as ‘Subhūti asks’, ‘The Buddha approves Subhūti, saying’, and ‘The Buddha answers’ to set out the meaning, and does not use the ‘Question:’ and ‘Answer:’ customary in this treatise. This section runs from the question ‘if dharmas are ultimately empty and without names’ to the sentence ‘The Buddha's meaning: only this mind is true and real; at other times all is false and deceptive’; the closing words below it the treatise-author speaks himself, no longer named. In reading one must keep this clear: this is the treatise-author taking up and recounting the questions and answers in the sūtra in order to go on setting out their meaning; the words of Subhūti and the words of the Buddha he frames are, sentence by sentence, the treatise-author speaking as he takes up the sūtra, not a separate passage of sūtra text quoted in. Within the same section, the treatise-author's own standard question-and-answer form still appears in two places—‘why, here, are only two emptinesses spoken of as named the Dharma’ and ‘above, the Buddha spoke with distinctions of cultivating the path and obtaining the fruit of the path; why does he now say no’—and the two forms interlace, which shows exactly that the named ones are recountings and the ‘Question:’ ones are the treatise-author asking himself.

At the end of the whole unit the treatise-author closes the whole chapter with one sentence: one who thoroughly penetrates does not grasp at the mark of the nature of dharmas and does not abide within the nature of dharmas. If the one who teaches the Dharma grasps at the mark of the nature of dharmas, he shares the same sickness as the ordinary people who grasp at marks and whom he refutes; if he abides within the nature of dharmas, he loses the meaning of abiding by not abiding. Not grasping, not abiding, and yet still teaching the Dharma, and teaching it without hindrance, without obstruction, without blocking—this is where the chapter on the four means of gathering, setting out from giving and speaking all the way through the gates of letters and the two truths, wishes in the end to arrive.

Passage by Passage

1. The listing of the eighty minor marks—the sūtra lists without explaining, yet what it lists has its own order. The sūtra begins with 「云何為八十隨形好？」 tr. "What are the eighty minor marks?", lists item by item up to the eightieth, and closes with 「須菩提！是八十隨形好，佛身成就。」 tr. "Subhūti! These eighty minor marks are what the Buddha's body accomplishes." The sūtra gives the eighty items one sentence to an item, adding no gloss. On the general meaning of the eighty minor marks this treatise has an explicit text elsewhere, in its explanation of the first chapter's passage ‘wishing to make complete the thirty-two marks and the eighty minor marks’: 「相麁而好細，眾生見佛則見其相，好則難見故。」 tr. "The marks are coarse and the minor marks fine: when beings see the Buddha they see his marks, whereas the minor marks are hard to see." Again it says: 「相者，餘人共得；好者，或共、或不共。」 tr. "The marks are obtained in common by other people; the minor marks are either shared or unshared."—the marks are the adornment of the large places, the minor marks the adornment of the fine places; the marks can be seen at a glance, the minor marks are seen only on looking closely. As for the separate meaning of each of the eighty items, there are only a few matters on which this treatise has an explicit text to rely on: the twenty-first and twenty-third items, on which the treatise-author sets a question and answers it in the later section of this unit (see passage 2 below and passages 18 and 19); the sixty-fifth item, 「邊光各一丈」 tr. "the light at the sides extends one zhang each way", on which this treatise, explaining the mark of the light of one zhang among the thirty-two marks in the first chapter, says: 「四邊皆有一丈光，佛在是光中端嚴第一，如諸天諸王寶光明淨。」 tr. "On all four sides there is a light of one zhang; within this light the Buddha is foremost in upright dignity, as the jewelled light of the gods and kings is bright and pure."—on each of the four sides of the body there is a light of one zhang, and within this light the Buddha is upright and dignified; the ninth item, 「爪如赤銅色，薄而潤澤」 tr. "his nails are like the colour of red copper, thin and glossy", on which this treatise, explaining in the first chapter the mark of the instep being high and full, also says 「指爪如淨赤銅」 tr. "the nails of the toes are like pure red copper", meaning that the colour of the nails is like pure red copper; the fifth item, 「身堅實，如那羅延」 tr. "his body is firm and solid, like Nārāyaṇa", on which this treatise, explaining the first chapter, has the words 「那羅延力菩薩」 tr. "the bodhisattva with the strength of Nārāyaṇa"—Nārāyaṇa is a name given for strength, and this item uses him as a simile for the firmness and solidity of the body. The other items this treatise does not explain here; below, following only the letter of the sūtra text, what each item refers to is told item by item in present-day language, and beyond the letter no meaning is set up on the treatise's behalf. Items one to ten: 「無見頂」 tr. "the crown of his head cannot be seen", no one can see the very top of his crown; 「鼻直高好，孔不現」 tr. "his nose is straight, high, and fine, and the nostrils do not show", the nose is straight and high at its tip, and the nostrils are not exposed; 「眉如初生月，紺琉璃色」 tr. "his eyebrows are like the newly born moon, of the colour of dark-blue beryl", the brows curve like the newly born moon, and their colour is dark blue like beryl; 「耳輪埵成」 tr. "the rims and lobes of his ears are formed", the rims and the lobes of the ears are fully formed; 「身堅實，如那羅延」 tr. "his body is firm and solid, like Nārāyaṇa", already seen above; 「骨際如鉤鎖」 tr. "his bones join like hooks and chains", where the bones meet they are linked like hooks and chains; 「身一時迴如象王」 tr. "his body turns round at one time, like an elephant king", when he turns, the whole body turns round together at one time, like an elephant king; 「行時足去地四寸，而印文現」 tr. "when he walks his feet are four cun off the ground, and yet the print of the patterns appears", when he walks the feet are four cun off the ground, and yet the patterns under the feet still print and appear on the ground; 「爪如赤銅色，薄而潤澤」 tr. "his nails are like the colour of red copper, thin and glossy", already seen above; 「膝骨堅著圓好」 tr. "his kneecaps are firm, close-set, round, and fine", the kneecaps are firm and set close, round and fine. Items eleven to twenty: the three items 「身淨潔」 tr. "his body is pure and clean" 「身柔軟」 tr. "his body is soft" 「身不曲」 tr. "his body is not bent" are as their text says—the body pure, the body soft, the body not bent; 「指長纖圓」 tr. "his fingers are long, slender, and round", the fingers are long, slender, and round and full; 「指文莊嚴」 tr. "the patterns on his fingers are adorned", the lines on the fingers are adorned; 「脈深」 tr. "his veins are deep", the veins are deep and hidden, not exposed; 「踝不現」 tr. "his ankles do not show", the ankles do not protrude; 「身潤澤」 tr. "his body is glossy", the body is glossy; 「身自持，不逶迤」 tr. "his body holds itself upright, not leaning or swaying", the body holds itself upright of itself and does not lean askew; 「身滿足」 tr. "his body is full", the body is complete, without lack. Items twenty-one to thirty: the two items 「識滿足」 tr. "consciousness full" and 「住處安，無能動者」 tr. "secure in his dwelling-place, and nothing can shake him" are seen below; 「容儀備足」 tr. "his appearance and bearing are complete", appearance and bearing are fully present; 「威震一切」 tr. "his majesty shakes all", his majestic virtue shakes all; 「一切樂觀」 tr. "all delight in looking at him", all people delight in looking at him; 「面不大長」 tr. "his face is not too long", the face is not overlong; 「正容貌，不撓色」 tr. "his countenance is upright, and his complexion is not disturbed", the countenance is upright and the expression does not change; 「面具足滿」 tr. "his face is complete and full", the features of the face are complete and round; 「脣赤如頻婆果色」 tr. "his lips are red like the colour of the bimba fruit", the colour of the lips is red like the bimba fruit—bimba is the name of a fruit, and its shape and colour this treatise does not explain here; 「音響深」 tr. "his voice is deep", the voice is deep and far-reaching. Items thirty-one to forty: 「臍深圓好」 tr. "his navel is deep, round, and fine", the navel is deep, round, and fine; 「毛右旋」 tr. "his body hairs curl to the right", the body hairs turn to the right; 「手足滿」 tr. "his hands and feet are full", the hands and feet are full and fine; 「手足如意」 tr. "his hands and feet are as he wishes", the hands and feet move as he wishes; the three items 「手文明直」 tr. "the lines on his hands are clear and straight" 「手文長」 tr. "the lines on his hands are long" 「手文不斷」 tr. "the lines on his hands are unbroken" all speak of the lines on the hands—clear and straight, long, not broken off; 「一切惡心眾生見者和悅」 tr. "all beings with evil minds who see him become gentle and glad", even beings who harbour evil minds become gentle and glad on seeing him; 「面廣姝」 tr. "his face is broad and fine", the face is broad and beautiful; 「面淨滿如月」 tr. "his face is pure and full like the moon", the face is pure and full like the moon. Items forty-one to fifty: 「隨眾生意，和悅與語」 tr. "according to the minds of beings, he speaks with them gently and gladly", following the minds of beings, he speaks with them gently and gladly; the two items 「毛孔出香氣」 tr. "his pores give forth fragrance" 「口出無上香」 tr. "his mouth gives forth an unsurpassed fragrance" are as their text says—both the pores and the mouth give forth fragrance; the three items 「儀容如師子」 tr. "his bearing is like a lion's" 「進止如象王」 tr. "his advancing and halting are like an elephant king's" 「行法如鵝王」 tr. "his manner of walking is like a goose king's" each take a beast or a bird as a simile, speaking of bearing, of advancing and halting, and of walking—the sūtra only raises the similes, and which mark is taken from each this treatise does not explain here; 「頭如摩陀羅果」 tr. "his head is like the moduoluo fruit", the head is like the moduoluo fruit—moduoluo too is the name of a fruit, and its shape this treatise does not explain here; 「一切聲分具足」 tr. "the divisions of all his sounds are complete", the divisions of all his sounds are complete; 「牙利」 tr. "his teeth are sharp", the teeth are sharp; 「舌色赤」 tr. "the colour of his tongue is red", the colour of the tongue is red. Items fifty-one to sixty: 「舌薄」 tr. "his tongue is thin", the tongue is thin; 「毛紅色」 tr. "his hairs are of a red colour" 「毛潔淨」 tr. "his hairs are clean", the hairs are of a red colour and the hairs are pure and clean; 「廣長眼」 tr. "his eyes are broad and long", the eyes are broad and long; 「孔門相具足」 tr. "the marks of his orifices are complete", the marks of the orifices of the body are complete; 「手足赤白如蓮華色」 tr. "his hands and feet are red and white like the colour of the lotus", the hands and feet are red and white like the colour of the lotus; 「臍不出」 tr. "his navel does not protrude", the navel does not stick out; 「腹不現」 tr. "his belly does not show", the belly is not exposed; 「細腹」 tr. "his belly is slender", the belly is slender; 「身不傾動」 tr. "his body does not lean or sway", the body does not tilt or sway. Items sixty-one to sixty-six: 「身持重」 tr. "his body is weighty", the body is grave and weighty; 「其身分大」 tr. "his bodily parts are large", the parts of the body are broad and large; 「身長」 tr. "his body is tall", the body is tall; 「手足淨潔軟澤」 tr. "his hands and feet are pure, clean, soft, and glossy", the hands and feet are pure and clean, soft and glossy; 「邊光各一丈」 tr. "the light at the sides extends one zhang each way", already seen above; 「光照身而行」 tr. "the light shines on his body as he moves", the light shines on his body as he goes. Items sixty-seven to seventy-five: 「等視眾生」 tr. "he looks upon beings equally", he regards beings equally; 「不輕眾生」 tr. "he does not belittle beings", he does not look down on beings; 「隨眾生音聲不過不減」 tr. "following the voices of beings, neither too much nor too little", he responds following the voices of beings, neither overdoing nor falling short; 「說法不差」 tr. "he teaches the Dharma without error", his teaching of the Dharma has no mistake; 「隨眾生語言而為說法」 tr. "he teaches the Dharma for beings following their languages", he teaches the Dharma for beings in their own languages; 「一發音報眾聲」 tr. "with a single utterance he answers the voices of the multitude", with a single utterance he responds to the voices of the many; 「次第有因緣說法」 tr. "he teaches the Dharma in sequence and with causes and conditions", his teaching of the Dharma has sequence and has causes and conditions; 「一切眾生不能盡觀相」 tr. "no being can see his marks to the full", no being can see his marks to the full; 「觀者無厭足」 tr. "those who look upon him are never sated", those who look upon him do not know satiety. Items seventy-six to eighty: the four items 「髮長好」 tr. "his hair is long and fine" 「髮不亂」 tr. "his hair is not tangled" 「髮旋好」 tr. "his hair curls beautifully" 「髮色好如青珠」 tr. "the colour of his hair is fine, like blue pearls" all speak of the hair—long and fine, not tangled, curling beautifully, its colour like blue pearls; 「手足有德相」 tr. "his hands and feet have the marks of virtue", the hands and feet have the marks of virtue—what these so-called marks of virtue are, this treatise does not explain here. The present-day wording of each item above stops at the letter of the sūtra text; the causes and conditions by which each item becomes a minor mark, and the meaning each expresses, this treatise does not explain at all, apart from the few matters cited above, and here too nothing is said on its behalf; what follows looks only at the order in which they are listed. From the first item to the sixty-sixth, what is listed belongs on the whole to bodily marks: crown, nose, eyebrows, ears, bones, body, feet, nails, knees, fingers, veins, ankles, face, lips, voice, navel, body hairs, the lines of the hands, hair, teeth, tongue, belly, light—all the way from above to below and from coarse to fine, closing on the light with the two items 「六十五者、邊光各一丈」 tr. "sixty-fifth, the light at the sides extends one zhang each way" and 「六十六者、光照身而行」 tr. "sixty-sixth, the light shines on his body as he moves". Yet among these sixty-six items there are already four that do not belong to form and appearance: 「二十一者、識滿足」 tr. "twenty-first, consciousness full" 「二十三者、住處安，無能動者」 tr. "twenty-third, secure in his dwelling-place, and nothing can shake him" 「三十八者、一切惡心眾生見者和悅」 tr. "thirty-eighth, all beings with evil minds who see him become gentle and glad" 「四十一者、隨眾生意，和悅與語」 tr. "forty-first, according to the minds of beings, he speaks with them gently and gladly"—the first two items have their own explanation in the later section, and what the last two speak of is also the matter of the Buddha's meeting with beings. From the sixty-seventh item onward, this kind then appears in a string: 「六十七者、等視眾生」 tr. "sixty-seventh, he looks upon beings equally" 「六十八者、不輕眾生」 tr. "sixty-eighth, he does not belittle beings" 「六十九者、隨眾生音聲不過不減」 tr. "sixty-ninth, following the voices of beings, neither too much nor too little" 「七十者、說法不差」 tr. "seventieth, he teaches the Dharma without error" 「七十一者、隨眾生語言而為說法」 tr. "seventy-first, he teaches the Dharma for beings following their languages" 「七十二者、一發音報眾聲」 tr. "seventy-second, with a single utterance he answers the voices of the multitude" 「七十三者、次第有因緣說法」 tr. "seventy-third, he teaches the Dharma in sequence and with causes and conditions" 「七十四者、一切眾生不能盡觀相」 tr. "seventy-fourth, no being can see his marks to the full" 「七十五者、觀者無厭足」 tr. "seventy-fifth, those who look upon him are never sated"—of these nine items, apart from the last two, which are said with regard to those who look, what the other seven speak of is all the matter of the Buddha's meeting with beings: looking upon beings, not belittling beings, following their voices, following their languages, teaching according to sequence and causes and conditions. After this, seventy-six to eighty return again to the hair and to the hands and feet. As for the name ‘minor marks that accompany the form’: since it says ‘accompany the form’, what is accompanied is form; yet what these nine items accompany is in fact the function of teaching the Dharma. The sūtra makes no distinction on this point; the order of its listing is recorded as it really is, and no forced judgement is made on it.

