大智度論 實際品之上Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Limit of Reality, Part 1 of 2

The Limit of Reality, First Part: The Limit of Reality and the Limit of Beings Are Not Different; the Five Gates of the Power of Skilful Means; the Emptiness of Nature Is the Mark of the Abiding of Dharmas; Awakening Is Neither Taking nor Giving Up, and by Reason of Worldly Truth It Is Said That There Is a Bodhisattva

What Is Being Asked

The preceding chapter spoke of all dharmas being ultimately empty, and this at once pressed out the hardest question: since dharmas are empty, are beings still there or not? As soon as this chapter opens, Subhūti pushes this question to the bottom—「世尊！若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?". If the object to be delivered is at root unfindable, the practice that delivers falls into emptiness; the more thoroughgoing prajñā is, the less footing there is for delivering the living. This is where the whole chapter starts, and it is also the first difficulty this unit must resolve.

The Buddha's answer is only one sentence: 「菩薩為實際故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the limit of reality."—what he acts for is not that being of provisional name, but the limit of reality. But this sentence at once draws out a second difficulty: if the limit of reality is precisely the limit of beings, then to securely set beings in the limit of reality—would that not be 「建立實際於實際」 tr. "establishing the limit of reality upon the limit of reality" and 「建立自性於自性」 tr. "establishing self-nature upon self-nature"? Self-nature cannot be set upon self-nature, just as the tip of a finger cannot itself touch the tip of that finger. The second question is asked most exactly: since the two limits are not different, the matter of securely setting has nowhere to take hold.

The eye of the solution the Buddha gives lies in the three Chinese characters 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means": 「實際不可建立於實際，自性不可建立於自性」 tr. "The limit of reality cannot be established upon the limit of reality; self-nature cannot be established upon self-nature"—this sentence first concedes that Subhūti's line of reasoning is entirely right; only then does he say 「今菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，以方便力故，建立眾生於實際」 tr. "Now, when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, by reason of the power of skilful means he establishes beings within the limit of reality". In principle it cannot be set up, yet in practice it can be set up, and everything in between rests on skilful means. So comes Subhūti's third question: 「何等是諸菩薩摩訶薩方便力？」 tr. "What is the power of skilful means of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas?" The main body of this unit is the Buddha's long answer to this question—the five gates of giving, keeping morality, patience, vigour, and meditative concentration, each one spoken in terms of the emptiness of nature, each one closed with 「是世俗法，非第一實義」 tr. "This is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning"; the teaching is real teaching, and yet of the dharmas taught not one is findable.

After that the sūtra turns over one layer more: since within the emptiness of nature beings are unfindable, by what does the bodhisattva seek the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha answers it with 「法住相」 tr. "the mark of the abiding of dharmas", and takes the fourfold assembly conjured by the Buddha as a simile—the conjured assemblies are taught the Dharma for thousands of myriads of koṭi of kalpas and do not obtain the fruit of the path; the bodhisattva teaches the Dharma and delivers the living, and yet beings are in reality unfindable: the two sides are one and the same mechanism. The last section turns to awakening itself: awakening 「非取故行、非捨故行」 tr. "is practised neither by reason of taking nor by reason of giving up", and so there is the question 「菩提何處行」 tr. "where does awakening practise", which the Buddha answers with two layers of counter-questions, with the conjured person and with the arhat's awakening in a dream; and having answered, he at once supplies the other side—not making complete the ten grounds, the six perfections, and so on up to the eighty minor marks, 「終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". This unit closes at last on one sentence: 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva"—to say there is a bodhisattva, there is form, there is the omniscience of all kinds, is all worldly truth; within the highest meaning there is no bodhisattva and no awakening either.

So what the First Part must answer is three questions: if beings are unfindable, for whom does one practise; if the two limits are not different, how is anything securely set; if awakening has no place in which it practises, do the myriad practices become empty?

Passage by Passage

1. Beings are ultimately unfindable—for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñā? The first question opening the chapter. What Subhūti asks is not doubting the Buddha; on the readers' behalf he pushes the conclusion of the preceding chapter to its very end: 「若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?" What prajñā practises has always had the delivering of beings as what it acts for; now that beings are ultimately unfindable, the place it acts for is cut off. In this question one thing must be seen clearly—what he asks is 「為誰」 tr. "for whose sake", not ‘whether there are or not’. Emptiness and non-emptiness were settled in the preceding chapter; what is pressed here is ‘what one acts for’. The Buddha's answer below takes hold exactly from ‘what one acts for’, not from ‘existence or non-existence’; the two sides are fastened most tightly.

2. Practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality—the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different; without destroying the limit of reality he establishes beings in the limit of reality. The Buddha's answer changes only what is acted for: 「菩薩為實際故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the limit of reality." At once he supplies the reason, positive and negative together: 「實際、眾生際異者，菩薩不行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "If the limit of reality and the limit of beings were different, the bodhisattva would not practise prajñāpāramitā"—if the two limits differed, delivering the living and practising prajñā would become two matters, and prajñā would have nothing to apply itself to; 「實際、眾生際不異，以是故，菩薩摩訶薩為利益眾生故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "The limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different; because of this, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of benefiting beings"—the two limits are not different, so acting for beings is precisely acting for the limit of reality, and benefiting others and tending toward reality are not two roads. The last sentence points out the name of this chapter: 「以不壞實際法，立眾生於實際中」 tr. "without destroying the dharma of the limit of reality, he establishes beings within the limit of reality"—establishing without destroying is the joint of the whole chapter. Do not misunderstand it as ‘abandoning beings to take hold of the limit of reality’: what the sūtra says is that he practises for the sake of benefiting beings; only the place where they are established has changed.

3. If the two limits are one, there arises the difficulty of establishing the limit of reality upon the limit of reality. Subhūti at once seizes the 「不異」 tr. "not different" of the sentence above and pushes out the difficulty: 「若實際即是眾生際，菩薩則為建立實際於實際」 tr. "If the limit of reality is precisely the limit of beings, the bodhisattva would then be establishing the limit of reality upon the limit of reality", and goes one layer further: 「若建立實際於實際，則為建立自性於自性」 tr. "If the limit of reality is established upon the limit of reality, then self-nature is established upon self-nature", while 「不得建立自性於自性」 tr. "self-nature cannot be established upon self-nature". The three sentences tighten layer by layer: not different, then one; one, then what is set up and what it rests on are the same thing; the same thing, then there is no securely setting to speak of. This difficulty is not a game of words—whenever one says ‘set A upon B’, A and B must be distinct; now A and B are not distinct, and the matter of securely setting breaks down of itself. If the reader skips over this point, the three Chinese characters 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means" below will have nothing to rest on.

