大智度論 實際品之下Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · The Limit of Reality, Part 2 of 2
實際品之下：牒經釋實際、十二因緣逆推苦本、性空與方便、阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行（論）
這一品從一個幾乎把前面所有話都推翻的問題開始。須菩提問：「世尊！若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若波羅蜜？」上一品他難的是法——法既空，云何有五道生死、善不善？這一次他換了一造，難的是人。論主把這一轉點得極準：「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故。」空既說到底，行者就沒有落腳處了：沒有一個真的眾生在那裏等著被度，那菩薩到底在為誰忙？
佛的答只有一句，卻把整品撐了起來：「菩薩為實際故行般若波羅蜜。」——不是為眾生，是為實際。但這句話若停在這裏，就成了棄眾生而取真理，所以佛立刻補上判準：「實際、眾生際異者，菩薩不行般若波羅蜜」；「實際、眾生際不異」，所以菩薩為利益眾生而行般若。兩際若真是兩件事，行般若就與眾生無關；正因不異，為實際便就是為眾生。論主譯成更硬的一句：眾生是假名虛誑、畢竟不可得，而菩薩所為者是實法，「實法即是實際」。而實際是什麼？論主在十二因緣一段之末給了答案：菩薩求無明之體，求到底時「菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際」。求無明求到無可求處，那個地方就叫實際；不是另有一個清淨的所在等在遠方。
須菩提立刻抓住這句的漏洞。若兩際即是一際，那「以不壞實際法，立眾生於實際中」就成了把實際安進實際裏：「若實際即是眾生際，菩薩則為建立實際於實際」，「則為建立自性於自性」，而這是不可能的——「不得建立自性於自性」。佛的回答很奇特——不辯其難，逕自承認。「實際不可建立於實際，自性不可建立於自性。」承認之後才接下半句：「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；實際亦不異眾生際，實際、眾生際無二無別。」論主為這一步配了一個手邊的喻：「自性不應自性中住，如指端不能自觸指端。」理上這條路是封死的，行上卻走得通；接縫處只有三個字——方便力。
於是須菩提直接問：「何等是諸菩薩摩訶薩方便力？」底下五段就是答案，而五段的作法完全一樣。教布施，就在教的當下說布施空：「如是布施，前際空、後際空、中際亦空，施者亦空、施報亦空、受者亦空」，理由是「是諸法畢竟自性空故」。教持戒，就在教的當下說果報空，說到斷結使入涅槃，還要補一句「是世俗法，非第一實義」，因為「空中無有滅、亦無使滅者。諸法畢竟空，即是涅槃」。教忍辱，就教人反問自己：「我於何所法中瞋？誰為瞋者？所瞋者誰？」——所瞋之事既空，瞋便無處可安；收在「是名實際性空法」與「一切法離眾生相」。教精進，教到六度、道品、三解脫門一一莫懈怠，末了卻說「是諸法，汝等莫念二相、莫念不二相！」——連「不二」也不許執。教禪定，許他一切所願：「汝等皆當應隨所願得；行性空故」，並保證「性空不退，亦無退者」。
五門合起來是一個姿勢：先給他一個可以抓的善，再說這個善本來是空的。空不是把這個善撤掉，是不讓它變成下一個所抓。論主用菩薩自己的心聲把這機關說破：「我從慳中拔出，今復著布施。」眾生受了布施之福，福盡還苦；得了富貴，又造大罪。所以菩薩要為他說布施實相。而拔到最後給的是什麼？論主定了名：「甘露味者，是八聖道分；甘露果者，是涅槃。」
品的中段，須菩提又問了一次更根本的：若諸法性常空，空中眾生不可得、法與非法亦不可得，菩薩憑什麼求一切種智？佛先全部承認，然後把話翻過來：「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。」——不是空妨礙了成佛，是不空才會妨礙。若十八空之性不空，就壞了空性。而性空的樣子是「是性空無住處，亦無所從來、亦無所從去」，其名曰「是名法住相」。接著佛設了本品最漂亮的一喻：「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」——這些化人能得四果、得記嗎？須菩提答不能，「是諸化眾無有根本實故」。佛說，菩薩為眾生說性空法也正是如此。說法從來不等所化者先是真的。
那菩薩到底在做什麼？經說：拔出。眾生墮顛倒，菩薩拔他令住不顛倒；而這件事本身也不許執實——「顛倒即是無顛倒；顛倒、不顛倒雖一相，而多顛倒、少不顛倒。」多的那一邊是顛倒，少的那一邊是不顛倒，可兩邊其實是同一相。四念處乃至八聖道分雖是無漏，「亦不如第一義相」，因為「第一義相者，無作、無為、無生、無相、無說」——這一名同時也叫性空，也叫諸佛道。論主把整件事收得很體貼：有人難說，眾生與法本來就沒有，那是為誰作方便、度脫誰？論主反問回去：「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？」——你抓著一個叫「空」的東西來質問，那個東西恰恰是我說沒有的。凡夫未得實相，種種憶想分別，「如狂人妄有所見，以為實有」；所以菩薩「但破眾生妄想，不破眾生」。分別之所以還能說，是因為「第一義中無分別，世諦中有分別」。而性空不是誰弄出來的：「譬如虛空，性常清淨，不著垢闇」，風雲來時人說不淨，風吹散了人說清淨，「而虛空實無垢無淨」。諸佛以說法猛風吹去顛倒雲翳，吹掉的只是翳，沒有替虛空添過一分淨。論主末了判道：「一切法性空，是諸佛真法」，而其行處在「行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃」。
品的末段最緊。須菩提讚歎菩薩行性空而不壞性空相，佛許之，並說「但色即是性空，性空即是色」；不壞的道理只是「譬如虛空不壞虛空，內虛空不壞外虛空，外虛空不壞內虛空」，因為「是二法無有性能有所壞」。既然一切法無分別，菩薩最初那個「我當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」的願又站在哪裏？佛答：行二相者無菩提，作二分者無菩提；「菩提是不二相、不壞相」，乃至菩提也不在菩提中行——「是菩提非取故行、非捨故行」。論主為這兩個字作了訓：「取名實法，捨名空法」，取是著行，捨是不著行。
於是佛連問三次「何處行」。化人在何處行？非取中行、非捨中行。阿羅漢夢中的菩提在何處行？須菩提答得更絕：「阿羅漢畢竟不眠，云何夢中菩提若取中行、若捨中行？」論主在這裏停下來辦了一樁公案：阿羅漢當真不眠嗎？佛自己命阿難鋪衣要小眠，薩遮尼乾問佛晝日眠不，佛也答春末夏初時熱故小眠息。論主的解是分眠為二：「眠有二種：一者、眠而夢，二者、眠而不夢。」阿羅漢不是為安隱著樂而眠，只是四大之身應有食息眠覺，那少許時息也叫眠，卻不為夢而眠。另有人以色界四大入不入身解慧解脫與俱解脫之別，論主並錄而不裁。至於佛，「佛以方便力，為度眾生，受人法故現眠」。同一個「眠」字，凡夫是癡相，聖人是身法，佛是方便——字同而所指三層。
最後須菩提把疑問逼到頂：「將無菩薩摩訶薩不行十地，不行六波羅蜜」乃至不成就眾生，就得菩提了？佛的答分兩截，先全許他的話——菩提確實無處行；再立一條不許鬆動的底線：不具足十地、六度、四禪乃至八十隨形好，「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。無處行不等於不必行；說它無處行，是就第一義；說它非行不可，是就世諦。佛隨即把這兩層放到須菩提自己身上：你初得道時，有所得嗎？答：不得。那憑什麼說你是阿羅漢？答：「世諦法故分別名阿羅漢道」，「世諦法故，說言阿羅漢」。同一個人身上，二諦就這樣對齊了。
品末的收筆，收回菩薩身上：「世諦故說名菩薩」，說名色受想行識乃至一切種智；而菩提之中無法可得若增若減。論主推到最底一層：「諸法性是一切法根本尚不可得」，何況六波羅蜜等作法當有定實。然而這不是停在那裏，末句是全品唯一一次把力氣放回人間——「菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生。」
實際品說了一整品「不可建立」，末了建立起來的，是一個願意在沒有立足處的地方繼續走下去的人。
This chapter begins with a question that all but overturns everything said before. Subhūti asks: ‘World-Honored One! If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?’ In the preceding chapter what he objected to was dharmas—since dharmas are empty, how are there the births and deaths of the five destinies, wholesome and unwholesome? This time he changes sides and objects to the person. The treatise-author marks this turn most exactly: ‘Before he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas.’ Emptiness having been said to the end, the practitioner has no place to set his foot: there is no real being waiting there to be delivered, so for whom after all is the bodhisattva busy?
The Buddha's answer is only one sentence, yet it holds up the whole chapter: ‘The bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the limit of reality.’—Not for the sake of beings, but for the sake of the limit of reality. But if these words stopped here, it would be abandoning beings to take hold of truth, so the Buddha at once adds the criterion: ‘If the limit of reality and the limit of beings were different, the bodhisattva would not practise prajñāpāramitā’; ‘the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different’, and so the bodhisattva practises prajñā in order to benefit beings. If the two limits were truly two things, practising prajñā would have nothing to do with beings; exactly because they are not different, acting for the limit of reality is acting for beings. The treatise-author renders it into a harder sentence: beings are a provisional name, false and deceptive, ultimately unfindable, while what the bodhisattva acts for is the real dharma, and ‘the real dharma is precisely the limit of reality’. And what is the limit of reality? The treatise-author gives the answer at the end of the passage on the twelve links of causes and conditions: the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, and when he has sought to the end, ‘the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, and at that very moment it is illumination, namely the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality’. Seek ignorance until there is nowhere left to seek, and that place is called the limit of reality; it is not that some other pure place waits far away.
Subhūti at once seizes the gap in this sentence. If the two limits are one limit, then ‘without destroying the dharma of the limit of reality, to establish beings in the limit of reality’ becomes setting the limit of reality inside the limit of reality: ‘if the limit of reality is precisely the limit of beings, the bodhisattva would be establishing the limit of reality in the limit of reality’, ‘he would be establishing self-nature in self-nature’, and this is impossible—‘self-nature cannot be established in self-nature’. The Buddha's reply is very strange—he does not argue against the objection but straightway concedes it. ‘The limit of reality cannot be established in the limit of reality; self-nature cannot be established in self-nature.’ Only after conceding does he take up the second half: ‘Now the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, when practising prajñāpāramitā, by the power of skilful means establishes beings in the limit of reality; 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.’ For this step the treatise-author matches a simile ready to hand: ‘Self-nature should not abide within self-nature, as the tip of a finger cannot touch the tip of that finger.’ In principle this road is sealed off; in practice it can be walked; at the seam there are only three Chinese characters—the power of skilful means.
So Subhūti asks directly: ‘What is the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas' power of skilful means?’ The five passages below are the answer, and the five passages proceed in exactly the same way. Teaching giving, he says at the very moment of teaching that giving is empty: ‘Such giving is 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’, the reason being ‘because these dharmas are ultimately empty of self-nature’. Teaching the keeping of morality, he says at the very moment of teaching that the retribution is empty, and speaking of cutting the fetters and entering nirvāṇa he must add ‘this is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning’, because ‘within emptiness there is no cessation, nor one who causes cessation. All dharmas being ultimately empty is precisely nirvāṇa’. Teaching patience, he teaches people to ask themselves in return: ‘Within what dharma am I angry? Who is the one who is angry? Who is the one angered at?’—since the matter angered at is empty, anger has nowhere to settle; gathered in ‘this is named the dharma of the limit of reality and the emptiness of nature’ and ‘all dharmas are apart from the mark of beings’. Teaching vigour, he teaches no slackening in any of the six perfections, the limbs of the path, and the three gates of liberation, yet at the end says ‘as to these dharmas, you must not think of the mark of two, nor think of the mark of not two!’—even ‘not two’ may not be grasped. Teaching meditative concentration, he grants him all that he wishes: ‘You will all obtain according to your wishes, because you practise the emptiness of nature’, and guarantees that ‘the emptiness of nature does not retreat, nor is there one who retreats’.