2. Two items in the list that are out of kind—consciousness full and secure in his dwelling-place. Among the eighty items, the two least fitting the name ‘minor marks of form’ are 「二十一者、識滿足」 tr. "twenty-first, consciousness full" and 「二十三者、住處安，無能動者」 tr. "twenty-third, secure in his dwelling-place, and nothing can shake him". The former speaks of consciousness, the latter of the security of the place where he dwells; neither is a mark that can be seen on the body. And these two items are exactly the only two that the treatise-author picks out to explain in the later section. The sūtra says not a word on them here, and a reader who does not read on to Treatise ② can only read past them as two entries in the list. Here their being out of kind is first marked, to await the explanation in the later section; nothing is first said on the treatise-author's behalf. For the other items among the eighty, the treatise-author gives no separate explanation in this chapter; what their letter refers to has already been told item by item in the passage above, those on which this treatise has an explicit text in other fascicles to rely on have already been cited item by item, and for those without an explicit text it is said directly that this treatise does not explain them here, and no meaning is set up on its behalf.

3. The close on the two gifts and the opening of the three means of gathering—kind speech, beneficial action, and shared endeavour, one sentence each and no more. When the eighty items have been listed, the sūtra at once gathers up with one sentence what was spoken of in the two preceding units: 「如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩以二施攝取眾生，所謂財施、法施，是為菩薩希有難及事。」 tr. "Thus, Subhūti! the bodhisattva-mahāsattva gathers in beings by two kinds of giving, namely the gift of wealth and the gift of Dharma; this is the bodhisattva's matter, rare and hard to equal." Since the general heading of the four means of gathering in the First Part unit, what the sūtra has spoken of broadly is only the one gate of giving; the two headings of the gift of wealth and the gift of Dharma have been opened out all the way to this point, and only here can they be counted as finished. For the remaining three means of gathering, the sūtra gives only one sentence each: kind speech is 「菩薩摩訶薩以六波羅蜜為眾生說法，作是言：『汝行六波羅蜜，攝一切善法。』」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva teaches the Dharma for beings by the six perfections, speaking these words: ‘Practise the six perfections, and you gather in all wholesome dharmas.’"; beneficial action is 「菩薩摩訶薩長夜教眾生，令行六波羅蜜。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva through the long night teaches beings and makes them practise the six perfections."; shared endeavour is 「菩薩摩訶薩以五神通力故種種變化，入五道中，與眾生同事。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva, by the power of the five supernormal powers, transforms himself in all kinds of ways, enters the five destinies, and shares in endeavour with beings." It closes with 「以此四事而攝取之。」 tr. "By these four things he gathers them in." as the general gathering-up. Among the three sentences there is one thing to note: what kind speech speaks and what beneficial action teaches is one and the same dharma—the six perfections. Kind speech is speaking the six perfections to beings; beneficial action is teaching beings to practise the six perfections; of shared endeavour the sūtra says only that by the power of the five supernormal powers he transforms himself, enters the five destinies, and shares in endeavour with beings, and does not say what dharma is taught—its not saying is recorded as it really is, and nothing is supplied on its behalf. What differs is the manner of meeting people: telling them, teaching them to go and practise, and dwelling and practising together with them. The one thing ‘shared endeavour’ also specially marks out the five supernormal powers and entering the five destinies—without entering the five destinies there is no shared endeavour to speak of, and this is the only one among the four means of gathering that can be established only by means of the supernormal powers.

4. The forty-two gates of letters—from gathering down to speaking. When the three means of gathering are finished, the sūtra follows with 「復次」 tr. "Again" and turns into the gates of letters: the bodhisattva, teaching and transforming beings, tells them 「當善學分別諸字，亦當善知一字乃至四十二字」 tr. "you should skilfully distinguish the letters, and you should also know well one letter, and so on up to forty-two letters", and then speaks of the mark of their entering one another—「一字皆入四十二字，四十二字亦入一字。」 tr. "One letter enters all forty-two letters, and forty-two letters also enter one letter." Its sequence is: 「善學四十二字已，能善說字法；善說字法已，善說無字法。」 tr. "Having trained well in the forty-two letters, they can speak well of the dharma of letters; having spoken well of the dharma of letters, they speak well of the dharma without letters." It ends by taking the Buddha himself as the example—the Buddha knows well the dharma of letters, knows letters well, and knows well being without letters, and 「為無字法故說字法」 tr. "for the sake of the dharma without letters speaks the dharma of letters"; and the reason it is so is 「過一切名字故，名為佛法。」 tr. "Because it passes beyond all names and letters, it is named the Buddha's Dharma." The crux of this passage lies in the last two sentences. The dharma of letters is not spoken for the sake of the dharma of letters; it is spoken for the sake of the dharma without letters; the Buddha's Dharma is named the Buddha's Dharma precisely because it passes beyond all names and letters. That being so, the reason why training well in the forty-two letters is the bodhisattva's matter of teaching and transforming beings lies not in making beings know a few more letters but in making them know names through letters, know meaning through names, and in the end know that within meaning there are fundamentally no names or letters. The treatise-author explains this meaning in the later section; see passages 20 and 21.

5. Subhūti's question—having already granted emptiness, how does one still abide in the five supernormal powers obtained as retribution and teach the Dharma? Here the sūtra turns into the longest round of question and answer in this unit. What Subhūti asks is to push the emptiness granted before onto the matter of teaching the Dharma: 「世尊！若眾生畢竟不可得，法亦不可得，法性亦不可得，畢竟空故、無始空故。」 tr. "World-Honored One! Suppose beings are ultimately unfindable, dharmas too are unfindable, and the nature of dharmas too is unfindable, because of ultimate emptiness and because of beginningless emptiness." That being so, then though the bodhisattva practises the six perfections, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, the four formless absorptions, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, the eighteen emptinesses, the three samādhi, the eight liberations, the nine successive absorptions, the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, the thirty-two marks, and the eighty minor marks, 「云何住報得五神通為眾生說法？」 tr. "how does he abide in the five supernormal powers obtained as retribution and teach the Dharma for beings?" Within the question there is a pushing layer upon layer: because beings are unfindable, form is unfindable, and so on up to consciousness being unfindable; because the five aggregates are unfindable, the six perfections, and so on up to the eighty minor marks, are all unfindable; within the unfindable 「無眾生、無色乃至無八十隨形好」 tr. "there are no beings, there is no form, and so on up to there being no eighty minor marks". It ends with one sentence that pushes the difficulty to the extreme: 「菩薩尚不可得，何況當有菩薩法！」 tr. "The bodhisattva is unfindable, how much less should there be the dharmas of a bodhisattva!"—the person who teaches the Dharma, the Dharma that is taught, and the beings for whom it is taught are all three unfindable, and so the matter of teaching the Dharma has no ground on which to stand. This question does not doubt emptiness; it asks, on the basis of emptiness, about its function; all the questions and answers of this unit below come out of it.