4. The limit of reality cannot be established upon the limit of reality—by reason of the power of skilful means he establishes beings in the limit of reality. The Buddha's way of answering deserves a close look: he first concedes Subhūti's line of reasoning in full—「實際不可建立於實際，自性不可建立於自性」 tr. "The limit of reality cannot be established upon the limit of reality; self-nature cannot be established upon self-nature", refuting not a single word; only then does he turn out what can be done in practice—「今菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，以方便力故，建立眾生於實際」 tr. "Now, when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, by reason of the power of skilful means he establishes beings within the limit of reality". At the end he says 「不異」 tr. "not different" once again: 「實際亦不異眾生際，實際、眾生際無二無別」 tr. "the limit of reality too is not different from the limit of beings; the limit of reality and the limit of beings are without duality and without difference". Not being able to be set up in principle yet being able to be set up in practice is not self-contradiction: what is set up is beings in delusion, what it rests on is the limit as it originally is; when the deluded awaken, there is no thing that has been moved onto another thing. The two Chinese characters ‘skilful means’ point exactly to this place—not an expedient device, but the only crossing between principle and practice.

5. The question: what is the power of skilful means? Following on from the above he asks: 「何等是諸菩薩摩訶薩方便力？用是方便力，菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，建立眾生於實際，亦不壞實際相？」 tr. "What is the power of skilful means of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas? Using this power of skilful means, does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, when practising prajñāpāramitā, establish beings within the limit of reality and yet not destroy the mark of the limit of reality?" Within the question two conditions are already written fast: first, beings must be established; second, the mark of the limit of reality must not be destroyed. The answer of the five gates below fastens on these two in every sentence—wherever a dharma is taught, its emptiness is always told, which is not destroying the mark of the limit of reality; wherever emptiness is told, they are always made to practise, which is establishing beings. Reading what follows with these two conditions set against it, one knows why every gate closes with words of the kind 「是世俗法，非第一實義」 tr. "This is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning".

6. The first skilful means, the gate of giving—telling that giving is empty in all three limits, and yet it can take the flavour of ambrosia. The first gate of the Buddha's answer: 「以方便力故，建立眾生於布施。建立已，說布施先後際相」 tr. "by reason of the power of skilful means he establishes beings in giving. Having established them, he proclaims the marks of the former limit and the latter limit of giving". The sequence is first establishing, then telling: first he has them practise giving, and only after they have practised does he tell them 「前際空、後際空、中際亦空，施者亦空、施報亦空、受者亦空」 tr. "empty in the former limit, empty in the latter limit, empty too in the middle limit; the giver too is empty, the retribution of giving too is empty, the recipient too is empty". Why not tell of emptiness first? If emptiness is told first, giving does not arise; if giving is established first and emptiness told afterwards, the giving is accomplished without clinging. What is warned against is 「莫念布施異、施者異、施報異、受者異」 tr. "you must not think that giving is different, that the giver is different, that the retribution of giving is different, that the recipient is different"—to think of difference is to discriminate the four matters as real, and what is real becomes bondage. And the fruit is in the last sentence: when one does not think of difference, 「布施能取甘露味、得甘露味果」 tr. "giving can take the flavour of ambrosia and obtain the fruit of the flavour of ambrosia". The close still returns to the emptiness of nature: 「是諸法畢竟自性空故」 tr. "because these dharmas are ultimately empty of self-nature". This passage is the pattern of the five gates; the four gates below all follow this pattern.

7. The second skilful means, the gate of keeping morality—as for the dharmas as you discriminate them, these dharmas have no such nature. The next gate teaches the keeping of morality, and the words taught are very close to hand: 「除捨殺生法，乃至除捨邪見」 tr. "Give up the dharma of killing living beings, and so on up to giving up wrong views". And the reason one can give them up lies not in the rules of the precepts but in 「如汝所分別法，是諸法無如是性」 tr. "As for the dharmas as you discriminate them, these dharmas have no such nature"—that ‘one who can be killed’ and that ‘matter of killing’ which you have discriminated out have no such nature in dharmas. So he teaches him to reflect carefully: 「何等是眾生而欲奪命？用何等物奪命？」 tr. "What is a being, that you wish to take its life? By what thing is its life taken?"—when the questioning reaches here, what the deed of killing rests on breaks down of itself. After that he speaks of the retribution: the retribution of giving and of keeping morality is 「自性空」 tr. "empty of self-nature"; because one knows it is empty one does not cling, and because one does not cling 「心不散，能生智慧」 tr. "the mind is not scattered and can give rise to wisdom", and with this wisdom one severs the fetters and 「入無餘涅槃」 tr. "enters nirvāṇa without remainder". The last sentence most needs attention: 「是世俗法，非第一實義。何以故？空中無有滅、亦無使滅者。」 tr. "This is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning. Why? Within emptiness there is nothing that ceases, nor anything that causes cessation."—even the section on entering nirvāṇa is judged a worldly dharma. Do not read these words as belittling nirvāṇa: the sūtra explains the reason itself—within ultimate emptiness there is no cessation and nothing that can cause cessation, so 「諸法畢竟空，即是涅槃」 tr. "all dharmas being ultimately empty is precisely nirvāṇa".

8. The third skilful means, the gate of patience—who is the one angered at? Who is the one who is angry? This emptiness is made neither by the buddhas nor by the gods. The third gate counters anger. The method of teaching is still first establishing, then telling: first he has him 「修行忍辱，作忍辱人，當樂忍辱」 tr. "cultivate patience, become a person of patience; you should delight in patience", then he tells the reason—「汝所瞋者自性空故」 tr. "because what you are angry at is empty of self-nature". And the method of breaking anger is three questions sent down together: 「我於何所法中瞋？誰為瞋者？所瞋者誰？」 tr. "Within what dharma am I angry? Who is the one who is angry? Who is the one angered at?" Anger must arise in dependence on three matters; when the three matters are all unfindable, anger of itself has nothing to rest on. After that, a long passage is a laying-out rarely seen in this chapter: this emptiness was not made by anyone—「是空非諸佛作，非辟支佛、聲聞作，非菩薩摩訶薩作」 tr. "This emptiness is not made by the buddhas, not made by the pratyekabuddhas or the śrāvakas, not made by the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas", and so on up to the gods, ghosts and spirits, nāga kings, and the gods of the form realm and the formless realm—none of them can make it. The use of this passage is exactly to cut off the thought ‘emptiness is cultivated into being’: if emptiness were made by someone, it could be made and could be destroyed, and patience would become a temporary strength. The closing sentence points out the name of this chapter once again: 「是名實際性空法」 tr. "This is named the dharma of the limit of reality and the emptiness of nature", and makes good the difficulty raised at the opening—the bodhisattva practises this dharma for the sake of beings, and 「眾生亦不可得」 tr. "beings too are unfindable", because 「一切法離眾生相」 tr. "all dharmas are apart from the mark of beings".