Put the five gates together and they are one posture: first give him a good thing he can hold on to, then say that this good thing is empty from the first. Emptiness does not withdraw this good thing; it keeps it from becoming the next thing held. The treatise-author lays this mechanism bare with the bodhisattva's own words from the heart: ‘I pulled him out of stinginess, and now he again clings to giving.’ Beings receive the merit of giving, and when the merit is exhausted they suffer again; obtaining riches and honour, they again commit great sins. So the bodhisattva must teach him the real mark of giving. And what is given at the end of all the pulling out? The treatise-author fixes the names: ‘the flavour of ambrosia is the eightfold noble path; the fruit of ambrosia is nirvāṇa.’
In the middle of the chapter Subhūti asks once more, more fundamentally: if the nature of dharmas is ever empty, and within emptiness beings are unfindable and dharma and non-dharma too are unfindable, by what does the bodhisattva seek the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha first concedes everything, and then turns the words over: ‘If the nature of all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva would not, relying on the emptiness of nature, accomplish anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and teach beings the dharma of the emptiness of nature.’—It is not that emptiness hinders becoming a Buddha; it is non-emptiness that would hinder it. If the nature of the eighteen emptinesses were not empty, the nature of emptiness would be destroyed. And the look of the emptiness of nature is ‘this emptiness of nature has no abiding-place, nor does it come from anywhere, nor does it go anywhere’, and its name is ‘this is named the mark of the abiding of dharmas’. Next the Buddha sets up the most beautiful simile of this chapter: ‘It is as the Buddha conjures the fourfold assembly—bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, upāsikās—and constantly teaches the Dharma for these assemblies, unbroken for thousands of myriads of koṭi of kalpas’—can these conjured people obtain the four fruits and receive the prediction? Subhūti answers that they cannot, ‘because these conjured assemblies have no real root’. The Buddha says that the bodhisattva's teaching beings the dharma of the emptiness of nature is exactly like this. Teaching the Dharma has never waited for the one transformed to be real first.
Then what is the bodhisattva doing after all? The sūtra says: pulling out. Beings fall into inversion, and the bodhisattva pulls them out and makes them abide in non-inversion; and this matter itself may not be held as real either—‘inversion is precisely non-inversion; though inversion and non-inversion are of one mark, there is much inversion and little non-inversion.’ The side that is much is inversion, the side that is little is non-inversion, yet the two sides are in fact one and the same mark. The four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, though without outflows, ‘are likewise not like the mark of the highest meaning’, because ‘the mark of the highest meaning is without making, unconditioned, non-arising, signless, and unspeakable’—and this one name is also called the emptiness of nature, and also called the path of the buddhas. The treatise-author gathers the whole matter very considerately: someone objects that beings and dharmas never existed from the first, so for whom is skilful means made and whom does it deliver? The treatise-author asks back: ‘The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to make your objection?’—You seize a thing called ‘emptiness’ to interrogate me, and that thing is exactly what I said does not exist. Ordinary people have not obtained the real mark and recollect, imagine, and discriminate in all kinds of ways, ‘as a madman falsely sees things and takes them to really exist’; so the bodhisattva ‘only breaks beings' false imaginings; he does not break beings’. That distinction can still be spoken of is because ‘within the highest meaning there is no discrimination; within worldly truth there is discrimination’. And the emptiness of nature is not something anyone made: ‘It is as space, whose nature is ever pure and is not touched by stain and darkness’; when wind and clouds come people say it is impure, when the wind has blown them away people say it is pure, ‘yet space in reality is without stain and without purity’. The buddhas with the fierce wind of teaching the Dharma blow away the clouds and films of inversion; what is blown away is only the film, and space has never been added a single portion of purity. The treatise-author judges at the end: ‘The emptiness of the nature of all dharmas is the true Dharma of the buddhas’, and its place of practice is ‘practising the dharma of the emptiness of nature and not clinging to the emptiness of nature either—this is precisely nirvāṇa’.
The closing section of the chapter is the tightest. Subhūti praises the bodhisattva for practising the emptiness of nature without destroying the mark of the emptiness of nature; the Buddha approves, and says ‘it is only that form is precisely the emptiness of nature, and the emptiness of nature is precisely form’; the principle of not destroying is only ‘as space does not destroy space, inner space does not destroy outer space, outer space does not destroy inner space’, because ‘these two dharmas have no nature that could destroy anything’. Since all dharmas are without discrimination, where then does the bodhisattva's original vow, ‘I shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi’, stand? The Buddha answers: one who practises the mark of two has no awakening, one who makes two divisions has no awakening; ‘awakening is the mark of non-duality, the indestructible mark’, and awakening does not practise even within awakening—‘this awakening is practised neither by taking nor by giving up’. The treatise-author glosses these two Chinese characters: ‘taking names the real dharma; giving up names the empty dharma’; taking is clinging practice, giving up is non-clinging practice.