6. The Buddha's answer—not resolving the difficulty, but pushing its emptiness through again. The first sentence of the Buddha's answer first grants the question: 「如是！如是！如汝所言。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! It is as you say." And then, giving no reason, he only pushes emptiness through more thoroughly: 「眾生不可得故，當知是內空、外空、內外空、空空、大空、第一義空、有為空、無為空、畢竟空、無始空、散空、諸法空、自相空、性空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空。」 tr. "Because beings are unfindable, one should know that this is inner emptiness, outer emptiness, inner and outer emptiness, the emptiness of emptiness, great emptiness, the emptiness of the highest meaning, the emptiness of the conditioned, the emptiness of the unconditioned, ultimate emptiness, beginningless emptiness, the emptiness of dispersal, the emptiness of all dharmas, the emptiness of specific marks, the emptiness of nature, the emptiness of the unfindable, the emptiness of non-existent dharmas, the emptiness of existent dharmas, and the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas." When the eighteen emptinesses have been listed, he again counts down layer by layer: the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, and the eighteen elements are empty; the twelve links of causes and conditions and the four truths are empty; the self together with the one with a life-span, the one with a life, the one who is born, the one who nourishes, the one who rears, the one counted among the multitude, the person, the doer, the one who causes doing, the one who rises, the one who causes rising, the receiver, the one who causes receiving, the knower, and the seer—the sixteen kinds of different names for the self—are all empty; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions are empty; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path are empty; the three samādhi are empty; the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions are empty; the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, and the eighteen unshared dharmas are empty; the four fruits of the śramaṇa are empty, the path of the pratyekabuddha is empty, the bodhisattva ground is empty, anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is empty. The method of the answer lies here: Subhūti makes emptiness his difficulty, and the Buddha does not reduce emptiness to seek a ground for teaching the Dharma; on the contrary he pushes emptiness until even the bodhisattva ground and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi are emptied along with the rest. That the difficulty can be resolved lies not in taking emptiness back by an inch, but in there being another road after emptiness has been pushed to the full. That road is in the next passage.

7. Seeing emptiness and teaching the Dharma without losing the mark of emptiness—knowing non-obstruction, not destroying the marks of dharmas, not two and without discrimination. Only after emptiness has been pushed to the full does the Buddha state how teaching the Dharma is possible: 「菩薩摩訶薩如是見一切法空，為眾生說法，不失諸空相。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva, thus seeing all dharmas as empty, teaches the Dharma for beings and does not lose the marks of the emptinesses." And then he gives its sequence—「是菩薩如是觀時，知一切法無礙；知一切法無礙已，不壞諸法相，不二不分別，但為眾生如實說法。」 tr. "When this bodhisattva contemplates thus, he knows that all dharmas are without obstruction; having known that all dharmas are without obstruction, he does not destroy the marks of dharmas, is not two and is without discrimination, but only teaches the Dharma for beings as it really is." Here there are three steps: first seeing emptiness; next, through seeing emptiness, knowing that all dharmas are without obstruction; last, through knowing non-obstruction, not destroying the marks of dharmas. The crucial point is the third step—not destroying. Emptiness is not knocking down the marks of dharmas; it is knowing that they are without obstruction, after which there is no need to knock them down. ‘Not losing the mark of emptiness’ and ‘not destroying the marks of dharmas’ look opposed, but are in fact two sides of one matter: if one sees emptiness and destroys the marks of dharmas, what is lost is exactly the mark of emptiness, because what is emptied has been taken as a real thing to be struck down. Therefore below this follows 「不二不分別」 tr. "not two and without discrimination"—emptiness and the marks of dharmas are not two, and so in teaching the Dharma there is nothing discriminated, and still he 「如實說法」 tr. "teaches the Dharma as it really is".

8. The simile of the conjured person—what it illustrates lies in the mind of the one who speaks, not in the dharma that is spoken. The Buddha sets up a simile for this: 「譬如佛所化人，化人復化作無量千萬億人」 tr. "It is as a person conjured by the Buddha: this conjured person further conjures immeasurable thousands of myriads of koṭi of people", and among these immeasurable conjured people 「有教令布施者，有教持戒、有教忍辱、有教精進、有教禪定、有教智慧、有教四禪、四無量心、四無色定者」 tr. "some he teaches to give, some he teaches to keep morality, some he teaches patience, some he teaches vigour, some he teaches meditative concentration, some he teaches wisdom, some he teaches the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions". Not one item of the content taught is missing; the six perfections and the four dhyānas are all fully present. Then he sets a question: 「佛所化人有分別破壞諸法不？」 tr. "Does the person conjured by the Buddha discriminate and destroy dharmas?" Subhūti answers for himself: 「不也！世尊！是化人無心、無心數法，云何分別破壞諸法？」 tr. "No, World-Honored One! This conjured person is without mind and without mental-factor dharmas; how could he discriminate and destroy dharmas?" Here the point where the simile lands appears: the reason the conjured person does not discriminate and destroy dharmas is not that he says anything less, but that he is 「無心、無心數法」 tr. "without mind and without mental-factor dharmas". What is said does not differ from what ordinary people say, but on the side of the one who can speak there is no mind that gives rise to discrimination. That the bodhisattva's teaching of the Dharma can avoid destroying the marks of dharmas is exactly this principle—it is not that he says less, but that the one who speaks is not there grasping.

9. Pulling out from the ground of inversion—by the dharma of neither bound nor liberated. From the simile he returns to the Dharma: the Buddha says that the bodhisattva 「為眾生如應說法，拔出眾生於顛倒地，令眾生各得如所應住地，以不縛不脫法故」 tr. "teaches the Dharma for beings as befits them, pulls beings out from the ground of inversion, and lets beings each obtain the ground in which it befits them to abide, because of the dharma of neither bound nor liberated". Here the two Chinese characters ‘as befits’ bear on the meaning of the four means of gathering: what is said differs according to the capacity, so there is the teaching of giving, the teaching of keeping morality, and so on up to the teaching of meditative concentration; yet what is used to pull people out is in every case the same dharma of neither bound nor liberated. Why is it said to be neither bound nor liberated? The Buddha himself states the reason: 「是色不縛不脫，受、想、行、識不縛不脫」 tr. "This form is neither bound nor liberated; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are neither bound nor liberated", and he follows at once with a sentence extremely easy to read past—「色無縛無脫不是色，受想行識無縛無脫不是識。」 tr. "Form's being without bondage and without liberation is not form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness's being without bondage and without liberation is not consciousness." This sentence guards against people setting up ‘without bondage and without liberation’ again as a new form or a new consciousness. It ends with 「色畢竟清淨故」 tr. "because form is ultimately pure" as its ground, and extends it to 「一切法若有為、若無為，亦畢竟清淨故」 tr. "because all dharmas, whether conditioned or unconditioned, are likewise ultimately pure". The root of bondage and liberation both being unfindable lies in ultimate purity; it is not that there is first a bound form and then the bond is undone for it, but that form is pure from the first, and the two names bondage and liberation have nowhere to apply.

10. Teaching the Dharma without finding beings—abiding in the marks of dharmas by way of the dharma of non-abiding. The Buddha goes a layer further: 「菩薩摩訶薩為眾生說法，亦不得眾生及一切法。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva teaches the Dharma for beings and also does not find beings or any dharma." And then he states where he abides: 「一切法不可得故，菩薩以不住法故，住諸法相中，所謂色空，乃至有為、無為法空。」 tr. "Because all dharmas are unfindable, the bodhisattva, by way of the dharma of non-abiding, abides within the marks of dharmas, namely the emptiness of form, and so on up to the emptiness of conditioned and unconditioned dharmas." The phrase ‘abides in the marks of dharmas by way of the dharma of non-abiding’ looks in its letter self-contradictory, but in fact it is exactly the advance of the previous passage's ‘not destroying the marks of dharmas’—the marks of dharmas in which he abides are, as marks, precisely the mark of emptiness; it is exactly because they are empty and there is nothing to abide in that it is called abiding. The Buddha himself states the reason: 「色乃至有為、無為法自性不可得故，無有住處。」 tr. "Because the self-nature of form, and so on up to conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, is unfindable, there is no place of abiding." Below this come the four alternatives most essential to this passage.

11. The four alternatives of non-abiding—without anything existent, existent, self-nature, other-nature. The Buddha sets out four alternatives to make non-abiding clear: 「無所有法不住無所有法，所有法不住所有法，自性法不住自性法，他性法不住他性法。」 tr. "The dharma without anything existent does not abide in the dharma without anything existent; the existent dharma does not abide in the existent dharma; the dharma of self-nature does not abide in the dharma of self-nature; the dharma of other-nature does not abide in the dharma of other-nature." The four alternatives are arranged in two pairs: without anything existent and existent form one pair, self-nature and other-nature form one pair. Their principle is exhausted in one sentence—「是一切法皆不可得故。」 tr. "Because all these dharmas are unfindable." And then he gathers it up with a question: 「不可得法當住何處？」 tr. "Where should an unfindable dharma abide?" The use of these four alternatives lies not in telling apart four kinds of dharma, but in removing the matter of ‘abiding’ one by one from every possible foothold: whether you set your foot on existence, on non-existence, on a thing's own nature, or on another's nature, there is nowhere to stand. The meaning of the four alternatives the treatise-author explains in the later section with three similes; see passage 26. At the end of this passage the Buddha again joins the matter of teaching the Dharma back to the place from which the four means of gathering come: the bodhisattva, 「以是諸空，能如是說法」 tr. "by reason of these emptinesses, can teach the Dharma thus", and practising prajñāpāramitā thus, he is 「於諸佛及聲聞、辟支佛無有過」 tr. "without fault toward the buddhas, and toward the śrāvakas and the pratyekabuddhas"—he teaches the Dharma and does not go against what the Buddha and the two vehicles have realised. Its reason lies in 「如、法性、實際不可轉故」 tr. "because suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality cannot be turned", and the reason they cannot be turned is 「諸法性無故」 tr. "because the nature of dharmas is non-existent".

12. Whether form differs from the nature of dharmas—it does not differ. From the phrase ‘cannot be turned’, Subhūti at once raises a question: 「若法性、如、實際不轉，色與法性異不？色與如、實際異不？」 tr. "If the nature of dharmas, suchness, and the limit of reality do not turn, does form differ from the nature of dharmas? Does form differ from suchness and the limit of reality?" and he extends it to feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the conditioned and the unconditioned, the worldly and the world-transcending, those with outflows and those without outflows. The Buddha's answer is only two Chinese characters with a string added: 「不也！色不異法性、不異如、不異實際」 tr. "No! Form does not differ from the nature of dharmas, does not differ from suchness, does not differ from the limit of reality", and so too feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to those with outflows and those without outflows. This answer makes solid the reason behind the previous passage's ‘cannot be turned’: the nature of dharmas cannot be turned not because it is a constantly abiding thing standing apart outside form, but because form itself does not differ from it. If the nature of dharmas were outside form, then as form changed the nature of dharmas could change along with it; since they do not differ, there is no such thing as turning.