9. The fourth skilful means, the gate of vigour—within the emptiness of nature there is no one who is slack; you must not think of the mark of two, nor think of the mark of not two. The fourth gate counters slackness. The words taught still first break what it rests on: 「諸法性空中無懈怠法、無懈怠者、無懈怠事」 tr. "Within the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas there is no dharma of slackness, no one who is slack, and no matter of slackness", and at once he sets up the practice proper: 「汝等生身精進、心精進，為生善法故，莫懈怠！」 tr. "You should give rise to vigour of body and vigour of mind, and for the sake of giving rise to wholesome dharmas, do not be slack!"—first saying there is no dharma of slackness and afterwards saying do not be slack, the two sentences do not contradict each other: ‘there is no’ is with regard to self-nature; ‘do not’ is with regard to the practice of matters. The items in which one should be vigorous are enumerated from giving and keeping morality up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and of all of them it is said 「莫懈怠」 tr. "do not be slack". The next section goes a step further: after teaching vigour, he warns against thinking of marks—「汝等莫念二相、莫念不二相」 tr. "you must not think of the mark of two, nor think of the mark of not two". These words are the easiest to miss in reading: breaking the mark of two is easy to understand; that even 「不二相」 tr. "the mark of not two" may not be thought of is because once not-two is thought of as a mark, it is still a mark. At the end it comes back to the stages: having brought beings to accomplishment, 「次第教令得須陀洹果」 tr. "he teaches them in sequence to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna", and so on up to 「菩薩位，令得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the bodhisattva's position, causing them to obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—the teaching of the emptiness of nature does not abolish the stages.

10. The fifth skilful means, the gate of meditative concentration—within the emptiness of nature there is neither scattering nor one mind; abiding in the supernormal powers obtained as retribution, he enters the five destinies without diminishment. The fifth gate counters the scattered mind. The words taught are of the same form: 「當修禪定！汝莫生亂想，當生一心」 tr. "You should cultivate meditative concentration! Do not give rise to scattered thoughts; you should give rise to one mind", and the reason is 「性空中無有法可得若亂、若一心」 tr. "within the emptiness of nature there is no dharma to be found that is scattered or that is one mind". After that comes the longest string of listing in the whole unit: the deeds of body, speech, and mind done while abiding in this samādhi, enumerated from giving up to the omniscience of all kinds, bringing beings to accomplishment, and purifying buddha-lands, of all of which it is said 「汝等皆當應隨所願得；行性空故」 tr. "you shall all obtain according to your wishes; because you practise the emptiness of nature"—the ground for obtaining according to one's wishes lies not in the size of the power of the vow but in the three Chinese characters 「行性空」 tr. "practise the emptiness of nature". The last section turns to the practitioner's own marks: from the first arousing of intent 「終不懈廢」 tr. "he never slackens or abandons it", 「從一佛國至一佛國，供養諸佛」 tr. "going from one buddha-land to another, he makes offerings to the buddhas", giving up bodies and taking on bodies and yet 「終不忘失」 tr. "he never forgets or loses it"; 「常得諸陀羅尼，諸根具足」 tr. "he constantly obtains the dhāraṇīs and is complete in all his faculties". The closing sentence is 「住報得神通，利益眾生，入生死五道，終不耗減」 tr. "he abides in the supernormal powers obtained as retribution, benefits beings, enters the five destinies of birth and death, and never suffers diminishment"—entering the five destinies without diminishment is exactly the concrete look of establishing beings without destroying the limit of reality.

11. Abiding in the emptiness of nature and doing the three kinds of deeds, taking the flavour of ambrosia; practising oneself and teaching others, from the ten wholesome paths to the unsurpassed path. This passage is the summing-up after the five gates, and also the place where the power of skilful means lands in practice. First he sets up the practice: 「觀一切法性空」 tr. "contemplate the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas", and 「當作諸業，若身業、若口業、若意業，取甘露味，得甘露果」 tr. "you should do deeds—whether deeds of body, or deeds of speech, or deeds of mind—take the flavour of ambrosia and obtain the fruit of ambrosia"; next he cuts off the doubt: 「性空中無有法退。何以故？性空不退，亦無退者」 tr. "Within the emptiness of nature there is no dharma that can retreat. Why? The emptiness of nature does not retreat, nor is there one who retreats", and explains the reason himself—「以性空非法亦非非法，於無所有法中，云何當有退？」 tr. "because the emptiness of nature is neither a dharma nor not a dharma, within a dharma without anything existent, how could there be retreat?". After that comes the long table of practising oneself and teaching others: the ten wholesome paths, the five precepts, the eight precepts, the four dhyānas, the mind of kindness up to the mind of equanimity, the four formless spheres, the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighty minor marks—all of them he 「自行」 tr. "himself practises" and 「亦教他人」 tr. "also teaches others". One sentence among them is most important: from the fruit of the srota-āpanna up to the fruit of the arhat and the path of the pratyekabuddha, it is always 「自於須陀洹果中生智慧，亦不住是中」 tr. "he himself gives rise to wisdom within the fruit of the srota-āpanna and yet does not abide within it"—only by giving rise to wisdom without abiding can he teach others without himself falling. It closes with 「終不懈怠」 tr. "never slackens", echoing the fourth gate from afar.

12. Within constant emptiness beings are unfindable—how then does one seek the omniscience of all kinds? The five gates finished, Subhūti raises a second round of difficulty: 「若諸法性常空，常空中眾生不可得，法、非法亦不可得，菩薩摩訶薩云何求一切種智？」 tr. "If the nature of all dharmas is ever empty, and within this constant emptiness beings are unfindable, and what is a dharma and what is not a dharma too are unfindable, how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva seek the omniscience of all kinds?" The earlier difficulty asked about the beings to be delivered; this difficulty asks about the fruit of buddhahood to be sought—since what is delivered is not there, what is sought is not there either; prajñā falls empty at both ends. This question goes one layer deeper than the first question, because it no longer aims only at the object, but at the very practice that seeks.