So the Buddha asks three times ‘where does it practise’. Where does the conjured person practise? Not within taking, not within giving up. Where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise? Subhūti answers more absolutely still: ‘The arhat ultimately does not sleep; how could the awakening in a dream practise within taking or within giving up?’ Here the treatise-author stops to settle a case: does the arhat truly not sleep? The Buddha himself ordered Ānanda to spread his robe so that he might sleep a little, and when the Nirgrantha Satyaka asked the Buddha whether he slept by day, the Buddha too answered that at the end of spring and the start of summer, because of the heat, he slept and rested a little. The treatise-author's solution is to divide sleep into two: ‘There are two kinds of sleep: first, sleeping with dreams; second, sleeping without dreams.’ The arhat does not sleep for the sake of settling into pleasure; it is only that the body of the four elements must have food, rest, sleep, and waking, and that little while of rest is also called sleep, yet he does not sleep for dreaming. Others explain the difference between the one liberated by wisdom and the one liberated both ways by whether the four elements of the form realm enter the body or not, and the treatise-author records this too without ruling. As for the Buddha, ‘the Buddha, by the power of skilful means, in order to deliver beings, having taken on the dharma of humans, shows sleep’. The same one word ‘sleep’: for ordinary people it is the mark of delusion, for sages it is the dharma of the body, for the Buddha it is skilful means—the word the same, what it points to in three layers.
At the last Subhūti pushes the doubt to the summit: ‘Can it be that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, not practising the ten grounds, not practising the six perfections’, and so on up to not bringing beings to accomplishment, obtains awakening? The Buddha's answer is in two halves: first he fully grants his words—awakening indeed has no place in which it practises; then he sets a bottom line that may not be loosened: not making complete the ten grounds, the six perfections, the four dhyānas, and so on up to the eighty minor marks, ‘not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi’. Having no place to practise is not the same as not having to practise; to say it has no place to practise is with regard to the highest meaning; to say it must be practised is with regard to worldly truth. The Buddha at once sets these two layers upon Subhūti himself: when you first obtained the path, did you obtain anything? Answer: I did not. Then by what is it said that you are an arhat? Answer: ‘By reason of worldly dharmas the path of the arhat is named with distinctions’, ‘by reason of worldly dharmas it is said, arhat’. On one and the same person the two truths are thus aligned.
The closing stroke of the chapter comes back upon the bodhisattva: ‘by reason of worldly truth he is named bodhisattva’, and form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are named, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds; while within awakening no dharma is to be found that increases or decreases. The treatise-author pushes to the bottom-most layer: ‘the nature of dharmas, which is the root of all dharmas, is itself unfindable’, how much less could the six perfections and other made dharmas have a fixed reality. Yet this does not stop there; the last sentence is the only place in the whole chapter where the strength is set back into the human world—‘The bodhisattva practising the nature of these dharmas, when he becomes a Buddha, can greatly benefit beings.’
The chapter on the limit of reality has spoken a whole chapter of ‘cannot be established’, and what it establishes at the end is a person willing to keep walking in a place where there is no footing.
【論】 釋曰： 上品中須菩提種種因緣難：「若諸法空，云何有五道生死、善不善法？」今難眾生，作是言：「世尊！若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若？」先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故。 佛答：「為實際故，菩薩行般若波羅蜜。」 須菩提意謂：菩薩為度眾生故行般若波羅蜜。 佛意：眾生假名虛誑、畢竟不可得；菩薩為一切實法故，行般若波羅蜜。實法即是實際。 問曰： 一切菩薩見眾生苦惱，為度眾生故發大悲心，今何以言為實際？ 答曰： 初發意菩薩但為滅眾生苦故發大悲心。苦者，所謂老、病、死等，及身心衰惱。 云何滅是苦？尋苦因緣，由生故，如佛十二因緣中說：「何因緣故有老、病、死？以有生故。」 問曰： 一切眾生皆知生因緣是苦，菩薩有何奇特？ 答曰： 眾生不知由生有苦，若遭苦時，但怨恨人，自不將適，初不怨生；以是故增長結使、重增生法，不知真實苦因。有人無鞭杖、刀兵、諸愁惱苦，而有死苦；此死從何所來？從〔T25 0696b〕生而有。 復次，鞭杖、刀兵、愁惱，皆由生故有。餘法或有苦、或無苦，是生法必定有苦。正使大智及諸天，有生必有死，有死必有苦，是故知「生定是苦本」。如草木有生故，必可焚燒；若當不生，雖有猛火、大風，無所燒害。 菩薩既得苦因緣，復推生因緣。生因緣者，有。「有」有三種：欲有、色有、無色有。著是三有，起善惡業，是生因。有因者，四種取。取因緣者，愛等諸煩惱。小者未能起業，故名為愛；增長能起業，故名為取：欲取、見取、戒取、我語取，取著是四事故，能起種種業。愛因緣，三種受。受因緣者，眼等六種觸。觸名受等諸心數法。情、塵、識三事和合故，心中生受等心數法；根本雖三事，和合故生觸，為六情依止住處故，但說六入。 六入因緣，名色。六入雖即是名色分，成就名六入，未成就名名色；色成就名五入，名成就名一入。是胎中時因緣次第。 名色因緣，是識。若識不入胎，胎初則爛壞。識名中陰中五眾。是五眾細故，但名為識。若識不入而胎成者，如一切和合時，皆應成胎！ 問曰： 識何因緣故入胎？ 答曰： 行因緣。行即是過去三種業，業將識入胎。如風吹絕焰，空中而去，焰則依止於風；先世作人身時然六識故，命終時，業將識入胎。 問曰： 上業何以名有？今業何以名行？ 答曰： 上是「今世業，為未來有，故名為有」；今「業過去世已滅盡，但有名，名為行」。 是行因緣名無明。一切煩惱雖是過去業因緣，無明是根本故，但名無明。今世現在〔T25 0696c〕著愛、取多故，愛、取愛名；過去世中是疑、邪見處故，但名無明。今得一切苦惱根本，是無明。 問曰： 無始生死展轉甚多，何以止齊無明？ 答曰： 是事先已答。 菩薩思惟，為人從苦得脫故，求苦因緣。眾生過去、現在老死等苦，不可得除；為除未來世老死苦，斷相續，不令復生。如良醫，過去病不可治，現在病亦不可治；服藥但能治應起病，破其冷熱，不復令起。又如失火燒舍，不為已過去火故勤滅，亦不為現在火故勤滅，但為未來火不令更燒故勤滅。良醫、滅火人勤方便亦不虛。菩薩滅眾生苦惱亦如是：過去苦已滅，無所復能；現在苦惱，先世因緣成就故不可却；但破未來世老死等苦因緣故。破是生法，老死等苦自然永滅。 是故菩薩欲滅未來世老死等苦因緣生，得現在「有」等八因緣：一名有漏業。二名現在世諸煩惱，所謂四取、一愛。是二種煩惱，從二心數法生，所謂受及觸。觸能生一切心數法，受前生故，得名觸是受因緣。受雖能生三毒，一切眾生，愛是舊煩惱。觸因緣是內六入，如先說。雖有外六入，內六入無故觸等心數法不生，是故內六入得名。名色是六入因緣，如此中說。初入胎識，是名色因緣。 識、名色在胎中，此中雖有六入，未成就、未可用故，未得名字。既生嬰孩，未能有所作，但有六入。轉大有六觸。如小兒蹈火履氷，但有觸，未知苦樂。轉大受苦樂，未深愛著。如小兒雖瞋，未能起殺等惡業；雖喜，未〔T25 0697a〕能起施等善業。年及成人，得苦生恚、得樂生愛。求樂具故，取欲等四取。取時，能起善惡業。 若知先一世無明、業因緣，則億萬世可知；譬如現在火熱，過去、未來火亦如是。若無明因緣更求其本，則無窮，即墮邊見，失涅槃道，是故不應求；若更求，則墮戲論，非是佛法。 菩薩欲斷無明故，求無明體相；求時，即入畢竟空。何以故？佛經說：「無明相：內法不知，外法不知，內外法不知。」菩薩以內空觀內法，內法即空；以外空觀外法，外法即空；以內外空觀內外法，內外法即空。如是等一切是無明相，如先品《德女經》中「破無明」廣說。 復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。觀諸法如幻如化，眾生顛倒因緣故，起諸煩惱，作惡罪業，輪轉五道，受生死苦。譬如蠶出絲自裹縛，入沸湯火炙。凡夫眾生亦如是，初生時未有諸煩惱，後自生貪欲、瞋恚等諸煩惱；是煩惱因緣故，覆真智慧，轉身受地獄火燒湯煮。菩薩知是法本末皆空，但眾生顛倒錯故受如是苦。菩薩於此眾生起大悲心，欲破是顛倒故，求於實法，行般若波羅蜜，通達實際；種種因緣教化眾生，令住實際。是故住實際無咎。 復次，經中說：「若眾生與實際異，菩薩不應行般若波羅蜜。」 異者，實際是畢竟空，眾生際是決定有；若爾者，應難：「若諸法實際相空，菩薩云何為眾生故修是實際？」若眾生畢竟空、實際定有，無眾生則無所利益，為誰故行實際？ 今眾〔T25 0697b〕生際實不異實際，故行般若波羅蜜。欲覺悟狂惑顛倒凡夫故，行般若波羅蜜；令眾生住實際中，而不壞實際。 是時，須菩提更問：「若眾生際、實際不異，云何以實際著實際？」自性不應自性中住，如指端不能自觸指端。 佛可其意，菩薩以方便故，建立眾生於實際，如眾生、實際不異，一亦不可得。若是一，則壞實際相。所以者何？得是一性故。菩薩知是二法不一不二，亦不不一、亦不不二，畢竟寂滅無戲論相。菩薩生大悲心，但欲拔出眾生離於顛倒故，教化眾生。 又問：「云何名方便？」 佛言：「菩薩行般若波羅蜜時，以方便力故，建立眾生於檀中，說是檀先際、後際空，中際亦爾。」如經中廣說。菩薩知實際者到眾生邊。如先〈檀品〉中說。眾生聞已發心，折薄煩惱，深著布施。菩薩憐愍眾生：「我從慳中拔出，今復著布施。眾生若受布施，福盡受諸苦惱；又受富貴因緣，得作大罪，則墮地獄。」是故愍此眾生得少許時樂而受苦長久，是故菩薩為說布施實相，所謂畢竟空，作是言：「是布施過去已滅，不可見、不可得、不可用，但可憶念，如夢所見無異；未來未生故，亦無所有、畢竟空。是布施先、後際無故，中際亦無。」如破六塵中破色法中說：「現在布施雖眼見，分分破析，乃至微塵不可得。」布施三世空，施者、受者、果報亦如是。 菩薩語施者言：「布施等法是初入佛法門；實際中，實際相亦無，何況布施！汝莫念、莫著布施等法！若不念、〔T25 0697c〕不著如布施體相，如是布施者，則得甘露味、甘露果。」甘露味者，是八聖道分；甘露果者，是涅槃。菩薩雖住實際中，以方便力，布施門度眾生。 餘波羅蜜亦如是，如經中廣說。 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！若一切法性空，性空中無法及非法、亦無眾生，菩薩云何住是空中求一切種智？」 佛答：「菩薩安立性空中故，能行是布施等諸法。」 又問：「性空破一切法悉盡無餘，云何菩薩住性空中能行布施等諸善法？」 佛可須菩提意而說因緣：「菩薩知諸法實相，住是中，能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。諸法實相者，即是性空。若一切法性不空，菩薩不應住是諸法性空中，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提已，為眾生說性空法，所謂色性空，受、想、行、識性空，乃至為眾生說一切種智、斷煩惱習性空法。」 復次，「須菩提！十八空，若性不空，是為壞空體。」何以故？十八空能令一切法空，若自不空，則為虛誑；又若不空者，則墮常邊著處，能生煩惱。性空無實住處，無所從來、去無所至，是名常住法相。常住法相是性空之異名，亦名諸法實相。是相中無生無滅、無增無減、無垢無淨。 「菩薩住是中，見一切法性空，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不退、不疑、不悔。何以故？不見諸法能障礙者，以方便力故度眾生。」