13. Since they do not differ, why are black and white retributions still distinguished—by reason of worldly truth. Subhūti, following this, presses one step further: if form does not differ from the nature of dharmas, suchness, and the limit of reality, and feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to those with outflows and those without outflows, all do not differ, then 「云何分別黑法有黑報，所謂地獄、餓鬼、畜生；白法有白報，所謂天及人」 tr. "how is it distinguished that black dharmas have black retribution, namely the hells, the hungry ghosts, and the animals; that white dharmas have white retribution, namely gods and humans", and so on up to black-and-white dharmas having black-and-white retribution and dharmas neither black nor white having retribution neither black nor white—that is, the four fruits of the śramaṇa, the path of the pratyekabuddha, and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? What this question points at is extremely concrete: the retributions of good and evil and the stages of ordinary person and sage are the whole sequence on which a practitioner relies; if all is without difference, this sequence hangs in the air. The Buddha's answer sets up the two truths to divide them: 「世諦故，分別說有果報，非第一義；第一義中不可說因緣果報。」 tr. "By reason of worldly truth, retribution is spoken of with distinctions; it is not the highest meaning. Within the highest meaning, causes and conditions and retribution are unspeakable." And then he states why the highest meaning is unspeakable: 「是第一義，實無有相，無有分別，亦無言說」 tr. "This highest meaning really has no mark, no discrimination, and no speech either", namely form and so on up to dharmas with outflows and without outflows are 「不生不滅相、不垢不淨」 tr. "of the mark of being unarisen and unceasing, neither stained nor pure", and the reason lies in 「畢竟空、無始空故」 tr. "because of ultimate emptiness and beginningless emptiness". The division of the two truths is first set up here, and its weight shows only at the next question.

14. The objection that ordinary people should have the noble fruits—the Buddha refutes only at the one point of ‘not knowing’. Subhūti at once pushes the account of the two truths back: 「若以世諦故，分別說有果報，非第一義者，一切凡夫人應有須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果、辟支佛道、阿耨多羅三藐三菩提！」 tr. "If, by reason of worldly truth, retribution is spoken of with distinctions, and it is not the highest meaning, then all ordinary people should have the fruit of the srota-āpanna, the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, the fruit of the anāgāmin, the fruit of the arhat, the path of the pratyekabuddha, and anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi!" His way of pushing is: since retribution is distinguished only in worldly truth, and worldly truth is seen in common by ordinary people and sages, then ordinary people too should get a share of the noble fruits. The Buddha does not answer on whether worldly truth is seen in common; he asks only one sentence: 「凡夫人為知是世諦法、是第一義諦不？」 tr. "Do ordinary people know that this is the dharma of worldly truth, and that this is the truth of the highest meaning?" If they knew, ordinary people 「應是須陀洹果乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "should be the fruit of the srota-āpanna, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; and the actual case is—「以凡夫人實不知世諦、不知第一義諦、不知道、不知分別道果，云何當有諸果？」 tr. "Because ordinary people really do not know worldly truth, do not know the truth of the highest meaning, do not know the path, and do not know how to distinguish the fruits of the path, how should they have the fruits?" Conversely, 「聖人知世諦、知第一義諦，有道、有修道，以是故聖人差別有諸果。」 tr. "The sages know worldly truth and know the truth of the highest meaning; they have the path and have the cultivation of the path; for this reason the sages have the various fruits with distinctions." The essence of this answer is: the two truths are not two worlds but two knowings; ordinary people have no fruit not because they are excluded from worldly truth, but because they do not know even worldly truth. The phrase ‘do not know worldly truth’ most needs attention—people mostly take worldly truth to be the territory of ordinary people and the highest meaning the territory of the sages; yet here the Buddha says that ordinary people do not know even worldly truth. To know worldly truth is to know it as worldly truth; ordinary people are within worldly truth and do not know it as worldly truth, and that is exactly where inversion lies.

15. Does cultivating the path obtain the fruit—the four alternatives all denied. Subhūti thereupon asks more briefly: 「修道得果不？」 tr. "Does cultivating the path obtain the fruit?" The Buddha's answer too is brief and complete: 「不也！須菩提！修道不得果，不修道亦不得果，亦不離道得果，亦不住道中得果。」 tr. "No, Subhūti! Cultivating the path, one does not obtain the fruit; not cultivating the path, one does not obtain the fruit either; nor does one obtain the fruit apart from the path; nor does one obtain the fruit abiding within the path." The four alternatives seal off all four sides—cultivating and not cultivating, apart from the path and abiding in the path. And then follows a positive sentence: when the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā, 「為眾生故分別果，亦不分別是有為性、無為性」 tr. "for the sake of beings he distinguishes the fruits, and yet he does not discriminate that this is the conditioned nature or that is the unconditioned nature". The negation of the four alternatives does not negate cultivating the path; it negates that way of grasping which ‘takes cultivation as the cause and the fruit as what comes out of it’; distinguishing the fruits is distinguishing for the sake of beings, not truly discriminating something oneself on the conditioned nature and the unconditioned. This passage corresponds to passages 34 and 35 of Treatise ②, where the treatise-author sets his own question and answer to explain the why of this ‘no’; see below.

16. On what the teaching of obtaining the srota-āpanna by cutting off the three fetters rests—all the fruits are unconditioned, and within the unconditioned there is no discrimination. Subhūti confronts the Buddha with words the Buddha himself has spoken: 「若不分別有為性、無為性得諸果者，云何世尊自說：『三結盡，名須陀洹果；婬、怒、癡薄故，名斯陀含果；五此間結盡，名阿那含果；五彼間結盡，名阿羅漢果；所有集法皆滅散相，名辟支佛道；一切煩惱習斷故，名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提』？」 tr. "If, without discriminating the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature, the fruits are obtained, then why did the World-Honored One himself say: ‘The three fetters being exhausted is named the fruit of the srota-āpanna; lust, anger, and delusion being thin is named the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin; the five fetters of this side being exhausted is named the fruit of the anāgāmin; the five fetters of the other side being exhausted is named the fruit of the arhat; all dharmas that gather and arise being of the mark of ceasing and scattering is named the path of the pratyekabuddha; all the afflictions and their habitual residues being cut off is named anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi’?" And then he lays out his own perplexity: 「我當云何知不分別有為性、無為性得諸果？」 tr. "How should I know that the fruits are obtained without discriminating the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature?" The Buddha does not answer directly, but presses him layer by layer with three questions. The first question: are the fruits 「是有為、是無為？」 tr. "conditioned, or unconditioned?" Subhūti answers: 「世尊！皆是無為！」 tr. "World-Honored One! They are all unconditioned!" The second question: 「無為法中有分別不？」 tr. "Within the unconditioned dharma is there discrimination?" He answers: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!" The third question: if a person 「通達一切法若有為、若無為一相，所謂無相」 tr. "penetrates that all dharmas, whether conditioned or unconditioned, are of one mark, namely the signless", at this time 「有分別若有為、若無為不？」 tr. "is there the discrimination that this is conditioned and that is unconditioned?" He answers: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!" When the three answers are out, the difficulty resolves of itself—the teaching of obtaining the fruits by cutting off the fetters comes from the distinctions of worldly truth, while the substance of the fruits is unconditioned, and within the unconditioned there is fundamentally no discrimination; so speaking of the fruits and not discriminating do not conflict. In this round of question and answer, this unit throughout answers a question with a question and lets the answers refute themselves; the Buddha does not pronounce one sentence of verdict, and within Subhūti's own answers the difficulty has already dissolved of itself.

17. Himself not clinging, he also teaches others not to cling—the conjured person gives and does not receive the retribution. When the three questions are finished, the Buddha closes Sūtra ② with a passage: the bodhisattva teaches the Dharma for beings 「不分別諸法，所謂內空故，乃至無法有法空故」 tr. "and does not discriminate dharmas, namely because of inner emptiness, and so on up to because of the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas", and then 「是菩薩自得無所著法，亦教人令得無所著法」 tr. "this bodhisattva himself obtains the dharma without clinging, and also teaches others and makes them obtain the dharma without clinging"—the dharmas taught, from the six perfections, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions, up to the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, are not one of them outside non-clinging. Its effect is 「無所著故無所礙」 tr. "because of non-clinging, he is without hindrance". At the end he again sets up a simile corresponding to the earlier simile of the conjured person: 「譬如佛所化人布施，亦不受布施報，但為度眾生故」 tr. "It is as a person conjured by the Buddha gives and yet does not receive the retribution of giving, but does it only for the sake of delivering beings", and so on up to practising the omniscience of all kinds and yet not receiving the retribution of the omniscience of all kinds; the bodhisattva too is thus: he practises the six perfections, and so on up to all dharmas, with outflows and without outflows, conditioned and unconditioned, 「不住亦不受報，但為度眾生故」 tr. "does not abide and does not receive the retribution, but does it only for the sake of delivering beings". How can he be thus? 「是菩薩摩訶薩善達一切諸法相故。」 tr. "Because this bodhisattva-mahāsattva thoroughly penetrates the marks of all dharmas." The earlier simile of the conjured person spoke of not discriminating because of being without mind; this simile of the conjured person speaks of not receiving the retribution because of being without clinging; the two similes, one before and one after, set the two sides ‘speaking’ and ‘practising’ in the same place—not being there to grasp. Here Sūtra ② ends.

18. Why consciousness full is among the minor marks—a consciousness born of retribution, knowing without learning. The first question at the opening of Treatise ② picks out precisely the most out-of-kind item in the list: the eighty minor marks are dharmas that adorn the body, so why is 「識滿足」 tr. "consciousness full" among the minor marks? The answer first distinguishes two kinds of consciousness: 「此識是果報生識，世間好醜自然而知。」 tr. "This consciousness is a consciousness born of retribution, which knows of itself the fair and the foul of the world." A consciousness born of retribution is not obtained through learning but comes complete with the body; the fair and the foul of the world it knows of itself, without waiting to be taught. And then ordinary people are set against it: 「凡人識不具足故，學人法乃知」 tr. "because ordinary people's consciousness is not complete, they must learn human norms before they know"—the reason ordinary people must learn the norms of the human world before they know fair and foul is exactly that their consciousness of retribution is not complete. It ends by speaking of the months in the womb: 「佛一歲具足滿乃生故，身、識皆具足。餘人若八月、若九月處胎，總言十月；菩薩處胎十月，總得一歲，身根具足故，果報得識亦具足。」 tr. "Because the Buddha was born only when a full year was complete, both body and consciousness are complete. Other people stay in the womb eight months or nine months, and it is spoken of in general as ten months; the bodhisattva stayed in the womb ten months, obtaining a year in all; because the faculty of the body was complete, the consciousness obtained as retribution was complete too." The line of reasoning of this answer is: consciousness full is listed among the bodily marks precisely because it is a retribution that comes with the completeness of the faculty of the body, not knowledge obtained by cultivation and learning. Since it comes with the body, it belongs to one kind with the straight nose and the fine eyebrows, and being listed among the minor marks is not out of place.

19. How secure in his dwelling-place differs from securely abiding in a dwelling-place—firmly holding his weapons, Māra cannot move him. What the second question tells apart is two sets of names and marks that are close to each other yet refer to different things: 「足安立住處與安住處何異？」 tr. "What difference is there between the feet being securely set in a dwelling-place and securely abiding in a dwelling-place?"—「足安立」 tr. "the feet being securely set" comes from the first item of the thirty-two marks (as listed in the First Part unit, 「一者、足下安平立平如奩底」 tr. "first, the soles of his feet are set level and flat, like the bottom of a casket"), while 「住處安」 tr. "secure in his dwelling-place" comes from the twenty-third item of these eighty minor marks; the two names are close, and so the treatise-author asks how they differ. He answers with one simile and two matters: 「住處安者，如白衣勇士，牢持器仗，安據住處，則不可動。」 tr. "Secure in his dwelling-place is like a white-robed warrior who, firmly holding his weapons, securely occupies his dwelling-place and cannot be moved." A white-robed warrior is not one who has left home; taking a lay warrior holding his ground as the simile, what is spoken of is the immovability of the place where he dwells itself. And then it turns to the matter of leaving home: 「又出家時，魔民、惡鬼無能動轉令退敗者。」 tr. "Again, at the time of leaving home, neither Māra's people nor evil ghosts can shake him and make him retreat in defeat." Of the two matters, one is simile and one is fact: the simile takes the firmness of holding one's ground, the fact refers to Māra's being unable to disturb him. What is called ‘secure’ does not mean the comfort of sitting at ease; it means that when outer force is applied it cannot make him retreat. This answer also shows the treatise-author's method of explaining the list—he explains only those whose names are unclear, and those whose names are clear he does not explain.