13. The Buddha grants his words and shows the reverse—if dharmas were not empty there would be no way to accomplish awakening; the emptiness of nature is the mark of the abiding of dharmas. The Buddha's way of answering is first to grant entirely and then to show the reverse: 「如是！如是！如汝所言」 tr. "Just so! Just so! It is as you say", restating Subhūti's words word for word; at once he turns out the reverse side—「若一切法性不空，菩薩摩訶薩不依性空成阿耨多羅三藐三菩提、為眾生說性空法」 tr. "If the nature of all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva could not, relying on the emptiness of nature, accomplish anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and proclaim for beings the dharma of the emptiness of nature". This sentence is the pivot of the whole passage: the emptiness of nature is not a hindrance to seeking the path but exactly what seeking the path relies on; if dharmas were not empty, there would on the contrary be no path to accomplish. Below it he enumerates the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, the limbs of the path, the three gates of liberation, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds that severs the afflictions and their habitual residues—all are 「性空法」 tr. "the dharma of the emptiness of nature". He goes a layer further to speak of the emptinesses themselves: 「若內空性不空、外空乃至無法有法空性不空者，則壞空性」 tr. "If the nature of inner emptiness were not empty, and the nature of outer emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas were not empty, that would destroy the nature of emptiness"—emptiness too is not set up as real, or else emptiness becomes a thing and destroys the meaning of emptiness. At the end the name 「法住相」 tr. "the mark of the abiding of dharmas" appears: the emptiness of nature is 「不常不斷」 tr. "neither permanent nor annihilated", 「無住處，亦無所從來、亦無所從去」 tr. "has no abiding-place, nor does it come from anywhere, nor does it go anywhere", 「無聚無散、無增無減、無生無滅、無垢無淨」 tr. "neither gathering nor scattering, without increase and without decrease, non-arising and non-ceasing, without stain and without purity"; the bodhisattva abides in this and arouses the mind, 「不見法有所發，無發無住，是名法住相」 tr. "not seeing any dharma that can be aroused, without arousing and without abiding; this is named the mark of the abiding of dharmas". With this the second difficulty is answered: one who seeks the omniscience of all kinds seeks exactly by abiding in this mark of the abiding of dharmas.

14. The Buddha asks whether the conjured fourfold assembly obtain the fruits and receive the prediction. The Buddha does not at once state the point of the simile; he first sets up the matter: 「譬如佛化作四眾：比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷，常為是諸眾說法，千萬億劫不斷」 tr. "It is as the Buddha conjures the fourfold assembly—bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, upāsikās—and constantly proclaims the Dharma for these assemblies, unbroken for thousands of myriads of koṭi of kalpas", and at once asks back: 「是諸化眾，當得須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "Will these conjured assemblies obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna, the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, the fruit of the anāgāmin, the fruit of the arhat, and receive the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" The manner of asking is the Buddha's habitual form—he does not pass judgement himself but has the other answer for himself, and the principle answered out is then his own principle.

15. Subhūti answers no—because they have no real root. The answer is two sentences: 「是諸化眾無有根本實故」 tr. "because these conjured assemblies have no real root", and 「一切諸法性空，亦無根本實事」 tr. "all dharmas are empty of nature and also have no real root-substance". Look at the three Chinese characters 「根本實」 tr. "real root": it does not say that the conjured assemblies are false and real people true; it says that all dharmas alike are without a real root—on this point the conjured assemblies and beings have no difference of degree. So at the end of the answer he asks back: 「何等是眾生得須陀洹果乃至阿羅漢果、得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記？」 tr. "then what is a being that obtains the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the fruit of the arhat, and receives the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" This answer once given, in the next passage the Buddha uses it to match the simile.

16. The bodhisattva's teaching of the Dharma is also like this—pulling beings out from within inversion; inversion is precisely non-inversion. The words matching the simile: 「菩薩摩訶薩亦如是，為眾生說性空法，是眾生實不可得」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva too is like this: he proclaims for beings the dharma of the emptiness of nature, and yet these beings are in reality unfindable". The reason he must still teach is 「眾生墮顛倒故，拔眾生令住不顛倒」 tr. "because beings have fallen into inversion, he pulls beings out and makes them abide in non-inversion". At once one sentence turns it over: 「顛倒即是無顛倒；顛倒、不顛倒雖一相，而多顛倒、少不顛倒」 tr. "Inversion is precisely non-inversion; though inversion and non-inversion are of one mark, there is much inversion and little non-inversion"—with regard to their one mark, ‘is precisely’ is said; with regard to their much and little, they must be pulled out. Do not read 「即是」 tr. "is precisely" as ‘there is no need to pull out’: the sūtra itself speaks of much and little in the same sentence, exactly to leave room for pulling out. In the place of non-inversion there is no self, no being, and so on up to no knower and no seer, and also no form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, no twelve sense-fields, and so on up to no awakening: 「是為諸法性空」 tr. "this is precisely all dharmas being empty of nature". And the marks pulled out from are told most finely: it is 「所謂無眾生有眾生相中拔出」 tr. "namely he pulls them out from within there being no beings and yet a mark of beings", and pulling out 「於無色色相中」 tr. "from within there being no form and yet a mark of form"—what is pulled away is the mark, not beings; what is broken is false imagining, not people.