方便力者，畢竟無法、亦無眾生，而度眾生。 問曰： 若眾生及法從本已來無，為誰作方便？為度脫誰？ 答曰： 性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？若有性空相，應當作難！ 復次，〔T25 0698a〕得諸法實相者，知是性空，是人則知諸法性空——無法、無眾生。凡夫未得實相故，種種憶想分別；如狂人妄有所見，以為實有。為度凡夫狂人故言：「為眾生說狂法中有是諸法分別，實法中則無。」菩薩欲滿本願故、又不著性空故，有度眾生。此中則不應難。 復次，此經中佛自說因緣：「性空中眾生不可得，知者、見者亦不可得，乃至八十隨形好亦如是。」而菩薩立是法為眾生說，是世諦故，非是實。 此中佛說譬喻：「如佛作化人，又化作四部眾而為說法，可有得道者不？」 須菩提言：「不也。所以者何？無定根本實事，何有得須陀洹乃至得佛者？」 菩薩說法度眾生亦如是：眾生無有定實，但欲於顛倒中拔出眾生，著無顛倒中。無顛倒法亦無處所，是中無眾生，乃至無知者、見者。雖空性一相，而顛倒多、不顛倒少；是故貴是性空不顛倒法。菩薩住此中，但破眾生妄想，不破眾生。 又無漏法，乃至八聖道分，雖是無漏，以生滅故，不如第一義。 「須菩提！是性空，一切諸佛唯有是道，更無異道。」何以故？諸佛皆求實智不壞不異法，雖有十力、四無所畏諸異法，不名為一道。所以者何？此皆是有為法，轉變無常故。是性空中，無眾生，亦無色等諸法。菩薩不為菩薩道故求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，但為性空故。 問曰： 何等是性空？何等是菩薩道？ 答曰： 第一義中無分別，世諦中有分別。諸法實相名性空，餘布施等乃至八十隨形好是菩薩道。〔T25 0698b〕雖行是法，不為此法，為求性空故，是故說：「不為菩薩道故行。」 是性空，先亦性空，中、後亦性空；從本已來常空，無有作者；非是福德力故使空，亦非智慧力故使空，但性自爾故。諸佛賢聖以大福德、智慧方便力故，破眾生心中顛倒，令知性空。譬如虛空，性常清淨，不著垢闇；或時風雲闇翳，世人便言：「虛空不淨。」更有猛風吹除風雲，便言：「虛空清淨。」而虛空實無垢無淨。諸佛亦如是，以說法猛風，吹却顛倒雲翳，令得清淨，而諸法性常自無垢無淨。 是菩薩知一切法性空故，能行一切種種道度眾生；具足一切道，淨佛國土、教化眾生；得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，隨意壽命。隨意壽命者，菩薩得無生忍法，入如幻菩薩道，能一時變化作千億萬身，周遍十方，具足行一切菩薩道；處處國土中，隨眾生壽命長短而受其形。如釋迦牟尼佛，於此國土壽命百年，於莊嚴佛國壽七百阿僧祇劫。佛法於五不可思議中是第一不可思議。 佛告須菩提：一切法性空，是諸佛真法！若得是法，則名為佛；若說此法，名為度眾生。三世佛皆亦如是。離是性空，則無道無果。道者，八聖道分；果者，七種果。所以者何？若離性空別有定法，則取相生著，著故亦無離欲，無離欲故則無道果。若離性空，雖行布施、持戒，行慈、悲等，善法力故，雖不墮惡道，生天果盡，還墮惡道，如本不異。行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃。行餘法，生〔T25 0698c〕著心，有退失；若行此法，則無退失。 須菩提歡喜白佛言：「甚希有！菩薩行是性空法，亦不壞性空相。」 佛答：「若色等法與性空異，菩薩則不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。何以故？有空法則不可得離。須菩提！今色等諸法實性空；菩薩知是法已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。所以者何？此中無有一法定是常，但凡夫生我心故，著內外法，不得脫生、老、病、死，是故菩薩行是性空，和合六波羅蜜，不壞色等諸法相——所謂若空、若不空、若空不空、若非空非不空；不作如是示諸法相，是名不壞。所以者何？色實相即是性空，性空云何自壞性空？乃至菩提亦如是。」此中佛說譬喻：「如內虛空不壞外虛空，以同體故。」 須菩提問：「世尊！若諸法性空無別異，菩薩於何處得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 佛可其意言：「如是！若分別有二相，則不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 阿耨多羅三藐三菩提名實智慧，於色法中不行，所謂不著、不染。所以者何？是智慧不為取色故行，是故不行色中。 須菩提復問：「若菩提不取中行、不捨中行，當於何處行？」 取名實法，捨名空法。取名著行，捨名不著行。取名二行，捨名不二行。如是等分別。 佛反問須菩提：「於汝意云何？佛所化人為何處行？」 須菩提言：「是化人無處行，化人無心、無心數法故。菩提亦如是。」 復問：「於汝意云何？阿羅漢夢中菩提為在何處行？」 須菩提言：「阿羅漢尚不眠，何況夢中菩提有〔T25 0699a〕行處！」 問曰： 菩提有三種：阿羅漢菩提、辟支佛菩提、佛菩提。阿羅漢菩提不在有漏心中、無記心中行，但在無漏心中行；佛何以故問「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行」？ 答曰： 阿羅漢是一切漏盡聖人則無夢，佛以必無處故問，欲明必無行法。 問曰： 乃至佛猶尚有眠，何以知之？佛甞命阿難：「汝四襞優多羅僧敷，我欲小眠，汝為諸比丘說法。」又薩遮尼乾問佛：「佛自念晝日有眠不？」佛言：「春末夏初，以時熱故小眠息，除食患故。」薩遮尼乾白佛：「餘人有言：『晝日眠是癡相。』」佛言：「汝置！汝不別癡相。諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡；若是諸漏永滅無餘，雖眠不名癡。」如是等，經中處處說。須菩提何以言「阿羅漢尚不眠」？ 答曰： 眠有二種：一者、眠而夢，二者、眠而不夢。阿羅漢非為安隱著樂故眠，但受四大身法，應有食、息、眠、覺，是故少許時息名為「眠」；不為夢眠。故須菩提言：「阿羅漢尚不眠。」 有人言：「離欲者，得禪定，色界繫四大入身中，身心歡樂則無有眠；慧解脫阿羅漢，色界四大不入身中，故有眠。」是故須菩提言：「阿羅漢尚不眠。」是故阿羅漢有眠、有不眠。 佛以方便力，為度眾生，受人法故現眠。 須菩提復問：「若不行者，云何菩薩從一地至十地，乃至得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 佛可其意：「菩提雖無處行，未具足六波羅蜜諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。是菩〔T25 0699b〕薩住色相，乃至菩提相中住，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；不捨色等法，亦不著菩提相，知色等法即是菩提，常寂滅，無法若增、若減，若垢、若淨，若得道、若得果。」但世諦故說菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，第一義中無有色乃至菩提。 佛欲明是事故，反問須菩提：「於汝意云何？汝斷煩惱得道時，有所得不？所謂如夢等五眾、若道、若道果，決定一法不？」 須菩提言：「不得也！」所以者何？須菩提意：住無相門中入道，云何取相？ 佛言：「汝若乃至不得微細少法，云何說汝為阿羅漢？」 須菩提言：「世諦法故，說言阿羅漢；凡夫顛倒法中有得、有失，有眾生、有法。」 佛言：「菩提亦如是，世諦法故，說有菩薩、說有色等乃至菩提；菩提中，無有定法，亦無眾生，亦無菩提。菩薩觀是菩提法，無有增、無有減。所以者何？諸法性如是。菩薩亦不得是諸法性，何況有初發心乃至十地，及六波羅蜜、三十七品乃至十八不共法當有所得！無有是處！所以者何？諸法性是一切法根本尚不可得，何況六波羅蜜等是作法當有定實！如是！菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生。」 大智度論卷第九十
《大智度論》卷90 · T25n1509 0692c11–0699c02
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
論①：牒上品之難——先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法
論主解釋說：
上一品之中，須菩提以種種因緣設難說：『若一切法都是空的，怎麼還會有五道生死、有善法與不善法呢？』如今他轉過來難眾生，這樣說：『世尊！若眾生畢竟不可得，那菩薩是為了誰的緣故而行般若呢？』先前是就法立難而為眾生問，如今是就眾生立難而為法問。
佛回答說：『是為了實際的緣故，菩薩才行般若波羅蜜。』
須菩提心裡所想的是：菩薩是為了度眾生的緣故而行般若波羅蜜。
佛的意思卻是：眾生只是假名，虛妄不實，畢竟不可得；菩薩是為了一切真實之法的緣故，才行般若波羅蜜。所謂真實之法，就是實際。
論①續：何以言為實際——初發意菩薩但為滅苦而發大悲
論主自設一問：
一切菩薩見眾生受苦受惱，都是為了度眾生的緣故而發起大悲之心，如今為什麼說是為了實際呢？
論主自答：
初發心的菩薩，只是為了滅除眾生的苦，才發起大悲之心。所謂苦，就是老、病、死這一類，以及身心的衰損惱亂。
要怎樣滅除這苦呢？去尋苦的因緣，是由於有生的緣故；正如佛在十二因緣之中所說：『是什麼因緣才有老、病、死呢？因為有生的緣故。』
論①續：眾生皆知生是苦，菩薩何以為奇特——生定是苦本
論主又問：
一切眾生都知道生的因緣就是苦，那菩薩又有什麼特別之處呢？
論主答：
眾生其實並不知道苦是由生而有的。他們遭遇苦的時候，只會怨恨別人，怪自己調養不當，從來不曾怨到生的頭上；因為這樣，反而增長了結使煩惱，又加重了受生之法，始終不知道真實的苦因。有的人並沒有受過鞭杖、刀兵，也沒有種種愁惱之苦，卻仍舊有死的苦；這死是從哪裡來的呢？是從生而有的。
再者，鞭杖、刀兵、愁惱，也都是由於有生才有的。別的法或者有苦、或者無苦，唯獨這受生之法是必定有苦的。縱使是大智之人以及諸天，只要有生就必定有死，有死就必定有苦，所以知道生決定是苦的根本。譬如草木因為有生的緣故，就必定可以被焚燒；若當初不生，那麼縱然有猛火、有大風，也無從燒害它。
論①續：逆推生之因緣——有、取、愛、受、觸、六入
菩薩既然求得了苦的因緣，又進一步推求生的因緣。生的因緣，就是有。有分三種：欲有、色有、無色有。執著這三種有，便造起善業惡業，這就是受生之因。有的因，是四種取。取的因緣，是愛這一類的種種煩惱。煩惱勢力還小、還不能造業的時候，所以叫作愛；增長到能夠造業的時候，所以叫作取——就是欲取、見取、戒取、我語取；因為取著這四件事的緣故，便能造起種種的業。愛的因緣，是三種受。受的因緣，是眼等六種觸。所謂觸，是連著受等心數法一併而說的。情、塵、識這三事和合的緣故，心中便生起受等心數法；根本雖然是這三事，由和合的緣故而生觸，又因為六情是心識依止安住之處，所以只說六入。
六入的因緣，是名色。六入雖然就是名色的一分，但已經成就的叫作六入，還沒成就的叫作名色；色成就了就叫作五入，名成就了就叫作一入。這是在胎中之時因緣的先後次第。
名色的因緣，是識。若識不入胎，胎在初起之時便會爛壞。這裡所說的識，是指中陰之中的五眾。這五眾極其微細，所以只用識來稱它。假使識不入胎而胎也能成就，那麼凡是一切和合之時，都應當成胎了！
論①續：識何因緣入胎——行因緣，業將識入胎
論主又問：
識是因為什麼因緣才入胎的呢？
論主答：
是行的因緣。行就是過去的三種業，是業帶著識入胎的。譬如風吹著已經斷絕的火焰，在空中飄去，火焰便是依止著風而行；前世作人身的時候燃起了六識，所以命終之時，業就帶著識入胎。
論①續：上業何以名有、今業何以名行
論主又問：
前面所說的業為什麼叫作有？此處所說的業為什麼叫作行？
論主答：
前面所說的，是今世所造之業，將要成為未來之有，所以叫作有；此處所說的，是過去世之業已經滅盡，只剩下一個名字，所以叫作行。
這行的因緣就叫作無明。一切煩惱雖然都是過去業的因緣，但因為無明是根本的緣故，所以單舉無明為名。今世現在所執著的，是愛與取居多，所以就以愛、取為名；過去世之中是疑與邪見所在之處，所以就單名為無明。如今所求得的一切苦惱的根本，就是無明。
論①續：何以止齊無明
論主又問：
無始以來的生死輾轉極多，為什麼只推到無明便止？
論主答：
這件事前面已經答過了。
論①續：所斷者在未來——良醫與滅火之喻
菩薩這樣思惟：為了使人從苦之中得到解脫的緣故，所以推求苦的因緣。眾生過去的、現在的老死等苦，是不可能除去的；所要除的，是未來世的老死之苦——斷其相續，使它不再生起。譬如良醫，過去的病治不了，現在的病也治不了；服藥所能治的，只是將要生起的病——破除它的冷熱之因，使它不再生起。又譬如失火燒屋，人不是為了已經過去的火而勤力去滅，也不是為了現在的火而勤力去滅，只是為了使未來之火不再延燒的緣故而勤力去滅。良醫與滅火之人勤加方便，也並不落空。菩薩滅除眾生的苦惱也是這樣：過去的苦已經滅了，無可再作；現在的苦惱，是先世因緣已經成就的緣故，推却不得；所要破的，只是未來世老死等苦的因緣。破了這受生之法，老死等苦自然就永遠滅盡。
論①續：順數現在之八因緣
因此菩薩想要滅除未來世老死等苦的因緣——生，便求得了現在的有等八種因緣：第一叫作有漏之業。第二叫作現在世的種種煩惱，就是四取與一愛。這兩種煩惱，是從兩種心數法生起的，就是受與觸。觸能生起一切心數法，而受是其中先生起的，所以說觸是受的因緣。受雖然能生起三毒，但在一切眾生分上，愛才是舊有的煩惱。觸的因緣是內六入，如前面所說。雖然也有外六入，但內六入若無，觸等心數法便不生起，所以單取內六入而立名。名色是六入的因緣，如此處所說。最初入胎之識，便是名色的因緣。
識與名色還在胎中之時，這裡面雖然已經有六入，卻因為未曾成就、還不能用的緣故，所以未得名字。等到生為嬰孩，還不能有所作為，就只有六入而已。再長大一些，便有六觸。譬如小兒踏火踩冰，只是有觸，還不知道苦樂。再長大，便領受苦樂，卻還不曾深深愛著。譬如小兒雖然發怒，還不能造起殺生等惡業；雖然歡喜，也還不能造起布施等善業。等到年歲及於成人，得了苦便生瞋恚，得了樂便生貪愛。為了求取樂具的緣故，便取欲等四取。取的時候，就能造起善業惡業。
若知道了先前一世的無明與業之因緣，那麼億萬世的事也就可以知道了；譬如現在的火是熱的，過去的火、未來的火也是這樣。若對於無明之因緣還要更求它的根本，那就沒有窮盡，隨即墮入邊見，失了涅槃之道，所以不應當求；若還要更求，便墮入戲論，不是佛法了。
論①續：求無明體相即入畢竟空
菩薩想要斷除無明的緣故，便推求無明的體相；一推求之時，隨即入於畢竟空。為什麼呢？佛經上說：『無明之相：於內法不知，於外法不知，於內外法不知。』菩薩以內空觀內法，內法隨即是空；以外空觀外法，外法隨即是空；以內外空觀內外法，內外法隨即是空。像這樣的一切，就是無明之相，如同前面品中所引《德女經》裡破無明一段所廣說的那樣。
再者，菩薩推求無明之體，當下即是明，就是所謂諸法實相，名為實際。觀一切法如幻如化，眾生因為顛倒的因緣，生起種種煩惱，造作罪惡之業，輪轉五道，受生死之苦。譬如蠶吐出絲來把自己纏裹捆縛，然後投入沸湯之中受火炙。凡夫眾生也是這樣：初生之時本沒有種種煩惱，後來自己生起貪欲、瞋恚等種種煩惱；因為這煩惱的因緣，覆蔽了真實的智慧，轉身便受地獄之中火燒湯煮之報。菩薩知道這些法從本到末都是空的，只是眾生顛倒錯亂的緣故才受這樣的苦。菩薩對這樣的眾生生起大悲之心，為了要破除這顛倒的緣故，便推求真實之法，行般若波羅蜜，通達實際；以種種因緣教化眾生，使他們安住於實際。所以說菩薩住於實際並無過咎。
論①續：眾生際與實際不異——若異則無所利益
再者，經中說：『若眾生與實際有異，菩薩就不應當行般若波羅蜜。』