20. The mutual entering of the forty-two letters—one letter enters all the letters to the full. The treatise-author, explaining the gates of letters of Sūtra ②, first points to their source: 「四十二字義，如摩訶衍中說。」 tr. "The meaning of the forty-two letters is as spoken of in the Mahāyāna." And then he separately explains the two sides of ‘entering one another’. First he explains one letter entering all the letters: 「一字盡入諸字者，譬如兩一合故為二，三一故為三，四一為四，如是乃至千萬。」 tr. "One letter entering all the letters to the full is like this: it is as two ones joined together become two, three ones become three, four ones become four, and thus on up to a thousand and ten thousand." He takes number as the simile—two is two ones, three is three ones, and a thousand or ten thousand is no more than an accumulation of ones; so the one is within all numbers. Next he sets up another simile to make its changes clear: 「又如阿字為定，阿變為羅，亦變為波；如是盡入四十二字。」 tr. "Again, it is as the letter a is fixed; a changes into ra, and also changes into pa; thus it enters all forty-two letters to the full." Next he explains all the letters entering one letter: 「四十二字入一字者，四十二字盡有阿分，阿分還入阿中。」 tr. "The forty-two letters entering one letter is like this: the forty-two letters all have the share of a, and the share of a enters back into a." Within the forty-two letters there is everywhere a share of a, so when they are gathered in they all return to a. Looking at the two sides together: what becomes many from one is the accumulation of number; what returns to one from many is the gathering of shares. The training in letters here is not knowing letters; it is seeing, in the arising and ceasing, gathering and scattering of names, that they are without self-nature.

21. From letters to names, from names to meaning—being without letters is precisely the meaning of the real mark of all dharmas. When the entering of one another is clear, the treatise-author pushes it to its destination in three layers: 「善知字故，善知諸法名；善知諸法名故，善知諸法義。」 tr. "Because he knows letters well, he knows well the names of dharmas; because he knows well the names of dharmas, he knows well the meaning of dharmas." Letters are what names are formed of, names are what meaning is tied to; so the three layers are cause one to another. And then a turn: 「無字即是諸法實相義。」 tr. "Being without letters is precisely the meaning of the real mark of all dharmas." Why? 「諸法義中，諸法無名字。」 tr. "Within the meaning of dharmas, dharmas have no names or letters." These words match exactly the sūtra's 「過一切名字故，名為佛法」 tr. "Because it passes beyond all names and letters, it is named the Buddha's Dharma". The reason the training in letters must take being without letters as its ultimate is not that being without letters is loftier than having letters, but that the meaning of dharmas itself carries no names—names are what we add on, not what dharmas have of themselves. So one who trains well in letters, trained to the end, obtains not more names but knowing where names do not reach. This also answers the question left in passage 4 on Sūtra ②: why the forty-two gates of letters come after the four means of gathering—the end of the four means of gathering is teaching the Dharma, what teaching the Dharma relies on is names, and the ultimate of names is namelessness.

22. One note on form—the section below is the treatise-author's framed question and answer taking up the sūtra. From the words 「須菩提問：」 tr. "Subhūti asks:" to the sentence 「佛意：唯是心為真實」 tr. "The Buddha's meaning: only this mind is true and real", the treatise-author changes to named question and answer to go on setting out the meaning: 「若諸法畢竟空無名字，云何菩薩住果報六神通，為眾生說諸法？若畢竟無眾生，則無有法！」 tr. "If dharmas are ultimately empty and without names, how does the bodhisattva abide within the six supernormal powers of retribution and teach dharmas for beings? If ultimately there are no beings, then there are no dharmas!" And then 「佛可須菩提言：」 tr. "The Buddha approves Subhūti, saying:"—「如是！以十八空故，一切法不可得，我、眾生乃至知者、見者，乃至當知佛、菩薩皆空。如是知已，而為眾生說是空法。」 tr. "Just so! Because of the eighteen emptinesses, all dharmas are unfindable; the self, beings, and so on up to the knower and the seer, and so on up to one should know that the Buddha and the bodhisattvas are all empty. Having known thus, he teaches this Dharma of emptiness for beings." In reading this one must first tell its form: this is not the treatise-author quoting a separate passage of sūtra text, but the treatise-author taking up and recounting the questions and answers in the sūtra and framing their words to go on speaking. There are two reasons this is so: first, within the same section below, the treatise-author's own ‘Question:’ and ‘Answer:’ still appear in two places, and the two forms interlace without being confused; second, the framed words are followed at once by the treatise-author's own exposition—「若眾生是有而為說空，是則不可」 tr. "If beings really existed and emptiness were taught to them, this would not be permissible" and so on—the flow of the writing goes straight on, which is not the form of a quotation. So all the named ‘Subhūti asks’, ‘The Buddha answers’, ‘The Buddha says’, and ‘The Buddha's meaning’ below belong to the treatise-author, not to the sūtra. The questions and answers of the sūtra text itself are already in Sūtra ②; here the treatise-author takes them up and speaks them once more. Again, the Buddha's answer here is written 「佛可須菩提言」 tr. "The Buddha approves Subhūti, saying"—‘approves’ is approval; with this one Chinese character the treatise-author marks that the Buddha's answer does not set up a separate new teaching, but first grants the question and then turns.

23. The three ways of losing, in not losing emptiness. The treatise-author sets out the framed answer, saying: 「若眾生是有而為說空，是則不可；以眾生空，但從顛倒有，是故菩薩不失於空而為說法。」 tr. "If beings really existed and emptiness were taught to them, this would not be permissible; because beings are empty and exist only from inversion, the bodhisattva does not lose emptiness and teaches the Dharma for them." Here the treatise-author specially defines the phrase ‘does not lose emptiness’, and his definition is set up from the reverse side of three kinds of ‘losing’: 「不失者，不作諸法皆空，所說不空」 tr. "Not losing means not holding that all dharmas are empty, yet what is said is not empty"—this is the first losing, keeping a non-empty territory in the dharma that is spoken; 「若以所說不空，則為失空相」 tr. "if he holds that what is said is not empty, then that is losing the mark of emptiness"—this is the second losing, what the first losing brings about: once what is said is set up as not empty, the mark of emptiness is lost; 「若口說空而心是有，是亦為失」 tr. "if the mouth says emptiness while in the mind there is existence, this too is losing"—this third losing is the most hidden: mouth and mind are split into two sections, what is said is emptiness while in the mind the understanding is still of existence. Of the three ways of losing, the first two lie in what is spoken, the last in the one who can speak. Only when all three are avoided is it called not losing emptiness. The treatise-author further cites the Buddha's words as proof: 「不二，不壞法相故。」 tr. "Not two, because he does not destroy the marks of dharmas." And then he marks the intent of the Buddha's setting up a simile: 「欲明了是事，說譬喻」 tr. "wishing to make this matter clear, he speaks a simile"—「如佛所化作化人，而為說法，持戒、布施諸功德。」 tr. "As the conjured person conjured by the Buddha teaches the Dharma for people, teaching the merits of keeping morality, giving, and the rest." This is the simile of the conjured person in Sūtra ②, and here the treatise-author points out that what it wishes to make clear is exactly the one matter of ‘not two and not destroying’.

24. Teaching the Dharma by skilful means is without fault—bondage and release under the two truths. The treatise-author continues: 「若以如是方便說法，是則無咎，則能拔出眾生於顛倒，無縛無解故。」 tr. "If one teaches the Dharma by such skilful means, this is without fault, and one can pull beings out from inversion, because there is neither bondage nor release." And then he sets being without bondage and without release upon the two truths: 「第一義中無縛無解，世諦故有縛有解。」 tr. "Within the highest meaning there is no bondage and no release; by reason of worldly truth there is bondage and there is release." This sentence is extremely important—if one says straight out ‘without bondage and without release’ and does not divide the two truths, then the matter of pulling beings out also has nowhere to apply; once the two truths are divided, within the highest meaning there is nothing to bind and nothing to release, while within worldly truth there really are bound people and dharmas that can release them, and so the matter of pulling out has its footing. The treatise-author further cites the causes and conditions the Buddha himself states as proof: 「色不縛不解。何以故？是不縛不解中，無色相故。乃至識亦如是。」 tr. "Form is neither bound nor released. Why? Because within this neither-bound-nor-released there is no mark of form. And so on up to consciousness, which is likewise." This has the same purport as passage 9's 「色無縛無脫不是色」 tr. "form's being without bondage and without liberation is not form" in Sūtra ②: neither bound nor released is not a new state of form; within that state there is no mark of form to speak of at all.

25. Abiding within the Dharma of emptiness and teaching the Dharma for beings—abiding by not abiding. The treatise-author gathers up the meaning before, saying: 「菩薩如是用不住法故，住空法中為眾生說法」 tr. "the bodhisattva thus, by way of the dharma of non-abiding, abides within the Dharma of emptiness and teaches the Dharma for beings", and the reason lies in 「眾生不可得，眾生及一切法不可得故」 tr. "beings are unfindable, because beings and all dharmas are unfindable". This is the treatise's explanation of passage 10's ‘by way of the dharma of non-abiding, abides within the marks of dharmas’ in Sūtra ②. What he abides in is the Dharma of emptiness, and the Dharma of emptiness is not a thing that can be abided in; the reason it is called abiding is said only with regard to its non-abiding.

26. Three similes explaining the four alternatives of non-abiding—space, fire, water. The four alternatives of non-abiding set up in Sūtra ② the treatise-author here explains separately with three similes. The first simile explains ‘the dharma without anything existent does not abide in what is without anything existent’: 「譬如虛空不住虛空。」 tr. "It is as space does not abide in space." Space has no substance, so there is neither anything that abides nor any place to abide. The second simile explains ‘the dharma of self-nature does not abide in the dharma of self-nature’: 「譬如火不住火中。」 tr. "It is as fire does not abide within fire." The nature of fire is heat, and heat cannot further abide in heat; self-nature is the thing itself, and the thing itself has no means of abiding in itself. The third simile explains ‘the dharma of other-nature does not abide in the dharma of other-nature’: 「譬如水性中無火性，又他性不定故。」 tr. "It is as within the nature of water there is no nature of fire; and again, because other-nature is not fixed." This simile has two principles: first, within the nature of water there is fundamentally no nature of fire, so other-nature has no place to abide; second, so-called other-nature is a name set up over against self-nature—A is other to B, and B too is other to A—「他性不定故」 tr. "because other-nature is not fixed"; since the name is not fixed, there is no abiding either. Apart from the three similes, for ‘the existent dharma does not abide in the existent dharma’ among the four alternatives of Sūtra ② the treatise-author sets up no separate simile—his not explaining it is recorded as it really is, and no simile is supplied on his behalf.