17. Even the dharmas without outflows are not like the highest meaning; he does not seek awakening for the sake of the dharmas of the path; practising all paths throughout, he seeks knowledge of the kinds of paths. This passage first sets up a demarcation: the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, 「雖無漏，亦不如第一義相」 tr. "though without outflows, are still not like the mark of the highest meaning". What is the mark of the highest meaning? The sūtra itself gives its items: 「無作、無為、無生、無相、無說」 tr. "without making, unconditioned, non-arising, signless, and unspeakable", with three names glossing one another—「是名第一義，亦名性空，亦名諸佛道」 tr. "this is named the highest meaning, is also named the emptiness of nature, and is also named the path of the buddhas". Below it speaks of what the bodhisattva seeks: 「非為道法故求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，為諸法實相性空故求」 tr. "he does not seek the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi for the sake of the dharmas of the path; he seeks it for the sake of the real mark of all dharmas, the emptiness of nature"—the dharmas of the path are the road, the emptiness of nature is where it returns to, and the road may not be taken as where it returns to. Next it speaks of the emptiness of nature holding at all times: 「前際亦是性空，後際亦是性空，中際亦是性空；常性空，無不性空時」 tr. "the former limit too is the emptiness of nature, the latter limit too is the emptiness of nature, the middle limit too is the emptiness of nature; it is constantly the emptiness of nature, and there is no time when it is not the emptiness of nature". Next it speaks of why he practises throughout: in order to pull beings out of the mark of beings he 「求道種智」 tr. "seeks knowledge of the kinds of paths", and when seeking knowledge of the kinds of paths he 「遍行一切道——若聲聞道、若辟支佛道、若菩薩道」 tr. "practises all paths throughout—whether the path of the śrāvaka, or the path of the pratyekabuddha, or the bodhisattva path". At the end the buddhas of the three times are gathered in together: 「過去十方諸佛道性空，未來、現在十方諸佛道亦性空；離性空，世間無道、無道果。」 tr. "The path of the buddhas of the ten directions in the past is the emptiness of nature; the path of the buddhas of the ten directions in the future and the present is also the emptiness of nature; apart from the emptiness of nature, there is no path in the world and no fruit of the path." And it leaves one sentence as the place of actual practice: 「要從親近諸佛，聞是諸法性空，行是法，不失薩婆若。」 tr. "One must, by drawing near to the buddhas, hear of this emptiness of the nature of all dharmas and practise this dharma; only then does one not lose sarvajñā."

18. Subhūti exclaims at the rarity—form is precisely the emptiness of nature, and the emptiness of nature is precisely form. Here Subhūti breaks into exclamation: 「甚希有！諸菩薩摩訶薩行是性空法，亦不壞性空相」 tr. "Most rare! The bodhisattva-mahāsattvas practise this dharma of the emptiness of nature and also do not destroy the mark of the emptiness of nature". What he exclaims at is exactly the difficult point: practising emptiness without destroying the mark of emptiness. His words first list what is not so—「所謂色與性空異，受、想、行、識與性空異，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提與性空異」 tr. "namely that form and the emptiness of nature are different, that feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness and the emptiness of nature are different, and so on up to that anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the emptiness of nature are different"; then he gives what is so—「但色即是性空，性空即是色」 tr. "yet form is precisely the emptiness of nature, and the emptiness of nature is precisely form", and so on up to awakening, which is likewise. Here the two sides ‘different’ and ‘is precisely’ come out together, laying the ground for the Buddha's answer in the next passage: if different, the knowledge of all kinds is not obtained; if ‘is precisely’, it can be obtained.

19. The Buddha grants it—not destroying the two marks of form and emptiness; the simile of space not destroying space. The Buddha first, following his words, makes the negative judgement: if form and so on up to awakening 「與性空異」 tr. "were different from the emptiness of nature", then 「菩薩摩訶薩不能得一切種智」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva could not obtain the omniscience of all kinds"; then he makes the positive judgement: 「今色不異性空，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不異性空」 tr. "Now form is not different from the emptiness of nature, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is not different from the emptiness of nature", so the bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are empty of nature and arouses the intent to seek awakening. Below it speaks of the sickness of ordinary people: 「無有法若實、若常，但凡夫著色、受、想、行、識」 tr. "there is no dharma that is real or permanent; it is only that ordinary people cling to form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness", taking hold of marks and, 「有我心著內外物故」 tr. "because they have the thought of a self and cling to inner and outer things", thereupon 「受後身」 tr. "they receive a later body" and do not get free of birth, old age, sickness, and death, going back and forth in the five destinies. So the bodhisattva practises the pāramitā of the emptiness of nature and 「不壞色等諸法相若空、若不空」 tr. "does not destroy the marks of form and the other dharmas, whether empty or not empty". As for why he is able not to destroy them, the sūtra explains it itself: 「是色性空相不壞色，所謂是色、是空」 tr. "this mark of the emptiness of the nature of form does not destroy form, namely that this is form, this is emptiness", and takes space as a simile—「譬如虛空不壞虛空，內虛空不壞外虛空，外虛空不壞內虛空」 tr. "It is as space does not destroy space: inner space does not destroy outer space, and outer space does not destroy inner space". The last sentence states why it is so: 「是二法無有性能有所壞」 tr. "these two dharmas have no such nature as could destroy anything"—destroying requires a nature that can destroy; the two dharmas are both without nature, so nothing is destroyed.

20. If all dharmas are without discrimination, how does one make the vow that one shall obtain awakening? Subhūti's third round of difficulty, a difficulty about arousing the mind: 「若一切法空無分別，云何菩薩摩訶薩從初發意已來作是願『我當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提』？」 tr. "If all dharmas are empty and without discrimination, then how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, from the first arousing of intent onward, make this vow: ‘I shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi’?" And he himself brings out the pincer of two difficulties: without discrimination there is nothing to arouse; 「若分別諸法，不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "if one discriminates dharmas, one cannot obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—making a vow requires discriminating, and discriminating means not obtaining. This difficulty differs from the first two: the first two concerned what is delivered and what is sought; this one concerns the mind that arouses.

21. Practising the mark of two, there is no awakening—awakening is the mark of non-duality, the indestructible mark, practised neither by reason of taking nor by reason of giving up. The Buddha's answer is again first granting, then turning: 「若菩薩摩訶薩行二相者，無阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；若分別作二分者，無阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the mark of two, there is no anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; if he discriminates and makes two divisions, there is no anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—what Subhūti worries about is not groundless; at once he turns it out: 「若不二、不分別諸法，則是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "If one does not make dharmas two and does not discriminate them, that is precisely anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". The substance of awakening thereupon appears: 「菩提是不二相、不壞相」 tr. "Awakening is the mark of non-duality, the indestructible mark". Below it speaks of awakening not practising within dharmas—not practising within form, not practising within feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, 「乃至菩提亦不菩提中行」 tr. "and so on up to awakening too does not practise within awakening"; the reason is 「色即是菩提、菩提即是色，不二、不分別」 tr. "form is precisely awakening and awakening is precisely form, not two and not discriminated". The last sentence sets up the starting point of the question below: 「是菩提非取故行、非捨故行。」 tr. "This awakening is practised neither by reason of taking nor by reason of giving up."

22. The question of where awakening practises. Following on from the last sentence above he asks: 「若菩薩摩訶薩菩提非取故行、非捨故行，菩薩摩訶薩菩提何處行？」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's awakening is practised neither by reason of taking nor by reason of giving up, then where does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's awakening practise?" Since the two gates of taking and giving up are both not set up, what is practised has no place that can be pointed to. This question is asked very concretely and is not a delving into words: whenever 「行」 tr. "practise" is spoken of, there must be a place where it is practised; now both gates are blocked, so the place must be asked about.