所謂有異，是說實際是畢竟空，而眾生際是決定實有。若是這樣，就該有這樣的難：『若一切法實際之相是空，菩薩又怎麼會為了眾生的緣故而修這實際呢？』若眾生是畢竟空、而實際是決定有，那麼既然沒有眾生，就沒有所利益的對象，又是為了誰的緣故而行實際呢？
如今眾生際實在與實際不異，所以才行般若波羅蜜。為了要覺悟那些狂惑顛倒的凡夫的緣故，所以行般若波羅蜜；使眾生安住於實際之中，而又不壞實際。
論①續：以實際著實際之難——指端不能自觸指端
這時候，須菩提又進一步問：『若眾生際與實際不異，那怎麼能把實際安著在實際上呢？』自性不應當安住在自性之中，譬如指端不能自己觸到自己的指端。
佛認可他的意思，說菩薩是以方便的緣故，才把眾生建立於實際。既然眾生與實際不異，那麼連一也不可得。若說是一，就壞了實際之相。為什麼呢？因為那樣就有了一之自性可得。菩薩知道這兩者之法不是一、不是二，也不是不一、也不是不二，畢竟寂滅而無戲論之相。菩薩生起大悲之心，只是為了要把眾生從顛倒之中拔出來的緣故，才教化眾生。
論①續：云何名方便——建立眾生於檀而說檀三世空
須菩提又問：『什麼叫作方便呢？』
佛說：『菩薩行般若波羅蜜的時候，以方便力的緣故，把眾生建立於檀之中，並且說這檀的前際、後際是空，中際也是這樣。』如同經中所廣說的那樣。菩薩知道實際的人，是到眾生那一邊去的，如同前面檀品之中所說。眾生聽了之後便發起心來，煩惱折損轉薄，卻又深深執著於布施。菩薩憐愍這樣的眾生，心想：『我把他從慳吝之中拔出來，如今他卻又執著於布施。眾生若貪受布施之報，福盡之時仍要受種種苦惱；又因為受富貴的因緣，造得大罪，就要墮入地獄。』因此憐愍這些眾生只得少許時的樂而受長久的苦，所以菩薩為他們說布施的實相，就是所謂畢竟空，這樣說：『這布施在過去已經滅了，不可見、不可得、不可用，只能憶念而已，如同夢中所見沒有兩樣；未來的布施還沒有生起，所以也是無所有、畢竟空。這布施既然前際、後際都沒有，中際也就沒有了。』如同破六塵之中破色法一段所說：『現在的布施雖然眼睛看得見，但一分一分地破析下去，乃至細到微塵也不可得。』布施在三世之中都是空的，施者、受者以及果報也都是這樣。
菩薩對行施的人說：『布施等法是最初入佛法的門；實際之中，連實際之相都沒有，何況布施！你不要憶念、不要執著布施等法！若能不憶念、不執著於布施的體相，這樣行布施的人，就能得到甘露之味、甘露之果。』所謂甘露之味，就是八聖道分；所謂甘露之果，就是涅槃。菩薩雖然住在實際之中，卻以方便之力，從布施這一門去度眾生。
其餘的波羅蜜也是這樣，如同經中所廣說的。
論①續：住性空中云何求一切種智
須菩提稟白佛說：『世尊！若一切法性空，性空之中既沒有法也沒有非法、也沒有眾生，那麼菩薩怎麼能住在這空之中而求一切種智呢？』
佛回答說：『菩薩正因為安立在性空之中的緣故，才能行這布施等種種法。』
須菩提又問：『性空把一切法都破得乾乾淨淨、無有剩餘，那菩薩怎麼還能住在性空之中而行布施等種種善法呢？』
佛認可須菩提的意思，並且為他說出因緣：『菩薩知道諸法實相，安住在這裡面，便能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。所謂諸法實相，就是性空。若一切法的性不是空的，菩薩就不應當住在這諸法性空之中；得了阿耨多羅三藐三菩提之後，才為眾生說性空之法，就是所謂色性空，受、想、行、識性空，乃至為眾生說一切種智、斷煩惱習性空之法。』
論①續：十八空若不空則壞空體——常住法相
再者，『須菩提！十八空若它的性不是空的，這就是壞了空之體。』為什麼呢？十八空能使一切法空，若它自己不空，那就成了虛誑；又若它不空，就會墮在常的一邊而成執著之處，能生煩惱。性空沒有實在的住處，沒有所從來、也沒有所從去，這就叫作常住法相。常住法相是性空的另一個名字，也叫作諸法實相。這相之中沒有生沒有滅、沒有增沒有減、沒有垢沒有淨。
『菩薩住在這裡面，見一切法性空，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不退轉、不疑惑、不追悔。為什麼呢？因為他不見有什麼法能作障礙，並且以方便力的緣故去度眾生。』所謂方便力，就是畢竟沒有法、也沒有眾生，而仍舊去度眾生。
論①續：既無眾生為誰作方便
論主又問：
若眾生以及法從本以來就是沒有的，那是為誰而作方便？又是要度脫誰呢？
論主答：
所謂性空，是連空之性也沒有的，你為什麼取著這空性之相來設難？若真有一個性空之相，那才應當設難！
再者，得諸法實相的人，知道這是性空，這人便知道諸法性空——既沒有法、也沒有眾生。凡夫因為未得實相的緣故，種種憶想分別；譬如狂人虛妄地有所見，就以為是實有。為了度脫凡夫狂人的緣故才說：『為眾生說在狂亂之法中有這種種法的分別，在真實之法中卻是沒有的。』菩薩為了要滿本願的緣故，又因為不執著性空的緣故，所以有度眾生這件事。在這裡便不應當設難了。
論①續：佛自說因緣——世諦故立，非是實
再者，這經中佛自己說出因緣：『性空之中眾生不可得，知者、見者也不可得，乃至八十隨形好也是這樣。』然而菩薩仍舊建立這些法為眾生演說，那是依世諦的緣故，並不是真實。
這裡佛說了一個譬喻：『譬如佛變化作一個化人，又變化作四部之眾而為他們說法，這裡面可有得道的人嗎？』
須菩提說：『沒有。為什麼呢？因為沒有決定的根本實事，哪裡有得須陀洹乃至得佛的人呢？』
菩薩說法度眾生也是這樣：眾生並沒有決定的實體，只是要從顛倒之中把眾生拔出來，安著在無顛倒之中。無顛倒之法也沒有處所，這裡面沒有眾生，乃至沒有知者、見者。空性雖然只是一相，而顛倒的多、不顛倒的少；所以才貴重這性空不顛倒之法。菩薩住在這裡面，只是破眾生的妄想，並不是破眾生。
又，無漏之法乃至八聖道分，雖然是無漏，卻因為有生有滅的緣故，不如第一義。
論①續：性空唯有是道，更無異道
『須菩提！這性空，一切諸佛唯有這一條道，更沒有別的道。』為什麼呢？因為諸佛所求的都是真實智慧不壞不異之法；雖然也有十力、四無所畏這些不同的法，卻不叫作一道。為什麼呢？因為這些都是有為之法，轉變無常的緣故。這性空之中，沒有眾生，也沒有色等種種法。菩薩不是為了菩薩道的緣故而求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，只是為了性空的緣故。
論①續：何等是性空、何等是菩薩道
論主又問：
什麼是性空？什麼是菩薩道？
論主答：
在第一義之中沒有分別，在世諦之中才有分別。諸法實相叫作性空，其餘布施等乃至八十隨形好是菩薩道。雖然行這些法，卻不是為了這些法，是為了求性空的緣故，所以說：『不是為了菩薩道的緣故而行。』
這性空，先前也是性空，中間、後來也是性空；從本以來常是空的，並沒有一個作者；不是因為福德之力才使它空，也不是因為智慧之力才使它空，只是它的性本自如此。諸佛賢聖以大福德、智慧、方便之力的緣故，破除眾生心中的顛倒，使他們知道性空。譬如虛空，它的性常常清淨，不沾著垢闇；有時風雲遮蔽昏暗，世人便說：『虛空不淨。』後來另有猛風把風雲吹除，便說：『虛空清淨。』其實虛空實在是無垢也無淨。諸佛也是這樣，以說法的猛風，吹却顛倒的雲翳，使眾生得到清淨，而諸法之性常常自是無垢無淨。
論①續：知性空故能行一切道——隨意壽命
這菩薩因為知道一切法性空的緣故，便能行一切種種道去度眾生；具足一切道，淨佛國土、教化眾生；得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提之時，隨意壽命。所謂隨意壽命，是說菩薩得了無生忍法，入於如幻菩薩之道，能夠一時變化作千億萬身，周遍十方，具足行一切菩薩之道；在種種國土之中，隨著眾生壽命的長短而受取相應的形。譬如釋迦牟尼佛，在這國土之中壽命一百年，在莊嚴佛國之中壽命七百阿僧祇劫。佛法在五種不可思議之中是第一不可思議。
論①續：離性空則無道無果
佛告訴須菩提：一切法性空，這是諸佛的真實之法！若得了這法，就名為佛；若說這法，就名為度眾生。三世諸佛也都是這樣。離了這性空，就沒有道、沒有果。所謂道，就是八聖道分；所謂果，就是七種果。為什麼呢？若離開性空而另有決定之法，就要取相而生執著，因為執著的緣故也就沒有離欲，沒有離欲的緣故也就沒有道果。若離開性空，那麼雖然行布施、持戒，行慈、悲等法，靠著善法之力，雖然不墮惡道，但生天之後福盡，仍舊墮入惡道，和原來沒有兩樣。行性空之法，又不執著性空，這就是涅槃。行其餘的法，生起執著之心，便有退失；若行這性空之法，就沒有退失。
論①續：行性空而不壞性空相——內虛空不壞外虛空
須菩提歡喜地稟白佛說：『太希有了！菩薩行這性空之法，卻又不壞性空之相。』
佛回答說：『若色等法與性空有異，菩薩就不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。為什麼呢？因為有一個空法，就不可能得離。須菩提！如今色等種種法實在就是性空；菩薩知道了這法之後，便得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。為什麼呢？因為這裡面沒有一法決定是常的，只是凡夫生起我心的緣故，執著內外之法，不得脫離生、老、病、死；所以菩薩行這性空，和合六波羅蜜，不壞色等種種法之相——就是所謂或空、或不空、或空不空、或非空非不空；不作這樣去表示諸法之相，這就叫作不壞。為什麼呢？色的實相就是性空，性空又怎麼會自己壞自己的性空呢？乃至菩提也是這樣。』這裡佛說了一個譬喻：『譬如內虛空不壞外虛空，因為同是一體的緣故。』
論①續：於何處得菩提——分別二相則不得
須菩提問：『世尊！若諸法性空沒有分別差異，那菩薩是在什麼地方得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提呢？』
佛認可他的意思，說：『正是這樣！若分別而有二相，就不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』
阿耨多羅三藐三菩提叫作真實智慧，它在色法之中不行，就是所謂不著、不染。為什麼呢？因為這智慧不是為了取色的緣故而行，所以不在色中行。
論①續：不取不捨，當於何處行
須菩提又問：『若菩提不在取中行、不在捨中行，那應當在什麼地方行呢？』
所謂取，是指實法；所謂捨，是指空法。所謂取，是著相之行；所謂捨，是不著相之行。所謂取，是二之行；所謂捨，是不二之行。像這樣的種種分別。
佛反過來問須菩提：『在你的意思裡是怎樣呢？佛所變化的人是在什麼地方行呢？』
須菩提說：『這化人沒有行處，因為化人沒有心、沒有心數法的緣故。菩提也是這樣。』
佛又問：『在你的意思裡是怎樣呢？阿羅漢夢中的菩提是在什麼地方行呢？』
須菩提說：『阿羅漢尚且不眠，何況夢中的菩提還會有行處呢！』
論①續：佛何以問阿羅漢夢中菩提
論主又問：
菩提有三種：阿羅漢菩提、辟支佛菩提、佛菩提。阿羅漢的菩提不在有漏心之中、不在無記心之中行，只在無漏心之中行；那麼佛為什麼還要問阿羅漢夢中的菩提在什麼地方行呢？
論主答：
阿羅漢是一切漏已盡的聖人，便沒有夢；佛正因為必定無處的緣故才這樣問，是要顯明必定沒有行法。
論①續：佛猶有眠，何以言阿羅漢尚不眠
論主又問：
乃至佛尚且還有眠，怎麼知道呢？佛曾經吩咐阿難：『你把優多羅僧折成四疊鋪好，我想稍稍眠息一會兒，你為諸比丘說法。』又有薩遮尼乾問佛：『佛自己想想，白天有眠嗎？』佛說：『春末夏初，因為天時炎熱的緣故稍稍眠息，是為了除去食後的不適。』薩遮尼乾稟白佛說：『別人有這樣說的：白天睡眠是愚癡之相。』佛說：『你且住！你並不能分別什麼是愚癡之相。諸漏能使後身相續不斷的，這才叫作愚癡之相，這樣的人縱然常常不眠也還是愚癡；若是諸漏永滅無餘，那麼縱然睡眠也不叫作愚癡。』像這樣的話，經中處處都說。那麼須菩提為什麼說阿羅漢尚且不眠呢？
論主答：
眠有兩種：一種是眠而有夢，二種是眠而無夢。阿羅漢不是為了安隱貪著快樂的緣故而眠，只因為受了四大之身的法，應當有食、有息、有眠、有覺，所以少許時的歇息才叫作眠；並不是為了作夢而眠。所以須菩提說：阿羅漢尚且不眠。
有人說：『離欲的人，得了禪定，色界所繫的四大進入身中，身心歡樂便沒有眠；至於慧解脫的阿羅漢，色界四大不入身中，所以有眠。』因此須菩提說：阿羅漢尚且不眠。所以阿羅漢是有眠的、也有不眠的。
佛則是以方便之力，為了度眾生、隨順人法的緣故而示現有眠。
論①續：既無處行，云何從一地至十地
須菩提又問：『若是不行的，那菩薩怎麼能從一地到十地，乃至得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提呢？』
佛認可他的意思，說：『菩提雖然沒有行處，但不具足六波羅蜜等種種法，終究不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。這菩薩是住在色相之中，乃至住在菩提之相中，才得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；他不捨色等諸法，也不執著菩提之相，知道色等諸法就是菩提，常是寂滅，沒有一法或增、或減，或垢、或淨，或得道、或得果。』只是依世諦的緣故才說菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，在第一義之中並沒有色乃至菩提。
論①續：汝得道時有所得不——世諦故說阿羅漢
佛為了要顯明這件事的緣故，反過來問須菩提：『在你的意思裡是怎樣呢？你斷煩惱得道的時候，有所得嗎？就是所謂如夢一般的五眾、或道、或道果，可有決定的一法嗎？』
須菩提說：『不得！』為什麼呢？須菩提的意思是：住在無相之門中而入道，怎麼還會取相呢？
佛說：『你若乃至連極微細的少法也不得，那怎麼還說你是阿羅漢呢？』
須菩提說：『那是依世諦之法的緣故，才說有阿羅漢；在凡夫顛倒之法中才有得、有失，有眾生、有法。』
佛說：『菩提也是這樣，依世諦之法的緣故，才說有菩薩、說有色等乃至菩提；在菩提之中，並沒有決定之法，也沒有眾生，也沒有菩提。菩薩觀這菩提之法，沒有增、沒有減。為什麼呢？因為諸法之性就是這樣。菩薩尚且不得這諸法之性，何況說有初發心乃至十地，以及六波羅蜜、三十七品乃至十八不共法當有所得！沒有這樣的事！為什麼呢？諸法之性是一切法的根本，尚且不可得，何況六波羅蜜等是造作之法，怎麼會有決定實體！正是這樣！菩薩行這諸法之性，得佛之時，便能大大地利益眾生。』
大智度論卷第九十
Treatise ①: Taking Up the Objection of the Previous Chapter—Before, He Objected to Dharmas for the Sake of Beings; Now He Objects to Beings for the Sake of Dharmas
The treatise-author explains:
In the previous chapter, Subhūti raised objections by way of all kinds of causes and conditions, saying: ‘If all dharmas are empty, how can there still be the births and deaths of the five destinies, and wholesome dharmas and unwholesome dharmas?’ Now he turns round and objects concerning beings, saying thus: ‘World-Honored One! If beings are ultimately unfindable, then for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñā?’ Before, he set up the objection on the side of dharmas and asked for the sake of beings; now he sets up the objection on the side of beings and asks for the sake of dharmas.