27. Teaching the Dharma purely is without fault toward the buddhas and the worthies and sages—four layers of likeness. The treatise-author explains the sentence of Sūtra ② 「於諸佛及聲聞、辟支佛無有過」 tr. "without fault toward the buddhas, and toward the śrāvakas and the pratyekabuddhas", saying: 「若能如是清淨說法，是菩薩於諸佛賢聖則無有過。」 tr. "If one can teach the Dharma purely in this way, this bodhisattva is without fault toward the buddhas and the worthies and sages." And then he states in four layers why he is without fault, each layer concluding with ‘so too does the one who teaches the Dharma’. The first layer speaks of clinging and not clinging: 「諸佛、賢聖不著一切法，說法者亦不著一切法。」 tr. "The buddhas and the worthies and sages do not cling to any dharma, and the one who teaches the Dharma too does not cling to any dharma." The second layer speaks of the sphere where the mind moves: 「諸佛、賢聖以畢竟空、皆寂滅相為心所行，說法者亦如是。」 tr. "The buddhas and the worthies and sages take ultimate emptiness, wholly of the mark of quiescence, as the sphere where the mind moves, and so too does the one who teaches the Dharma." The third layer speaks of what is realised: 「諸佛、賢聖入三解脫門，得一切法實性，所謂無餘涅槃；說法者隨是法故，無咎。」 tr. "The buddhas and the worthies and sages enter the three gates of liberation and obtain the real nature of all dharmas, namely nirvāṇa without remainder; because the one who teaches the Dharma accords with this Dharma, he is without fault." The three layers follow one another and deepen: not clinging is their practice, ultimate emptiness and quiescence are the sphere of their mind, the three gates of liberation and nirvāṇa without remainder are what they realise. The fourth layer then cites the causes and conditions the Buddha himself states as proof: 「諸佛、賢聖得是法已，為眾生說法，不轉法性，法性空無相故。」 tr. "The buddhas and the worthies and sages, having obtained this Dharma, teach the Dharma for beings and do not turn the nature of dharmas, because the nature of dharmas is empty and signless." The two Chinese characters ‘without fault’ find their explanation here—it is not that the one who teaches the Dharma has sufficient qualifications, but that where the one who teaches the Dharma moves and where the buddhas and the worthies and sages move are the same place, so there is nothing in which they could go against each other.

28. Whether form and the rest differ from the nature of dharmas—the real mark is precisely the nature of dharmas. From here on, the treatise-author continues to take up the sūtra with named question and answer. 「須菩提問：」 tr. "Subhūti asks:"—「若不轉法性，色等諸法與法性異不？」 tr. "If the nature of dharmas is not turned, do form and the other dharmas differ from the nature of dharmas?" And 「佛答：」 tr. "The Buddha answers:"—「不也！何以故？色等諸法實相即是法性故。」 tr. "No! Why? Because the real mark of form and the other dharmas is precisely the nature of dharmas." The answer gives one layer of reason more than Sūtra ②—Sūtra ② answers only that they do not differ, while here it states why they do not differ: the real mark of form and the rest is precisely the nature of dharmas. The real mark and the nature of dharmas are not two things, so form and the nature of dharmas cannot be different. The treatise-author further adds a remark of his own to make clear its use: 「佛意：以菩薩說法時，亦不壞法性。」 tr. "The Buddha's meaning: because when the bodhisattva teaches the Dharma, he too does not destroy the nature of dharmas." This remark joins the meaning of not differing back to teaching the Dharma: precisely because the real mark of form and the rest is the nature of dharmas, when the bodhisattva teaches the Dharma for beings in terms of form and the rest, he has not gone off separately to disturb the nature of dharmas.

29. Why the nature of dharmas alone is prized—where the objection comes from and where the answer lies. 「須菩提問：」 tr. "Subhūti asks:"—「色等諸法亦與法性不異，何以故但貴法性？」 tr. "Since form and the other dharmas do not differ from the nature of dharmas, why is the nature of dharmas alone prized?" This question is rather sharp: since they do not differ, the division of prizing this and slighting that has nothing to rest on. Here the treatise-author does not record the Buddha's answer directly, but first records where the objection arises from—precisely because the Buddha answered 「色不異法性」 tr. "form does not differ from the nature of dharmas", Subhūti then raises a further objection: 「若不異者，云何分別有善惡、白黑、須陀洹等諸果？」 tr. "If they do not differ, how are good and evil, white and black, and the various fruits of the srota-āpanna and the rest distinguished?" From this it can be seen that ‘why is the nature of dharmas alone prized’ and ‘how are good and evil and the various fruits distinguished’ are two sides of the same objection: prizing the nature of dharmas is said with regard to what is above, distinguishing the fruits with regard to what is below, and what both call into question is how, within non-difference, there can be high and low. The Buddha's answer still returns to the two truths: 「色等法雖不離法性，以世諦故有分別，於第一義中無分別。」 tr. "Although form and the other dharmas are not apart from the nature of dharmas, by reason of worldly truth there is discrimination; within the highest meaning there is no discrimination."

30. Why those who have obtained the highest meaning have nothing they discriminate—hearing of attainment they are not glad, hearing of nothing they are not sorrowful. The treatise-author does not stop at recording the Buddha's answer, but further sets out why it is so. First he speaks of those who have already obtained: 「得第一義聖人無所分別，聞有所得不喜，聞無所有不憂」 tr. "the sages who have obtained the highest meaning have nothing they discriminate; hearing of something to be attained they are not glad, and hearing of there being nothing existent they are not sorrowful"—gladness and sorrow are the evidence of discrimination, and when both are gone, the reality of their non-discrimination shows. The reason lies in 「得空無相證故，乃至微細法尚不取相，何況分別有善惡！」 tr. "because they have obtained the realisation of emptiness and the signless, even toward the subtlest dharma they do not grasp at marks, how much less discriminate that there is good and there is evil!" Next he speaks of those who have not yet obtained: 「未得實相者，欲得第一義故，有所分別。」 tr. "People who have not yet obtained the real mark, wishing to obtain the highest meaning, therefore have something they discriminate." This sentence states where discrimination comes from extremely plainly—those who have not yet obtained discriminate precisely because they wish to obtain; discrimination is not their sin, it is the mark of their seeking the path. The two sentences set against each other fix the position of the matter of ‘discrimination’: it belongs on the road, not at the arrival. It ends by citing the causes and conditions the Buddha himself states as the conclusion: 「是法無言說，亦無生滅垢淨法者，所謂畢竟空、無始空。」 tr. "This Dharma is without speech, and also without the dharmas of arising and ceasing, stain and purity, namely ultimate emptiness and beginningless emptiness."

31. Why only two emptinesses are spoken of as named the Dharma—the simile of fire burning wood. Here the treatise-author returns to his own question-and-answer form: 「問曰：此中何以但說二空名為法？」 tr. "Question: Why, here, are only two emptinesses spoken of as named the Dharma?" This question is raised on what Sūtra ② says—in this passage the sūtra raises only the two, ultimate emptiness and beginningless emptiness, whereas the list of the eighteen emptinesses has already been set out earlier in the text. The answer first sets up the number of what is broken: 「一切所有：若法、若眾生。」 tr. "All that there is: dharmas and beings." All that there is does not go beyond these two. And then it matches them: 「若言畢竟空，則破諸法；若言無始空，則破眾生。破此二法已，則一切法盡破。」 tr. "If ultimate emptiness is spoken of, dharmas are broken; if beginningless emptiness is spoken of, beings are broken. These two dharmas having been broken, all dharmas are broken to the end." And the reason these two emptinesses are used here is that 「此中菩薩為眾生說法，是故以二空破二事」 tr. "here the bodhisattva teaches the Dharma for beings, and so he uses two emptinesses to break the two things"—the choice of the two emptinesses is fixed according to the occasion, not because the two emptinesses are higher than the other emptinesses. Yet the treatise-author adds a further meaning, saying that ultimate emptiness has its own irreplaceable point: 「雖有餘空，不如畢竟空甚深畢盡。」 tr. "Although there are the other emptinesses, they are not as very deep and exhaustive as ultimate emptiness." And he makes it clear with a simile: 「餘空如火燒木，猶有灰燼；畢竟空無灰無燼。」 tr. "The other emptinesses are like fire burning wood, which still leaves ashes and embers; ultimate emptiness is without ashes and without embers." Ashes and embers are what remains when breaking has not been exhausted and something is left over; what is left over is precisely a new thing clung to. Ultimate emptiness is named ultimate precisely because it does not leave even ashes and embers. At the end it records one different saying: 「有人言：若說十八空無咎，略說故說二空。」 tr. "Someone says: Even if the eighteen emptinesses were spoken of, there would be no fault; it is because it is spoken of in brief that two emptinesses are spoken of."—meaning that speaking of two emptinesses here is only speaking in brief, and speaking of the eighteen emptinesses would not be impermissible either. The two sayings are recorded side by side without judgement.

32. Subhūti's objection—made on the highest meaning, so ordinary people should be sages. The treatise-author takes up Subhūti's objection, saying: 「若以世諦故分別有善惡、白黑及諸聖果者，第一義中凡夫人應有須陀洹等聖果！」 tr. "If, by reason of worldly truth, good and evil, white and black, and the various noble fruits are distinguished, then within the highest meaning ordinary people should have the noble fruits of the srota-āpanna and the rest!" And then he sets out its way of pushing on Subhūti's behalf: 「若以世諦虛妄中分別有諸賢聖者，第一義中凡夫應作賢聖。」 tr. "If within the falsity of worldly truth the various worthies and sages are distinguished, then within the highest meaning ordinary people should become worthies and sages." The reason lies in 「須菩提分別實相、凡夫為異」 tr. "Subhūti distinguishes the real mark as different from ordinary people"—the objector first divides the real mark and ordinary people into two things, and then takes as his ground the Buddha's saying 「第一義一相」 tr. "the highest meaning is of one mark": since it is of one mark, there is no difference of ordinary person and sage, and therefore he says 「凡夫應是聖人！」 tr. "Ordinary people should be sages!" The structure of this objection appears here: what it rests on is the non-discrimination of the highest meaning, what it calls into question is the discrimination of worldly truth; if discrimination is only in worldly truth, then within the highest meaning ordinary people and sages are equal, and ordinary people should of course obtain the noble fruits.

33. The Buddha's refutation—it refutes only at ‘not knowing’, not at ‘non-discrimination’. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, saying: 「若凡夫知分別是第一義、是世諦者，凡夫人應有須陀洹等諸聖果」 tr. "If ordinary people knew how to distinguish that this is the highest meaning and this is worldly truth, ordinary people should have the noble fruits of the srota-āpanna and the rest"—this first grants the form of the objection: if ordinary people really knew the division of the two truths, the objection would stand. And then it refutes its substance: 「以凡夫實不知道，不知分別道，不知行道、修道，何況得道果！」 tr. "Because ordinary people really do not know the path, do not know how to distinguish the path, and do not know how to practise the path or cultivate the path, how much less do they obtain the fruit of the path!" The four layers of not knowing go down layer by layer: not knowing the path, not knowing how to distinguish the path, not knowing how to practise the path, not knowing how to cultivate the path, and finally ‘how much less do they obtain the fruit of the path’. The Buddha further establishes the noble fruits positively with one sentence: 「聖人能作是分別故，說是聖果。」 tr. "Because the sages can make such distinctions, the noble fruits are spoken of." The crux of the refutation lies here—the Buddha never says that within the highest meaning there is a division of ordinary person and sage, nor does he take back the saying ‘by reason of worldly truth there is distinction’; he only points out that the ‘ordinary person’ the objector posits does not possess the conditions for making this distinction. The reason the objection fails is not in principle but in the person.