23. The Buddha asks back where a conjured person practises. The Buddha does not answer directly but asks back with a matter: 「於汝意云何？如佛所化人在何處行——若取中行？若捨中行？」 tr. "What do you think? Where does a person conjured by the Buddha practise—does he practise within taking? Or does he practise within giving up?" He asks with the conjured person for its being without mind—the conjured person has the marks of practice but no mind that can take or give up, which is exactly the ready-made model of ‘practising without a place’. The simile of the conjured fourfold assembly of the earlier passage is used once more here, but what it makes clear is different: there it made clear that there is no reality of obtaining the path; here it makes clear that there is no place of taking and giving up.

24. Subhūti answers: neither taking nor giving up. The answer is only one sentence: 「世尊！非取中行，非捨中行。」 tr. "World-Honored One! He does not practise within taking, nor does he practise within giving up." The answer is cut clean, because the matter is self-evident. This answer once given, the Buddha at once matches it to awakening.

25. The Buddha asks again with the arhat's awakening in a dream. The Buddha first matches the earlier simile: 「菩薩摩訶薩菩提亦如是，非取中行、非捨中行」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's awakening is also like this: it does not practise within taking, nor practise within giving up"; at once he sets another question: 「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行——若取中行？若捨中行？」 tr. "Where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise—does it practise within taking? Or does it practise within giving up?" This question goes a layer further—the conjured person is conjured by another, while the dream is manifested by one's own mind; the one question concerns the mindlessness of an outer object, the other the unreality of the inner mind. With the two questions used together, the two gates of taking and giving up have no ground to stand on.

26. Subhūti answers that the arhat ultimately does not sleep. The answer has two sections: first he answers in accord, 「非取中行、非捨中行」 tr. "it does not practise within taking, nor practise within giving up", then brings out the reason himself—「阿羅漢畢竟不眠，云何夢中菩提若取中行、若捨中行？」 tr. "The arhat ultimately does not sleep; then how could the awakening in a dream practise within taking or practise within giving up?" The force of this answer is this: he does not say that the awakening in a dream has no taking or giving up; he says that at root there is no such dream, so the place asked about is not set up from the start. The Buddha's setting of the question takes exactly this point, making clear ‘there is necessarily no place of practice’. This is the hinge where the First Part and the Last Part fasten together: the treatise-author here sets out several rounds of question and answer, discussing in detail the matter of sleep and dreams, and the reader may wait for the Last Part.

27. The Buddha concludes—awakening is neither taking nor giving up, namely practising within form and so on up to practising within the omniscience of all kinds. With this the Buddha concludes the meaning of awakening: 「菩薩摩訶薩阿耨多羅三藐三菩提亦如是，非取中行、非捨中行，所謂色中行乃至一切種智中行。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is also like this: it does not practise within taking, nor practise within giving up, namely practising within form and so on up to practising within the omniscience of all kinds." The last sentence needs attention: having said neither taking nor giving up, he also says 「色中行乃至一切種智中行」 tr. "practising within form and so on up to practising within the omniscience of all kinds"—this is not self-contradiction: ‘neither taking nor giving up’ blocks the mind of taking and giving up; ‘practising within form and so on up to within the knowledge of all kinds’ makes clear that its practice pervades all dharmas without abiding. Blocking and showing come out together, which is exactly the manner of this chapter.

28. The doubt: might one obtain awakening without practising the dharmas? Subhūti at once asks out the doubt that readers are bound to have: 「將無菩薩摩訶薩不行十地，不行六波羅蜜，不行三十七助道法，不行十四空，不行諸禪定、解脫、三昧，不行佛十力乃至八十隨形好、住五神通、淨佛國土、成就眾生，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "Put this way, is it not that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, not practising the ten grounds, not practising the six perfections, not practising the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, not practising the fourteen emptinesses, not practising the meditative concentrations, liberations, and samādhis, not practising the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to the eighty minor marks, abiding in the five supernormal powers, purifying buddha-lands, and bringing beings to accomplishment, obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?"—if awakening has no place in which it practises, do the myriad practices not fall into emptiness? If this doubt is not removed, all the talk of the emptiness of nature above becomes talk of abandoning practice.

29. The Buddha grants his words and does not abandon the myriad practices—not making these dharmas complete, he never obtains awakening. The Buddha's answer shows the greatest sense of measure: first he grants entirely, 「如是！如是！如汝所言」 tr. "Just so! Just so! It is as you say", then he sets up a turn—「今菩薩雖菩提無處行」 tr. "Now, though the bodhisattva has no place in awakening in which to practise", and, enumerating the ten grounds, the six perfections, and so on up to the dharma of constant equanimity and the dharma of non-error, he cuts it off: 「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Having no place to practise is principle; not obtaining without making complete is practice; the two do not hinder each other. Next it speaks of abiding in marks and being able to make complete: 「是菩薩摩訶薩住色相中」 tr. "This bodhisattva-mahāsattva abides within the mark of form", passing through the marks of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, 「乃至住阿耨多羅三藐三菩提相中，能具足十地」 tr. "and so on up to abides within the mark of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and can make the ten grounds complete"; and 「是相常寂滅，無有法能增能減、能生能滅、能垢能淨、能得道、能得果」 tr. "this mark is constantly of quiescent extinction: there is no dharma that can increase or decrease, can arise or cease, can be stained or be pure, can obtain the path, or can obtain the fruit". So at the end he judges it: 「世諦法故，菩薩摩訶薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，非第一實義」 tr. "It is by reason of worldly dharmas that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; it is not the foremost real meaning", and explains it himself—within the foremost real meaning there is no form and so on up to no awakening, 「亦無行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 tr. "nor is there anyone who practises anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". One closing sentence is the weightiest: 「菩提亦不增、眾生亦不減，菩薩亦無增減。」 tr. "Awakening does not increase, beings do not decrease, and the bodhisattva too has no increase or decrease." Below that the Buddha sets another question, turning to Subhūti's own realisation: when he first obtained the path, abode in the samādhi without interval, obtained the faculties without outflows, and so on up to accomplishing the four fruits—「汝爾時有所得若夢、若心、若道、若道果不？」 tr. "at that time was there anything you obtained, whether a dream, or a mind, or the path, or the fruit of the path?"