The Buddha answered: ‘It is for the sake of the limit of reality that the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā.’
What Subhūti had in mind was: the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of delivering beings.
But the Buddha's meaning is: beings are only a provisional name, false and not real, ultimately unfindable; it is for the sake of all real dharmas that the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā. The real dharma is precisely the limit of reality.
Treatise ① (continued): Why It Is Said to Be for the Sake of the Limit of Reality—The Bodhisattva at the First Arousing of Intent Arouses Great Compassion Only to Extinguish Suffering
The treatise-author poses a question himself:
All bodhisattvas, seeing beings undergo suffering and vexation, arouse the mind of great compassion for the sake of delivering beings; why is it now said to be for the sake of the limit of reality?
The treatise-author answers himself:
The bodhisattva at the first arousing of the mind arouses the mind of great compassion only in order to extinguish the suffering of beings. Suffering means old age, sickness, death, and the like, together with the decline, harm, vexation, and disturbance of body and mind.
How is this suffering to be extinguished? Seeking the causes and conditions of suffering, it is because there is birth; just as the Buddha said within the twelve links of causes and conditions: ‘By what causes and conditions are there old age, sickness, and death? Because there is birth.’
Treatise ① (continued): All Beings Know That Birth Is Suffering; How Then Is the Bodhisattva Exceptional—Birth Is Definitely the Root of Suffering
The treatise-author asks again:
All beings know that the causes and conditions of birth are suffering; what then is special about the bodhisattva?
The treatise-author answers:
Beings in fact do not know that suffering comes from birth. When they meet with suffering, they only resent other people and blame themselves for not having taken proper care of themselves; they have never laid the blame on birth. Because of this, they instead increase the fetters and afflictions and make heavier the dharma of receiving birth, and to the end they do not know the real cause of suffering. Some people have never received whips and staves or knives and weapons, nor have they any of the suffering of the various sorrows and vexations, yet they still have the suffering of death; where does this death come from? It comes from birth.
Further, whips and staves, knives and weapons, sorrows and vexations, all likewise exist because there is birth. Other dharmas may have suffering or may have no suffering; only this dharma of receiving birth definitely has suffering. Even people of great wisdom and the gods: so long as there is birth, there is definitely death, and where there is death there is definitely suffering; so it is known that birth is definitely the root of suffering. It is as with grass and trees: because they have birth, they can definitely be burnt; if they had never been born in the first place, then even with a fierce fire and a great wind, there would be no way to burn and harm them.
Treatise ① (continued): Tracing Back the Causes and Conditions of Birth—Existence, Grasping, Craving, Feeling, Contact, the Six Entries
Having found the causes and conditions of suffering, the bodhisattva goes further and seeks the causes and conditions of birth. The causes and conditions of birth are existence. Existence is of three kinds: the existence of desire, the existence of form, and the existence of the formless. Clinging to these three kinds of existence, one makes wholesome deeds and evil deeds; this is the cause of receiving birth. The cause of existence is the four kinds of grasping. The causes and conditions of grasping are craving and the like, all kinds of afflictions. When the power of the afflictions is still small and cannot yet make deeds, it is therefore called craving; when it has grown until it can make deeds, it is therefore called grasping—namely grasping at sense-desires, grasping at views, grasping at precepts, and grasping at the doctrine of self; because one grasps at these four things, one can make all kinds of deeds. The causes and conditions of craving are the three kinds of feeling. The causes and conditions of feeling are the six kinds of contact, eye-contact and the rest. Contact is spoken of together with feeling and the other mental-factor dharmas. Because the three things—faculty, sense-object, and consciousness—come together, feeling and the other mental-factor dharmas arise in the mind; although the root is these three things, contact arises by their coming together, and further, because the six faculties are where mind and consciousness take support and abide, only the six entries are spoken of.
The causes and conditions of the six entries are name-and-form. Although the six entries are precisely a part of name-and-form, what has already been accomplished is called the six entries, and what has not yet been accomplished is called name-and-form; when form has been accomplished it is called the five entries, and when name has been accomplished it is called the one entry. This is the sequence, earlier and later, of the causes and conditions at the time in the womb.
The causes and conditions of name-and-form are consciousness. If consciousness did not enter the womb, the embryo would rot and decay at the time it first arises. The consciousness spoken of here refers to the five aggregates within the intermediate existence. These five aggregates are extremely subtle, so they are called only by the name consciousness. If the embryo could be accomplished even without consciousness entering the womb, then whenever there is any coming together at all, an embryo should be formed!
Treatise ① (continued): By What Causes and Conditions Consciousness Enters the Womb—The Causes and Conditions of Constructions: Deeds Carry Consciousness into the Womb
The treatise-author asks again:
By what causes and conditions does consciousness enter the womb?
The treatise-author answers:
By the causes and conditions of constructions. Constructions are the three kinds of deeds of the past; it is deeds that carry consciousness into the womb. It is like the wind blowing a flame that has already been cut off, drifting away through the air: the flame travels taking support in the wind. In a former life, when one had a human body, the six consciousnesses were kindled; so at the end of life, deeds carry consciousness into the womb.
Treatise ① (continued): Why the Deeds Above Are Named Existence and the Deeds Here Are Named Constructions
The treatise-author asks again:
Why are the deeds spoken of earlier named existence? Why are the deeds spoken of here named constructions?
The treatise-author answers:
What was spoken of earlier is deeds made in this present life, which are about to become future existence; so they are named existence. What is spoken of here is deeds of past lives that have already ceased entirely, with only a name remaining; so they are named constructions.
The causes and conditions of these constructions are named ignorance. Although all the afflictions are causes and conditions of past deeds, because ignorance is the root, ignorance alone is taken as the name. What is clung to in this present life is mostly craving and grasping, so craving and grasping are taken as the names; within past lives is the place of doubt and wrong views, so it is named ignorance alone. The root of all suffering and vexation now found is precisely ignorance.
Treatise ① (continued): Why the Tracing Stops at Ignorance
The treatise-author asks again:
Since beginningless time, birth and death have turned round and round a great many times; why does the tracing stop at ignorance?
The treatise-author answers:
This matter has already been answered above.
Treatise ① (continued): What Is Severed Lies in the Future—The Similes of the Good Physician and of Putting Out a Fire
The bodhisattva reflects thus: for the sake of causing people to be liberated from suffering, he therefore seeks the causes and conditions of suffering. The suffering of old age, death, and the rest that beings have had in the past and have in the present cannot be removed; what is to be removed is the suffering of old age and death in future lives—severing its continuity so that it does not arise again. It is like a good physician: past illness he cannot cure, present illness he also cannot cure; what taking medicine can cure is only the illness that is about to arise—breaking its causes of cold and heat so that it does not arise again. Again, it is like a house that catches fire and burns: people do not strive to put it out for the sake of the fire that has already passed, nor do they strive to put it out for the sake of the present fire; they strive to put it out only for the sake of keeping the future fire from spreading and burning further. The good physician and the person putting out the fire apply skilful means diligently, and it is not in vain. The bodhisattva's extinguishing of the suffering and vexation of beings is also like this: past suffering has already ceased, and nothing more can be done about it; present suffering and vexation cannot be pushed away, because the causes and conditions of former lives have already been accomplished; what is to be broken is only the causes and conditions of the suffering of old age, death, and the rest in future lives. When this dharma of receiving birth is broken, the suffering of old age, death, and the rest naturally ceases forever.
Treatise ① (continued): Counting Forward the Eight Present Causes and Conditions
Therefore the bodhisattva, wishing to extinguish birth—the causes and conditions of the suffering of old age, death, and the rest in future lives—finds the eight present causes and conditions, existence and the rest: the first is named deeds with outflows. The second is named the various afflictions of the present life, namely the four kinds of grasping and the one craving. These two kinds of affliction arise from two mental-factor dharmas, namely feeling and contact. Contact can give rise to all mental-factor dharmas, and feeling is the first among them to arise; so it is said that contact is the causes and conditions of feeling. Although feeling can give rise to the three poisons, on the part of all beings it is craving that is the old affliction. The causes and conditions of contact are the inner six entries, as was said before. Although there are also the outer six entries, if the inner six entries are absent, contact and the other mental-factor dharmas do not arise, so the inner six entries alone are taken to set up the name. Name-and-form is the causes and conditions of the six entries, as is said here. The consciousness that first enters the womb is the causes and conditions of name-and-form.
While consciousness and name-and-form are still in the womb, although there are already the six entries within, because they have not yet been accomplished and cannot yet be used, they have not yet obtained their names. When one is born as an infant and cannot yet do anything, there are only the six entries. Growing a little older, there are the six contacts. It is like a small child treading on fire and stepping on ice: there is only contact, and it does not yet know suffering and pleasure. Growing older still, it experiences suffering and pleasure, yet has not yet deeply craved and clung. It is like a small child who, though it grows angry, cannot yet make evil deeds such as killing; though it is glad, it cannot yet make wholesome deeds such as giving. When the years reach adulthood, obtaining suffering one gives rise to anger, obtaining pleasure one gives rise to greedy craving. For the sake of seeking the things of pleasure, one grasps the four kinds of grasping, grasping at sense-desires and the rest. At the time of grasping, one can make wholesome deeds and evil deeds.