34. Subhūti knows for himself that he has erred—the forced grasping that takes the immeasurable dharma as the noble fruits. The treatise-author records his turn, saying: 「爾時，須菩提自知有失，故言」 tr. "At this time Subhūti knows for himself that he has erred, and so says"—「無量、無相、無動性中，我云何取相欲量無量法？云何強以凡夫法為聖果？」 tr. "Within the nature that is immeasurable, signless, and unmoving, how could I grasp at marks and wish to measure the immeasurable dharma? How could I forcibly take the dharmas of ordinary people as the noble fruits?" His self-declaration has two matters: first, grasping at marks and wishing to measure the immeasurable dharma; second, forcibly taking the dharmas of ordinary people as the noble fruits. The former is the root of the objection, the latter its fruit. The treatise-author further records his receiving: 「爾時受佛語，知行道者得果，不行道者不得果」 tr. "At this time, receiving the Buddha's words, he knows that the one who practises the path obtains the fruit and the one who does not practise the path does not obtain the fruit", and so he asks further: 「修道得果不？」 tr. "Does cultivating the path obtain the fruit?" And the Buddha answers with a single word: 「不。」 tr. "No." This ‘no’ is exactly the opposite of what he has received before, and so there is the next question.

35. Above, the Buddha spoke of obtaining the fruit; why does he now say no—seeking the fruit with a clinging mind is like taking oil from sesame. The treatise-author sets his own question and answer to resolve this contradiction: 「佛上說分別修道、得道果」 tr. "above, the Buddha spoke with distinctions of cultivating the path and obtaining the fruit of the path"; why does he now say 「不」 tr. "no"? The answer first divides the minds of the two times: 「佛先說，非著心；今須菩提以著心問，欲從道中出果，如麻中出油。」 tr. "What the Buddha said before was not with a clinging mind; now Subhūti asks with a clinging mind, wishing to take the fruit out from within the path, as oil is taken out from sesame." The simile of taking oil from sesame is extremely apt—oil within sesame is really an existing thing that can be taken; if the path and the fruit were also like this, then the fruit would be another thing pressed out of the path. The treatise-author at once pushes on from this to its fault: 「若爾者，道之與果，同為虛誑，是故言不。」 tr. "If it were so, the path and the fruit would alike be false and deceptive; therefore he says no." If path and fruit became two things that could come out of one another, both would fall into grasping at marks, so the Buddha says no to all of it. Next he guards against the listener's misunderstanding: 「聽者生念：若修不得，不修應當得！」 tr. "The one who hears gives rise to this thought: if by cultivating it is not obtained, then by not cultivating it should be obtained!" So the Buddha says: 「修尚不得，何況不修！」 tr. "Even cultivating, it is not obtained, how much less without cultivating!" And he sets up the simile of two people: 「譬如二人欲有所到：一者、住，不行；二者、失道。二俱不到。」 tr. "It is as two people who wish to reach somewhere: one stays and does not go; the second loses the road. Neither of the two arrives." The one who stays and does not go is the one who does not cultivate; the one who loses the road is the one who cultivates but not on the path. The two alike do not arrive, yet the causes of their not arriving differ. The treatise-author further speaks, of the one who does not cultivate, the lowest of what he loses: 「若不修道，尚無少許攝心樂，何況道果！」 tr. "If one does not cultivate the path, there is not even a little of the pleasure of gathering the mind, how much less the fruit of the path!" At the end he sets out his judgement directly: 「若心取相修道，雖有攝心禪定樂，無有道果；若不取相著心修道，則有道果。」 tr. "If the mind grasps at marks and cultivates the path, though there is the pleasure of meditative concentration that gathers the mind, there is no fruit of the path; if one cultivates the path without grasping at marks and without a clinging mind, then there is the fruit of the path." The division between obtaining and not obtaining lies not in cultivating and not cultivating, but in grasping at marks and not grasping at marks. So he cites the Buddha's words as the conclusion: 「菩薩行般若波羅蜜，不分別有為、無為性故，有道果差別。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā; because he does not discriminate the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature, there are the differences of the fruits of the path."—only by not discriminating are there differences; these words look as if said backwards, but in fact they are exactly the meaning of the two truths in the earlier passage: differences belong to worldly truth, while the one who establishes these differences does not himself discriminate on the conditioned nature and the unconditioned.

36. The objection on cutting off the three fetters, and the Buddha's answer by a question in return—within the unconditioned there is no difference. The treatise-author continues taking up: 「爾時，須菩提問：」 tr. "At this time Subhūti asks:"—「若爾者，佛何以故說斷三結得須陀洹，有如是等分別？」 tr. "If it is so, why does the Buddha say that cutting off the three fetters one obtains the srota-āpanna, with such distinctions as these?" This is the objection of passage 16 on Sūtra ②, which the treatise-author here takes up once more. And he records the Buddha's way of answering as 「佛以反問答」 tr. "The Buddha answers with a question in return"—not answering directly but asking in return. The questioning in return goes through three turns: first, 「汝以須陀洹果等是有為、是無為？」 tr. "Do you take the fruit of the srota-āpanna and the rest to be conditioned or unconditioned?" Subhūti says: 「是無為。」 tr. "Unconditioned." Second, 「若爾者，無為中有差別不？」 tr. "If it is so, within the unconditioned is there difference?" Subhūti says: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!" Third, since there is no difference, 「若無分別，汝云何作難？」 tr. "If there is no discrimination, how do you make such an objection?" The objection is broken from the very point he has granted. The treatise-author further records that the Buddha sets one more question—「又復問須菩提：」 tr. "Again he further asks Subhūti:"—「若善男子、善女人通達一切法一相，所謂無相，住三解脫門中，證涅槃時，是時有法分別若有為、若無為不？」 tr. "If good men and good women penetrate that all dharmas are of one mark, namely the signless, and abide within the three gates of liberation, at the time of realising nirvāṇa, is there at that time any dharma to be discriminated as conditioned or unconditioned?" The answer to it too is only the one phrase 「不也！」 tr. "No!", the same as what was already answered in Sūtra ②. And then the treatise-author points out the Buddha's meaning with one remark: 「唯是心為真實，餘時皆虛誑，汝云何作難？」 tr. "Only this mind is true and real; at other times all is false and deceptive; how do you make such an objection?"—the mind without discrimination at the time of realising nirvāṇa is true and real, and the discriminations of all other times are false and deceptive; when an objection is made from what is seen at a time of falsity, the objection does not stand of itself.

37. The closing of the last passage—one who thoroughly penetrates does not grasp at the mark of the nature of dharmas and does not abide within the nature of dharmas. The whole treatise section closes the whole chapter with one passage. First it establishes the bodhisattva's practice: 「菩薩行般若波羅蜜，不分別一切法，住內空等諸空中，是大清淨」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā, does not discriminate any dharma, and abides within inner emptiness and the other emptinesses: this is great purity"; next it establishes his teaching: 「自不著，亦教眾生令無所著」 tr. "He himself does not cling, and also teaches beings and makes them without clinging", and what is taught runs from dānapāramitā up to the omniscience of all kinds, 「菩薩道中皆教令不著」 tr. "within the bodhisattva path he teaches them all not to cling". Again it uses the simile of the conjured person to correspond with Sūtra ②: 「譬如佛所化人行布施等，亦不分別布施等，亦不受布施等法果報，但為利益度眾生故。」 tr. "It is as a person conjured by the Buddha practises giving and the rest, yet does not discriminate giving and the rest, nor receive the retribution of the dharmas of giving and the rest, but does it only for the sake of benefiting and delivering beings." And then it points straight to the root: 「何以故？善通達諸法性故。」 tr. "Why? Because he thoroughly penetrates the nature of dharmas." The last sentence is where the whole chapter comes to rest: 「善通達者，不取法性相，亦不住法性中；於法性中不疑、不悶而說法，無罣、無礙、無遮，是則通達法性。」 tr. "One who thoroughly penetrates does not grasp at the mark of the nature of dharmas and does not abide within the nature of dharmas; within the nature of dharmas he teaches the Dharma without doubt and without oppression, without hindrance, without obstruction, without blocking: this is to penetrate the nature of dharmas." Here three layers must be looked at one by one. ‘Does not grasp at the mark of the nature of dharmas’—the nature of dharmas too cannot be grasped as a mark; if it is grasped, one shares the same sickness as the ordinary people who grasp at marks and who are refuted. ‘Does not abide within the nature of dharmas’—not abiding is the meaning of the four alternatives of non-abiding earlier in the text; the nature of dharmas too is not a place of abiding. And since he neither grasps nor abides, he can still 「不疑、不悶而說法」 tr. "teach the Dharma without doubt and without oppression"—doubt is having something undecided about the nature of dharmas, oppression is having something stuck about the nature of dharmas; without doubt and without oppression, his teaching of the Dharma is therefore 「無罣、無礙、無遮」 tr. "without hindrance, without obstruction, without blocking". The chapter on the four means of gathering sets out from giving, passes through the broad account of the gift of wealth and the gift of Dharma, passes through the brief raising of the three means of gathering, passes through the opening of the gates of letters, and in the end returns here—the utmost of gathering beings is a person who does not grasp, does not abide, and still opens his mouth and teaches the Dharma.

Further Resonances

The Last Part unit has both sūtra and treatise complete; what is carried on here is the ancient masters' structural divisions and questions and answers on the same passages of sūtra and treatise, and the place where this chapter ends and the next chapter begins.

Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra has structural divisions for the whole of this chapter; in explaining the sūtra passages to which this unit corresponds, it meets the treatise-author's explanation in four places in all.

First, explaining the item ‘consciousness full’ among the eighty minor marks, it takes the treatise's answer directly and sets out its meaning further: 「八十種好中識滿足，論云此識是果報亦生，即自然智識一切好醜也。若見凡夫識不具足，故學作人法用也。又佛一歲具足滿足乃生，故身識皆具足。餘人八月、九月處胎云十月，菩薩處胎十月，總得一歲身根具足，故果報得識亦具足也。」 tr. "Consciousness full among the eighty kinds of minor marks: the treatise says this consciousness is retribution and is also born, that is, it cognises all the fair and the foul by a wisdom that is of itself. As we see, ordinary people's consciousness is not complete, and so they learn to put human norms to use. Again, the Buddha was born only when a full year was complete and full, and so body and consciousness were both complete. Other people stay in the womb eight or nine months, and it is called ten months; the bodhisattva stayed in the womb ten months, a year obtained in all, and the faculty of the body was complete, so the consciousness obtained as retribution was complete too."—the treatise wording it cites corresponds sentence by sentence to the answer of passage 18 of this treatise, yet where it writes 「此識是果報亦生」 tr. "this consciousness is retribution and is also born", this treatise writes 「此識是果報生識」 tr. "this consciousness is a consciousness born of retribution", a small difference in the letter; and it adds the words 「即自然智識一切好醜也」 tr. "that is, it cognises all the fair and the foul by a wisdom that is of itself" to explain the function of the consciousness born of retribution, which this treatise does not have. They are recorded side by side without judgement.