30. Subhūti answers that nothing was obtained. The answer carries only the sense of three Chinese characters: 「世尊！不得也！」 tr. "World-Honored One! Nothing was obtained!" This answer takes what he himself realised as evidence—the questioner does not ask about principle, but asks whether he himself had anything obtained at that time; the one answering does not cite the scriptural teachings either, but answers straightway with actual realisation. Below, the Buddha presses one step further on this answer.

31. The Buddha asks how it is known that there is one who has obtained the path of the arhat. The Buddha turns his answer back on him: 「云何當知得阿羅漢道者？」 tr. "Then how is it known that there is a person who has obtained the path of the arhat?" Since at that time nothing was obtained, from where is the matter ‘obtaining arhatship’ securely set? This question points straight at the border of name and reality, and is the pivot on which the whole unit closes.

32. The answer: by reason of worldly dharmas the path of the arhat is named with distinctions. Subhūti answers most simply: 「世尊！世諦法故分別名阿羅漢道。」 tr. "World-Honored One! By reason of worldly dharmas the path of the arhat is named with distinctions."—the name is the distinction-making of worldly truth; it is not that within the highest meaning there is a dharma named arhat. These words come from Subhūti's own mouth, so in the next passage the Buddha uses these very words to establish the names of bodhisattva and of awakening, and the answer is completed without waiting to set up anything further.

33. The Buddha concludes—by reason of worldly truth one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva; within the emptiness of nature there is no increase and no decrease, and nothing obtained. The Buddha matches it with Subhūti's words: 「世諦故說名菩薩，說名色、受、想、行、識乃至一切種智。」 tr. "It is by reason of worldly truth that one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva, and that form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, are spoken of and named." Next he makes clear that awakening has no obtaining: 「是菩提中無法可得若增、若減，以諸法性空故」 tr. "Within this awakening there is no dharma to be found that increases or decreases, because all dharmas are empty of nature"; then by the method of comparison he pushes to the very end—「諸法性空尚不可得，何況得初地心乃至十地心、六波羅蜜、三十七助道法、空三昧、無相、無作三昧乃至一切佛法當有所得，無有是處！」 tr. "The emptiness of the nature of all dharmas is itself unfindable, how much less could there be anything to be attained in obtaining the mind of the first ground and so on up to the mind of the tenth ground, the six perfections, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, the emptiness samādhi, the signless samādhi, the non-action samādhi, and so on up to all the dharmas of the Buddha—there is no such principle!" At the end it still returns to practice and to benefiting the living: 「菩薩摩訶薩行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，利益眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and benefits beings."—speaking of nothing obtained without abandoning practice and without abandoning the benefiting of the living is exactly where this unit closes, matching head and tail with the opening 「為實際故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality".

Do Not Misread

First, 「實際、眾生際不異」 tr. "the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different" is not the same as ‘beings simply are the limit of reality and need no delivering’. In the same passage the sūtra both says they are not different and says 「立眾生於實際中」 tr. "he establishes beings within the limit of reality", from which it can be seen that ‘not different’ is said with regard to substance, and ‘establishing’ is said with regard to delusion. If one holds to ‘not different’ and abandons teaching, the passage on the five gates of skilful means has nothing at all to attach to.

Second, 「是世俗法，非第一實義」 tr. "This is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning" is not a word of disparagement. At the end of the gate of keeping morality these words judge the section on entering nirvāṇa without remainder, because within the highest meaning there is no cessation and nothing that can cause cessation; the telling of worldly truth is for establishing beings, the judgement of the highest meaning is for not destroying the limit of reality, and only when the two hold at the same time is it the meaning of this chapter.

Third, 「顛倒即是無顛倒」 tr. "inversion is precisely non-inversion" may not be read as ‘there is no need to pull out’. In the same sentence the sūtra says 「多顛倒、少不顛倒」 tr. "much inversion and little non-inversion", and lists in detail the marks pulled out from—what is pulled away is the mark, not the person; what is broken is false imagining, not beings.

Fourth, in 「莫念二相、莫念不二相」 tr. "you must not think of the mark of two, nor think of the mark of not two", the latter half is the easiest to miss. Breaking the mark of two is what everyone knows; that even the mark of not two may not be thought of is because once not-two is thought of as a mark, it again becomes two. These words are this unit's needle against ‘taking emptiness as something attained’.

Fifth, the answer to 「菩提何處行」 tr. "where does awakening practise" is not ‘no practice’. With the two layers of counter-questions, the conjured person and the arhat's dream, the Buddha makes clear that it has no place of taking and giving up, and at once says himself 「色中行乃至一切種智中行」 tr. "practising within form and so on up to practising within the omniscience of all kinds", and further answers Subhūti's doubt, saying 「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Having no place to practise and practice that may not be lacking are both true at the same time.

Sixth, 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva" does not say that the bodhisattva is false and practice may be abandoned. The sūtra closes the whole passage with it, and the last sentence still says 「得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，利益眾生」 tr. "obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and benefits beings"—the name is provisional and yet the matter is not false, which is exactly where worldly truth and the highest meaning stand together.

Bearing on Practice

1. The teaching sequence of this unit can be taken up and used directly: first establish the practice, afterwards tell of its emptiness. The gate of giving is 「建立已，說布施先後際相」 tr. "having established them, he proclaims the marks of the former limit and the latter limit of giving", and the four gates of keeping morality, patience, vigour, and meditative concentration all follow this form. Used on oneself it is the same—first get going what ought to be done, then, right where it is done, contemplate that its three limits are all empty; if it is reversed, first contemplating emptiness and being unwilling to act, the five gates have nowhere to apply their strength.

2. The method of breaking anger can be used word for word: 「我於何所法中瞋？誰為瞋者？所瞋者誰？」 tr. "Within what dharma am I angry? Who is the one who is angry? Who is the one angered at?" With the three questions sent down together, the three matters anger rests on are all examined at one time. The sūtra further says that this emptiness is 「非諸佛作」 tr. "not made by the buddhas", and so on up to not made by the gods, which exactly cuts off the thought ‘emptiness must be cultivated into being’—emptiness is as it originally is, and patience is nothing but no longer going against it.

3. Using together the two sentences of the gate of vigour, 「莫懈怠」 tr. "do not be slack" and 「性空中無懈怠法」 tr. "within the emptiness of nature there is no dharma of slackness", is this unit's complete prescription against laziness: in nature there is no slackness to be found, so one need not first seek a mind that is not slack; in practice do not be slack, so act right now. Taking the emptiness of nature as one's rest, and not taking the emptiness of nature as an excuse for slackness—this is the dividing line of this gate.