If one knows the causes and conditions of ignorance and deeds of a single former life, then the matters of myriads of koṭi of lives can also be known; just as present fire is hot, past fire and future fire are also like this. If, with regard to the causes and conditions of ignorance, one still seeks further for their root, there is no end to it, and one at once falls into the extreme view and loses the path of nirvāṇa; so one should not seek it; if one still seeks further, one falls into idle discourse, and it is no longer the Buddha's Dharma.
Treatise ① (continued): Seeking the Substance and Mark of Ignorance Is at Once Entering Ultimate Emptiness
Wishing to sever ignorance, the bodhisattva seeks the substance and mark of ignorance; the moment he seeks it, he at once enters ultimate emptiness. Why? The Buddha's sūtra says: ‘The mark of ignorance: not knowing inner dharmas, not knowing outer dharmas, not knowing inner and outer dharmas.’ The bodhisattva contemplates inner dharmas by inner emptiness, and inner dharmas are at once empty; he contemplates outer dharmas by outer emptiness, and outer dharmas are at once empty; he contemplates inner and outer dharmas by inner-and-outer emptiness, and inner and outer dharmas are at once empty. All such as this is the mark of ignorance, as was broadly said in the passage refuting ignorance in the Sūtra of the Virtuous Woman cited in an earlier chapter.
Further, when the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality. He contemplates all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration; beings, because of the causes and conditions of inversion, give rise to all kinds of afflictions, make sinful and evil deeds, turn round in the five destinies, and undergo the suffering of birth and death. It is like a silkworm that spits out silk to wrap and bind itself, and is then thrown into boiling water and scorched by fire. Ordinary beings are also like this: at the time of their first birth they originally had none of the various afflictions; later they themselves give rise to all kinds of afflictions, greed, anger, and the rest; because of the causes and conditions of these afflictions, real wisdom is covered over, and when they turn their bodies they then receive the retribution of being burnt by fire and boiled in water in the hells. The bodhisattva knows that these dharmas are empty from root to branch; it is only because beings are inverted and confused that they undergo such suffering. Toward such beings the bodhisattva gives rise to the mind of great compassion, and in order to break this inversion, he seeks the real dharma, practises prajñāpāramitā, and penetrates the limit of reality; by all kinds of causes and conditions he teaches and transforms beings and causes them to abide in the limit of reality. So it is said that there is no fault in the bodhisattva's abiding in the limit of reality.
Treatise ① (continued): The Limit of Beings and the Limit of Reality Are Not Different—If They Were Different There Would Be No One to Benefit
Further, the sūtra says: ‘If beings and the limit of reality were different, the bodhisattva should not practise prajñāpāramitā.’
Being different means that the limit of reality is ultimate emptiness while the limit of beings is definitely really existent. If it were so, there should be this objection: ‘If the mark of the limit of reality of all dharmas is empty, how could the bodhisattva, for the sake of beings, cultivate this limit of reality?’ If beings were ultimately empty while the limit of reality definitely existed, then since there would be no beings, there would be nothing to benefit; for whose sake, then, would he practise the limit of reality?
Now the limit of beings is in reality not different from the limit of reality, and so he practises prajñāpāramitā. In order to awaken ordinary people who are mad, deluded, and inverted, he practises prajñāpāramitā; he causes beings to abide in the limit of reality, and yet does not destroy the limit of reality.
Treatise ① (continued): The Objection of Setting the Limit of Reality upon the Limit of Reality—The Tip of a Finger Cannot Touch the Tip of That Finger
At this time Subhūti asked further: ‘If the limit of beings and the limit of reality are not different, how can the limit of reality be set upon the limit of reality?’ Self-nature should not abide within self-nature, just as the tip of a finger cannot itself touch the tip of that finger.
The Buddha approved his meaning, and said that it is by skilful means that the bodhisattva establishes beings in the limit of reality. Since beings and the limit of reality are not different, even one is unfindable. If it were said to be one, the mark of the limit of reality would be destroyed. Why? Because then there would be a self-nature of one to be found. The bodhisattva knows that the dharmas of these two are not one and not two, and also not not-one and not not-two, ultimately quiescent and without the mark of idle discourse. The bodhisattva gives rise to the mind of great compassion and teaches and transforms beings only in order to pull beings out from inversion.
Treatise ① (continued): What Is Named Skilful Means—Establishing Beings in Dāna and Saying That Dāna Is Empty in the Three Times
Subhūti asked again: ‘What is named skilful means?’
The Buddha said: ‘When the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā, by the power of skilful means he establishes beings in dāna, and says that this dāna is empty in the former limit and in the latter limit, and the middle limit is likewise.’ It is as broadly said in the sūtra. The bodhisattva who knows the limit of reality goes over to the side of beings, as was said earlier in the chapter "Dāna". Having heard it, beings arouse the mind, and their afflictions are broken down and grow thin, yet they again cling deeply to giving. The bodhisattva has pity on such beings and thinks: ‘I pulled him out of stinginess, and now he again clings to giving. If beings greedily receive the retribution of giving, when the merit is exhausted they will still undergo all kinds of suffering and vexation; and because of the causes and conditions of receiving riches and honour, they commit great sins and will fall into the hells.’ Therefore, pitying these beings who obtain a little while of pleasure and undergo long suffering, the bodhisattva speaks for them of the real mark of giving, namely what is called ultimate emptiness, saying thus: ‘This giving, in the past, has already ceased; it cannot be seen, is unfindable, cannot be used, and can only be recollected, no different from what is seen in a dream; future giving has not yet arisen, so it too is without anything existent, ultimately empty. Since this giving has neither a former limit nor a latter limit, there is no middle limit either.’ As is said in the passage refuting the dharma of form within the refutation of the six sense-objects: ‘Although present giving can be seen by the eye, when it is broken down part by part, even down to atoms it is unfindable.’ Giving is empty in the three times, and so likewise are the giver, the recipient, and the retribution.
The bodhisattva says to those who practise giving: ‘Giving and the other dharmas are the gate by which one first enters the Buddha's Dharma; within the limit of reality there is not even the mark of the limit of reality, how much less giving! You must not recollect, must not cling to giving and the other dharmas! If one can not recollect and not cling to the substance and mark of giving, one who practises giving thus can obtain the flavour of ambrosia and the fruit of ambrosia.’ The flavour of ambrosia is the eightfold noble path; the fruit of ambrosia is nirvāṇa. Although the bodhisattva abides in the limit of reality, by the power of skilful means he delivers beings through the one gate of giving.
The other pāramitās are likewise, as is broadly said in the sūtra.
Treatise ① (continued): Abiding within the Emptiness of Nature, How Does He Seek the Omniscience of All Kinds
Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! If all dharmas are empty of nature, and within the emptiness of nature there is neither dharma nor what is not a dharma, nor are there beings, how can the bodhisattva abide within this emptiness and seek the omniscience of all kinds?’
The Buddha answered: ‘It is precisely because the bodhisattva is securely set within the emptiness of nature that he can practise giving and these various dharmas.’
Subhūti asked again: ‘The emptiness of nature breaks all dharmas completely with nothing remaining; how then can the bodhisattva still abide within the emptiness of nature and practise giving and the various wholesome dharmas?’
The Buddha approved Subhūti's meaning, and spoke the causes and conditions for him: ‘The bodhisattva knows the real mark of all dharmas and, abiding within it, can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The real mark of all dharmas is precisely the emptiness of nature. If the nature of all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva should not abide within this emptiness of the nature of all dharmas; it is after obtaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi that he speaks for beings the dharma of the emptiness of nature, namely what is called: form is empty of nature; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are empty of nature; and so on up to speaking for beings the dharma that the omniscience of all kinds and the severance of the afflictions and their habitual residues are empty of nature.’
Treatise ① (continued): If the Eighteen Emptinesses Were Not Empty, the Substance of Emptiness Would Be Destroyed—The Constantly Abiding Marks of Dharmas
Further: ‘Subhūti! If the nature of the eighteen emptinesses were not empty, this would be destroying the substance of emptiness.’ Why? The eighteen emptinesses can make all dharmas empty; if they themselves were not empty, they would become false and deceptive; and further, if they were not empty, they would fall to the side of permanence and become a place of clinging, able to give rise to afflictions. The emptiness of nature has no real abiding-place, no place from which it comes, and no place to which it goes; this is called the constantly abiding marks of dharmas. The constantly abiding marks of dharmas are another name for the emptiness of nature, and are also called the real mark of all dharmas. Within this mark there is no arising and no ceasing, no increase and no decrease, no stain and no purity.
‘The bodhisattva abides within this, sees that all dharmas are empty of nature, and with regard to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is non-retrogressing, does not doubt, and does not regret. Why? Because he does not see any dharma that could make an obstruction, and by the power of skilful means he delivers beings.’ The power of skilful means is this: ultimately there are no dharmas and no beings, and yet he still delivers beings.
Treatise ① (continued): Since There Are No Beings, for Whom Is Skilful Means Made
The treatise-author asks again:
If beings and dharmas have from the beginning not existed, then for whom is skilful means made? And whom is it to deliver?
The treatise-author answers:
The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection? Only if there really were a mark of the emptiness of nature would you be right to raise an objection!
Further, a person who obtains the real mark of all dharmas knows that this is the emptiness of nature; this person then knows that all dharmas are empty of nature—there are no dharmas and no beings. Ordinary people, because they have not obtained the real mark, engage in all kinds of recollection, imagining, and discrimination; as a madman falsely sees things and takes them to really exist. It is for the sake of delivering ordinary people, these madmen, that it is said: ‘For beings it is said that within the dharma of madness there are these various distinctions of dharmas, but within the real dharma they do not exist.’ Because the bodhisattva wishes to fulfil his original vow, and because he does not cling to the emptiness of nature, there is the matter of delivering beings. Here one should not raise an objection.
Treatise ① (continued): The Buddha Himself States the Causes and Conditions—Established by Reason of Worldly Truth, Not Real
Further, in this sūtra the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions: ‘Within the emptiness of nature beings are unfindable, the knower and the seer are also unfindable, and so on up to the eighty minor marks, which are likewise.’ Yet the bodhisattva still establishes these dharmas and expounds them for beings; that is by reason of worldly truth, and is not real.
Here the Buddha speaks a simile: ‘It is as if the Buddha conjures a conjured person, and further conjures the fourfold assembly and teaches the Dharma for them; within this is there anyone who obtains the path?’
Subhūti said: ‘No. Why? Because there is no fixed real root-substance; how could there be anyone who obtains srota-āpanna-hood and so on up to anyone who obtains buddhahood?’
The bodhisattva's teaching the Dharma to deliver beings is also like this: beings have no fixed substance; it is only to pull beings out of inversion and set them in non-inversion. The dharma of non-inversion also has no place; within it there are no beings, and so on up to no knower and no seer. Although the nature of emptiness is only one mark, the inverted are many and the non-inverted are few; that is why this dharma of the emptiness of nature, non-inversion, is prized. The bodhisattva abides within this and only breaks beings' false imaginings; he does not break beings.
Again, the dharmas without outflows, and so on up to the eightfold noble path, although they are without outflows, because they have arising and ceasing, are not like the highest meaning.
Treatise ① (continued): The Emptiness of Nature Is the Only Path; There Is No Other Path
‘Subhūti! This emptiness of nature is the only path of all the buddhas; there is no other path.’ Why? Because what all the buddhas seek is the dharma of real wisdom, indestructible and not different; although there are also different dharmas such as the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, they are not called the one path. Why? Because these are all conditioned dharmas, changing and impermanent. Within this emptiness of nature there are no beings, nor form and the various dharmas. The bodhisattva seeks anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi not for the sake of the bodhisattva path, but only for the sake of the emptiness of nature.
Treatise ① (continued): What Is the Emptiness of Nature, and What Is the Bodhisattva Path
The treatise-author asks again:
What is the emptiness of nature? What is the bodhisattva path?