Second, explaining why the forty-two gates of letters enter into this passage, beyond the old explanation it sets up a separate meaning: 「善知字門下，第二、明菩薩不教化功為人。初明不教化功故得聖道，今是初文。古解云：此中明字門應入法施中，例廣乘皆是摩訶衍也。而今不入者，上明生法二身為物皆是假名字，欲明如此名字無礙故不可得，非但生法身所施為無礙不可得，只名字亦無礙不可得也。」 tr. "From ‘knows the gates of letters well’ onward is the second, making clear the bodhisattva's merit of not teaching and transforming, for the sake of people. First it makes clear that by the merit of not teaching and transforming the noble path is obtained; this is the first passage. The old explanation says: here it makes clear that the gate of letters should be entered under the gift of Dharma, by the example that the broad vehicle is all Mahāyāna. That it is not entered there now is because above it was made clear that the two bodies, fleshly and Dharma, as they act for beings, are all provisional names and letters; it wishes to make clear that such names and letters are unobstructed and therefore unfindable—not only is what the fleshly body and the Dharma body bestow and do unobstructed and unfindable, but the names and letters themselves are also unobstructed and unfindable."—the old explanation says that the gate of letters should be entered under the heading of the gift of Dharma; Jizang does not follow it, and takes ‘names and letters too are unobstructed and unfindable’ as the reason for setting up a separate heading. This treatise here only explains the meaning of the letters and does not decide their heading; what the two give their attention to is not the same, and they are recorded side by side without judgement. Its explanation of the meaning of entering one another agrees with this treatise: 「一字生四十二字，生四十二字者，如兩一名二、百一名百等，乃至萬一名萬等也。四十二字入一字，論四十二字皆有阿分，故入阿中也。」 tr. "One letter gives rise to forty-two letters: giving rise to forty-two letters is as two ones are named two, a hundred ones named a hundred, and so on up to ten thousand ones named ten thousand. Forty-two letters enter one letter: the treatise says the forty-two letters all have the share of a, and so they enter into a."

Third, its division of the intent of Subhūti's question and of the Buddha's answer. It explains the intent of the question, saying: 「須菩提問意：乘四十二字生，若諸法畢竟空無名字者，云何定生法二身？菩薩為眾生既無，所說法亦無也。此就空有相遣作歎，菩薩心既知諸法空，無眾生、無菩薩、無所說法，而口不應為眾生說法，故以所說徵菩薩心空也。」 tr. "The intent of Subhūti's question: arising on the forty-two letters—if dharmas are ultimately empty and without names, how are the two bodies, fleshly and Dharma, fixed? Since the beings for whom the bodhisattva acts do not exist, the Dharma that is taught does not exist either. This makes a lament on the basis of emptiness and existence dispelling each other: since the bodhisattva's mind knows that dharmas are empty, without beings, without bodhisattvas, without a Dharma that is taught, then his mouth should not teach the Dharma for beings; and so by what is taught he puts the emptiness of the bodhisattva's mind to the test."—with the phrase ‘by what is taught he puts the emptiness of the bodhisattva's mind to the test’ it sums up the structure of the difficulty, which meets the question taken up in passage 22 of this treatise. It explains the Buddha's answer, saying: 「答初印其問，得法空菩薩如是菩薩法空已久，正答其問，菩薩口雖為眾生說法，此說無所說而不失空相。」 tr. "The answer first seals his question: a bodhisattva who has obtained the emptiness of dharmas—such a bodhisattva has long had the emptiness of dharmas; then it answers his question directly: though the bodhisattva's mouth teaches the Dharma for beings, this teaching teaches nothing and does not lose the mark of emptiness."—‘first seals his question’ is exactly the ‘approves’ of this treatise's 「佛可須菩提言」 tr. "The Buddha approves Subhūti, saying". Yet its dividing of the Buddha's answer into three headings this treatise does not have: 「今分佛答中為三：初、明菩薩心亦空有不違；第二、明菩薩拔出眾生空有不二故不相違；三、結歎菩薩心所住外說無過也。」 tr. "Now the Buddha's answer is divided into three: first, making clear that in the bodhisattva's mind, too, emptiness and existence do not conflict; second, making clear that the bodhisattva pulls beings out, and since emptiness and existence are not two, they do not conflict; third, concluding in praise that, where the bodhisattva's mind abides, his outward teaching is without fault." Its explanation of the simile of the conjured person says: 「空有不二未曾相違，如化人雖說意無所說也。又化人雖示種種事，竟無心而示生法二身，菩薩化物亦爾也。」 tr. "Emptiness and existence are not two and have never conflicted, as the conjured person, though he speaks, intends nothing spoken. Again, though the conjured person shows all kinds of things, in the end he is without mind in showing the two bodies, fleshly and Dharma; the bodhisattva's transforming of beings is likewise."—where it lands is the same as passage 8 of this treatise, 「是化人無心、無心數法」 tr. "this conjured person is without mind and without mental-factor dharmas".

Fourth, explaining the objection on ordinary people and sages, its account is the most detailed, and it plainly judges the explanation of earlier people to be incomplete. It first records the old explanation: 「由來諸大師云：就世諦作諍，若以世諦有各別者，凡夫亦見世諦、聖人亦見世諦，凡夫應是須陀洹也。佛答：凡夫不知世諦，故非是聖人。然望文論釋為得也。」 tr. "The great masters hitherto say: the dispute is made on worldly truth—if by worldly truth there are separate distinctions, ordinary people too see worldly truth and sages too see worldly truth, so ordinary people should be srota-āpannas. The Buddha answers: ordinary people do not know worldly truth, and so they are not sages. Yet, looking at the text, the treatise's explanation is the one that gets it." And then it sets up its own explanation, saying that Subhūti's objection is in fact made on the highest meaning, not on worldly truth: 「須菩提難云：世諦故有分別者，第一義中無有分別，凡聖不異，凡夫應是須陀洹。正難：就第一義作難，不就世諦作難。若世諦有分別、凡聖異，第一義諦無分別、凡夫無差別，凡夫豈非須陀洹耶？須陀洹是聖始，故標初為言也。」 tr. "Subhūti's objection says: if by reason of worldly truth there is discrimination, then within the highest meaning there is no discrimination, ordinary people and sages do not differ, and ordinary people should be srota-āpannas. The proper objection: it is made on the highest meaning, not made on worldly truth. If worldly truth has distinction and ordinary people and sages differ, while the truth of the highest meaning is without discrimination and ordinary people have no difference, how are ordinary people not srota-āpannas? The srota-āpanna is the beginning of the sages, so the first is raised to speak of it." At the end it explains the Buddha's answer: 「佛答：凡夫不知二諦，不語二諦也。悟世諦有即悟第一義空，悟二即悟不二，故得道也。」 tr. "The Buddha answers: ordinary people do not know the two truths; it does not speak of the two truths. Awakening to the existence of worldly truth is precisely awakening to the emptiness of the highest meaning; awakening to the two is precisely awakening to the not-two, and therefore one obtains the path."—it shares the same direction as the judgement of passage 32 of this treatise, 「須菩提分別實相、凡夫為異」 tr. "Subhūti distinguishes the real mark as different from ordinary people", while Jizang further sets up the words ‘awakening to the existence of worldly truth is precisely awakening to the emptiness of the highest meaning’ to make clear that knowing the two truths is one matter, which this treatise does not have. It also explains why the question ‘does cultivating the path obtain the fruit’ is raised: 「所以問云脩道得果不者，上即既明凡夫不知二諦故非須陀洹等賢聖，當知修道得果不脩是者，不得果故問也。以四句皆禪，以見修不修皆是有所得，故云不也。」 tr. "The reason he asks ‘does cultivating the path obtain the fruit’ is that above it has already been made clear that ordinary people do not know the two truths and so are not worthies and sages such as the srota-āpanna; one should know that cultivating the path obtains the fruit, and that one who does not cultivate this does not obtain the fruit, and so he asks. That the four alternatives are all meditation is because he sees that cultivating and not cultivating are both with something to be attained, and so it says no."—taking what the four alternatives break as ‘with something to be attained’, it is of one intent with the judgement of passage 35 of this treatise, 「今須菩提以著心問」 tr. "now Subhūti asks with a clinging mind". At its end it further concludes on the two views of ordinary person and sage: 「上明凡夫是須陀洹，則是凡夫一見，今聞異須陀洹，便作凡聖異見，皆是著故並非之也。」 tr. "Above, holding that ordinary people are srota-āpannas is the one view of ordinary people; now, hearing that they differ from the srota-āpanna, he then makes the view that ordinary people and sages differ; both are clinging, and therefore both are rejected."—it takes both views, that ordinary people and sages are the same and that ordinary people and sages differ, as clinging, and so rejects both; these words this treatise does not have, and they are recorded side by side to show where the ancient masters gave their attention on this objection.

Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises has one citation on this chapter, and what it cites is exactly this unit's passage on ordinary people not knowing the two truths: 「故大品經二十四卷四攝品云：佛告須菩提：凡夫實不知世諦，不知第一義，不知中道，不知分別道果，云何當有諸道不等也？」 tr. "Therefore the "Four Means of Gathering" chapter in fascicle twenty-four of the Larger Sūtra says: The Buddha told Subhūti: ordinary people really do not know worldly truth, do not know the highest meaning, do not know the middle path, do not know how to distinguish the fruits of the path; how should they have the inequalities of the various paths?"—its citation is in a summarising form, not word for word; and within it the words 「不知中道」 tr. "do not know the middle path" are absent from the base text of this unit, which reads 「不知道」 tr. "do not know the path". Junzheng cites this passage to prove the meaning that the two truths and the two knowledges take the Buddha-nature as their root, and so above ‘do not know the path’ he adds the one item ‘middle path’. The intent of his adding the words can be seen, and that it does not accord with the letter of the base text is also a fact; it is recorded as it really is, without judging right or wrong and without altering his words.

Huiying's Commentary in its extant text stops in the middle of chapter sixty-nine; for this chapter there is no commentary to carry on, and his explanation is lacking—it is not that it was abridged and left unexplained.

Here this chapter ends. The next chapter is "Thorough Penetration", the seventy-ninth. The sentence set up in the last passage of this unit, 「善通達者，不取法性相，亦不住法性中」 tr. "One who thoroughly penetrates does not grasp at the mark of the nature of dharmas and does not abide within the nature of dharmas", joins exactly with the name of the next chapter—this chapter closes with ‘penetrating the nature of dharmas’, and the next chapter begins speaking from ‘thorough penetration’. The matter of the four means of gathering is completed in this chapter: the First Part makes clear the two gifts of giving, wealth and Dharma; in the Middle Part the treatise-author settles the doubts they left; the Last Part gathers up the two gifts and raises the three means of gathering in brief, and further opens the gates of letters and the two truths and returns to teaching the Dharma without clinging. What this unit leaves unexplained for the text below is two things: first, among the eighty minor marks, the treatise-author in this chapter explains only the two items ‘consciousness full’ and ‘secure in his dwelling-place’; of the other items, those on which this treatise has an explicit text to rely on in other fascicles are only a few matters—the light of one zhang, the red-copper nails, Nārāyaṇa—and beyond these this treatise does not explain them, and the sūtra too only lists without explaining; second, among the four alternatives of non-abiding set up in Sūtra ②, for the sentence ‘the existent dharma does not abide in the existent dharma’ the treatise-author sets up no separate simile, so of three similes one is lacking. Both matters are recorded as lacking as they really are, and nothing is supplied on their behalf.