4. The words 「自於須陀洹果中生智慧，亦不住是中」 tr. "he himself gives rise to wisdom within the fruit of the srota-āpanna and yet does not abide within it" can serve as the measure of daily effort: wherever there is something attained, examine whether one abides in it or not. If one gives rise to wisdom and abides, what is attained becomes bondage; only if one gives rise to wisdom and does not abide is there the strength to teach others.

5. The sentence of the last passage, 「諸法性空尚不可得」 tr. "the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas is itself unfindable", is best taken out and read when one feels one has realised something. This unit begins with 「為實際故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality" and closes with 「利益眾生」 tr. "benefits beings"; all the words of nothing obtained in between are said for the sake of this practice, not for the sake of stopping this practice.

Further Resonances

The single unit of the First Part, one stretch of sūtra text, sets up the pivot of this chapter. The sūtra text asks from 「若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā", takes 「實際、眾生際不異」 tr. "the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different" as the general answer, takes the five gates of the power of skilful means as the method of establishing, passes through the emptiness of nature being the mark of the abiding of dharmas, the simile of the conjured fourfold assembly, the teaching on pulling out from inversion, the exclamation that form is precisely the emptiness of nature, and the judgement that non-duality is precisely awakening, and at the end makes clear, with the two layers of counter-questions of the conjured person and the arhat's dream, that awakening has no place in which it practises, and with 「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" does not abandon the myriad practices, closing on 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva". The whole passage can be gathered into one sentence: what is set up lies in the deluded; what it rests on has never moved.

Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, at the opening of this chapter, at once judges its position and general meaning: 「此下第三、明為化之意。菩薩所以為化萬端者，正欲置眾生於實際中，是故此品明為化之意。」 tr. "From here down, third, the intent of transforming is made clear. The reason the bodhisattva transforms in myriad ways is precisely that he wishes to place beings within the limit of reality; therefore this chapter makes clear the intent of transforming." And on the one name 「實際」 tr. "the limit of reality" he makes a discrimination of the general and the particular: 「然實際是無之異名、正法之別目耳，何但是此經為化之意？十方三世佛菩薩為化之意，亦令悟實道也。」 tr. "Yet the limit of reality is only another name for non-existence and a separate title for the true Dharma; how could it be the intent of transforming of this sūtra alone? The intent of transforming of the buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and the three times is also to cause the awakening to the real path." His structural division divides this chapter in two: 「品為二：第一、正明為化之意，建立眾生於際；第二、廣明菩薩建立之法。」 tr. "The chapter is in two: first, it makes clear directly the intent of transforming, establishing beings in the limit; second, it makes clear broadly the bodhisattva's dharma of establishing."—the sūtra text of this unit corresponds exactly to the whole of these two divisions, and his second division, 「就建立中有二：就因行以建立令住六度；第二、就果德以建立令住種智」 tr. "within establishing there are two: establishing by way of the causal practices, causing them to abide in the six perfections; second, establishing by way of the virtues of the fruit, causing them to abide in the knowledge of all kinds", corresponds to the order of this unit, with the five gates first and the knowledge of all kinds after.

The question opening the chapter Jizang ties to the difficulty of the preceding chapter, and he discerns its turn: 「上品須菩提種種難：若諸法空，云何有五道生死、善不善等法？今難眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰行般若？先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法。」 tr. "In the chapter above Subhūti raised all kinds of difficulties: if all dharmas are empty, how are there the births and deaths of the five destinies, and dharmas wholesome and unwholesome and so on? Now he objects that beings are ultimately unfindable, so for whom does the bodhisattva practise prajñā? Before he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas." And he lists four phrasings of the objection, two of which say: 「一者、以法難法，如六度不可得，云何行六度？二者、以人難人，眾生不可得，何故度眾生？」 tr. "First, objecting to dharmas by dharmas: as, the six perfections are unfindable, so how does one practise the six perfections? Second, objecting to persons by persons: beings are unfindable, so why deliver beings?" On the Buddha's answer 「為實際故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality", Jizang points out the view it breaks: 「有所得人皆云實際是真諦故，眾生是世諦，但為度眾生故行般若，不度真諦故般若，所以佛破之云二際不異。」 tr. "People with something to be attained all say that, because the limit of reality is the real truth and beings are worldly truth, one practises prajñā only for the sake of delivering beings, and does not practise prajñā to deliver the real truth; therefore the Buddha breaks this, saying that the two limits are not different." And with the simile of the fingertip he makes clear the reason for Subhūti's second difficulty: 「一際云何還建立一際？如指端不自觸」 tr. "How can one limit in turn be established upon one limit? As the tip of a finger does not touch itself". This simile and the sūtra's words 「不得建立自性於自性」 tr. "self-nature cannot be established upon self-nature" shed light on each other; both are seen side by side, and they are recorded without judgement.

On the section 「菩提何處行」 tr. "where does awakening practise", Jizang divides it by two similes: 「舉化人喻，菩提無處行是處喻也。舉羅漢，如文中菩提何處行是重虗喻也。」 tr. "Raising the simile of the conjured person: awakening having no place in which to practise—this is the simile of place. Raising the arhat: as in the text, where does awakening practise—this is the simile of doubled unreality." And on the matter of the arhat's sleep he brings out a division into two kinds: 「眠有二：一者、眠而夢，羅漢無此眠也；二者、消息眠，羅漢有此眠也。」 tr. "Sleep is of two kinds: first, sleeping with dreams—the arhat does not have this sleep; second, the sleep of resting—the arhat does have this sleep." What he discusses belongs to the side of the treatise's explanation; the sūtra text of this unit stops at Subhūti's words 「阿羅漢畢竟不眠」 tr. "the arhat ultimately does not sleep", and the detailed discussion waits for the Last Part.

The extant text of Huiying's Commentary does not reach this chapter, and here his explanation is lacking; the form of Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises is profound meanings by topic, not a chapter-by-chapter commentary, and this chapter has nothing in it to be tied to—in both places the lack is marked according to the facts, and it is not filled with text from elsewhere.

As for the name of the limit of reality and the real mark of all dharmas, the tracing back of the twelve links of causes and conditions to make clear the limit of reality, the detailed explanation of the limit of beings and the limit of reality not being different, and the several rounds of question and answer on the arhat's sleeping and not sleeping—all these the treatise-author opens in the treatise's explanation of this chapter; they are not anticipated here, and wait for the Last Part.