The treatise-author answers:
Within the highest meaning there is no discrimination; within worldly truth there is discrimination. The real mark of all dharmas is called the emptiness of nature; the rest, giving and so on up to the eighty minor marks, is the bodhisattva path. Although he practises these dharmas, it is not for the sake of these dharmas; it is for the sake of seeking the emptiness of nature, and so it is said: ‘He does not practise for the sake of the bodhisattva path.’
This emptiness of nature was the emptiness of nature before, and in the middle and afterwards is also the emptiness of nature; from the beginning it is ever empty, and there is no maker of it; it is not by the power of merit that it is made empty, nor is it by the power of wisdom that it is made empty; it is only that its nature is so of itself. The buddhas and the worthies and sages, by the power of great merit, wisdom, and skilful means, break the inversion in the minds of beings and cause them to know the emptiness of nature. It is like space, whose nature is ever pure and is not touched by stain and darkness; at times wind and clouds cover it and darken it, and the people of the world then say: ‘Space is impure.’ Later another fierce wind blows away the wind and clouds, and they then say: ‘Space is pure.’ In fact space is in reality without stain and without purity. The buddhas are also like this: with the fierce wind of teaching the Dharma they blow away the clouds and films of inversion, causing beings to obtain purity, while the nature of all dharmas is ever of itself without stain and without purity.
Treatise ① (continued): Because He Knows the Emptiness of Nature He Can Practise All Paths—A Life-span as He Wishes
Because this bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are empty of nature, he can practise all kinds of paths to deliver beings; making all paths complete, he purifies buddha-lands and teaches and transforms beings; when he obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he has a life-span as he wishes. A life-span as he wishes means that the bodhisattva, having obtained the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, enters the bodhisattva path like an illusion, and can at one time conjure thousands of koṭi of myriads of bodies, pervading the ten directions, and practise all the bodhisattva paths completely; in all kinds of lands, according to the length or shortness of beings' life-spans, he takes on corresponding forms. For example, Śākyamuni Buddha in this land has a life-span of a hundred years, and in the Adorned Buddha-land a life-span of seven hundred asaṃkhyeya kalpas. Among the five kinds of the inconceivable, the dharmas of the Buddha are the foremost inconceivable.
Treatise ① (continued): Apart from the Emptiness of Nature There Is No Path and No Fruit
The Buddha told Subhūti: That all dharmas are empty of nature—this is the true Dharma of the buddhas! If one obtains this Dharma, one is named a Buddha; if one teaches this Dharma, it is named delivering beings. The buddhas of the three times are all likewise. Apart from this emptiness of nature there is no path and no fruit. The path is the eightfold noble path; the fruit is the seven kinds of fruit. Why? If apart from the emptiness of nature there were some other fixed dharma, one would grasp at marks and give rise to clinging; because of clinging there would be no freedom from desire, and because there is no freedom from desire there would be no path and fruit. If one is apart from the emptiness of nature, then although one practises giving and keeping morality, and practises kindness, compassion, and the other dharmas, relying on the power of wholesome dharmas, although one does not fall into the evil destinies, after being born in heaven, when the merit is exhausted, one still falls into the evil destinies, no different from before. Practising the dharma of the emptiness of nature, and also not clinging to the emptiness of nature—this is precisely nirvāṇa. Practising the other dharmas, one gives rise to a clinging mind and there is retreat and loss; if one practises this dharma of the emptiness of nature, there is no retreat and loss.
Treatise ① (continued): Practising the Emptiness of Nature without Destroying the Mark of the Emptiness of Nature—Inner Space Does Not Destroy Outer Space
Subhūti joyfully said to the Buddha: ‘Most rare! The bodhisattva practises this dharma of the emptiness of nature, and yet does not destroy the mark of the emptiness of nature.’
The Buddha answered: ‘If form and the other dharmas were different from the emptiness of nature, the bodhisattva could not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Why? Because if there were a dharma of emptiness, parting from it could not be obtained. Subhūti! Now form and the various dharmas are in reality precisely the emptiness of nature; having known this dharma, the bodhisattva obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Why? Because within this there is not one dharma that is definitely permanent; it is only because ordinary people give rise to the mind of self that they cling to inner and outer dharmas and cannot escape birth, old age, sickness, and death; so the bodhisattva practises this emptiness of nature, brings the six perfections together, and does not destroy the marks of form and the various dharmas—namely what is called either empty, or not empty, or empty and not empty, or neither empty nor not empty; not representing the marks of dharmas in this way is what is called not destroying. Why? The real mark of form is precisely the emptiness of nature; how could the emptiness of nature destroy its own emptiness of nature? And so on up to awakening, which is likewise.’ Here the Buddha speaks a simile: ‘It is as inner space does not destroy outer space, because they are of one and the same substance.’
Treatise ① (continued): Where Is Awakening Obtained—If Two Marks Are Discriminated It Is Not Obtained
Subhūti asked: ‘World-Honored One! If all dharmas are empty of nature and without distinction or difference, then where does the bodhisattva obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?’
The Buddha approved his meaning and said: ‘Just so! If one discriminates and has two marks, one cannot obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.’
Anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is called real wisdom; it does not practise within the dharma of form, namely what is called not clinging and not being stained. Why? Because this wisdom does not practise for the sake of taking form, so it does not practise within form.
Treatise ① (continued): Neither Taking Nor Giving Up, Where Then Does It Practise
Subhūti asked again: ‘If awakening does not practise within taking and does not practise within giving up, where then should it practise?’
Taking refers to the real dharma; giving up refers to the empty dharma. Taking is the practice of clinging to marks; giving up is the practice of not clinging to marks. Taking is the practice of two; giving up is the practice of not two. All such distinctions as these.
The Buddha in turn asked Subhūti: ‘What do you think? Where does the person conjured by the Buddha practise?’
Subhūti said: ‘This conjured person has no place in which it practises, because the conjured person has no mind and no mental-factor dharmas. Awakening is also like this.’
The Buddha asked again: ‘What do you think? Where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise?’
Subhūti said: ‘The arhat does not even sleep, how much less could awakening in a dream have a place in which it practises!’
Treatise ① (continued): Why the Buddha Asks about the Arhat's Awakening in a Dream
The treatise-author asks again:
Awakening is of three kinds: the awakening of the arhat, the awakening of the pratyekabuddha, and the awakening of the Buddha. The arhat's awakening does not practise within the mind with outflows, nor within the indeterminate mind; it practises only within the mind without outflows. Why then does the Buddha still ask where the arhat's awakening in a dream practises?
The treatise-author answers:
The arhat is a sage whose outflows are all exhausted, and so he has no dreams; it is precisely because there is definitely no place that the Buddha asks this, in order to make clear that there is definitely no dharma of practising.
Treatise ① (continued): Even the Buddha Sleeps; Why Is It Said That the Arhat Does Not Even Sleep
The treatise-author asks again:
It goes so far that even the Buddha still sleeps; how is this known? The Buddha once instructed Ānanda: ‘Fold the uttarāsaṅga in four and spread it out; I wish to sleep and rest a little; you teach the Dharma for the bhikṣus.’ Again, the Nirgrantha Satyaka asked the Buddha: ‘Does the Buddha, thinking of himself, sleep by day?’ The Buddha said: ‘At the end of spring and the beginning of summer, because the season is hot, I sleep and rest a little, in order to remove the discomfort after eating.’ The Nirgrantha Satyaka said to the Buddha: ‘Others say this: sleeping by day is a mark of delusion.’ The Buddha said: ‘Stop! You cannot distinguish what the mark of delusion is. The outflows that can make the later body continue without break—this is called the mark of delusion; such a person, even if he constantly does not sleep, is still deluded; if the outflows have ceased forever without remainder, then even if one sleeps, it is not called delusion.’ Words such as these are spoken everywhere in the sūtras. Why then does Subhūti say that the arhat does not even sleep?
The treatise-author answers:
There are two kinds of sleep: first, sleeping with dreams; second, sleeping without dreams. The arhat does not sleep for the sake of ease and attachment to pleasure; it is only because, having taken on the dharma of a body of the four elements, he must have food, rest, sleep, and waking, that a little while of rest is called sleep; he does not sleep for the sake of dreaming. So Subhūti says: the arhat does not even sleep.
Someone says: ‘One who is free from desire, having obtained meditative concentration, has the four elements bound to the form realm enter his body; body and mind are joyful, and so there is no sleep; as for the arhat liberated by wisdom, the four elements of the form realm do not enter his body, so he sleeps.’ Therefore Subhūti says: the arhat does not even sleep. So among arhats there are those who sleep and also those who do not sleep.
The Buddha, by the power of skilful means, for the sake of delivering beings and conforming to the dharma of humans, shows sleep.
Treatise ① (continued): Since There Is No Place in Which It Practises, How Does One Go from the First Ground to the Tenth Ground
Subhūti asked again: ‘If it does not practise, how does the bodhisattva go from the first ground to the tenth ground, and so on up to obtaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?’
The Buddha approved his meaning and said: ‘Although awakening has no place in which it practises, if the six perfections and the various dharmas are not made complete, one never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This bodhisattva abides within the mark of form, and so on up to abiding within the mark of awakening, and then obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; he does not give up form and the other dharmas, nor does he cling to the mark of awakening; he knows that form and the other dharmas are precisely awakening, ever quiescent, with not one dharma that either increases or decreases, is either stained or pure, either obtains the path or obtains the fruit.’ It is only by reason of worldly truth that it is said that the bodhisattva obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; within the highest meaning there is no form, and so on up to no awakening.
Treatise ① (continued): When You Obtained the Path, Did You Obtain Anything—By Reason of Worldly Truth One Speaks of an Arhat
The Buddha, in order to make this matter clear, in turn asked Subhūti: ‘What do you think? When you severed the afflictions and obtained the path, did you obtain anything? Namely, the five aggregates that are like a dream, or the path, or the fruit of the path—is there one fixed dharma?’
Subhūti said: ‘I did not obtain anything!’ Why? Subhūti's meaning is: having entered the path abiding in the gate of signlessness, how could he still grasp at marks?
The Buddha said: ‘If you do not obtain even the most subtle trifling dharma, how then is it said that you are an arhat?’
Subhūti said: ‘It is by reason of worldly dharmas that it is said there is an arhat; it is within the inverted dharmas of ordinary people that there is gain and loss, there are beings and there are dharmas.’
The Buddha said: ‘Awakening is also like this: by reason of worldly dharmas it is said that there is a bodhisattva, and said that there is form and so on up to awakening; within awakening there is no fixed dharma, nor are there beings, nor is there awakening. The bodhisattva contemplates this dharma of awakening as without increase and without decrease. Why? Because the nature of dharmas is just so. The bodhisattva does not find even this nature of dharmas, how much less could it be said that the first arousing of the mind and so on up to the ten grounds, and the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, should have something to be attained! There is no such thing! Why? The nature of dharmas is the root of all dharmas, and even it is unfindable; how much less could the six perfections and the rest, which are made dharmas, have a fixed substance! Just so! The bodhisattva practising this nature of dharmas, when he becomes a Buddha, can greatly benefit beings.’
Fascicle ninety of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa ends here.
實際品之下：牒經釋實際、十二因緣逆推苦本、性空與方便、阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行
在問什麼
之上是經，之下是論。經段所立的總綱只有一句——實際與眾生際不異，所以菩薩行般若不是為了一個實有的眾生，也不是離開眾生去守一個實有的實際。須菩提於此一路詰難：既是不異，建立眾生於實際豈不成了把實際安在實際上、把自性安在自性中？佛只以「方便力」三字為釋眼，隨後歷布施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定五處，一一示其『性空為體、方便為用』的教化次第；末後以取捨二相相逼，逼到「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行」，收在「世諦故說名菩薩」一句上。
之下所問，與之上是同一題而換了一副問法。經段問的是「怎麼做」——菩薩以何方便建立眾生於實際；論段問的是「憑什麼」——何以說菩薩行般若是為實際，而不是為眾生。論主開口即牒上品之難，點明兩難的分際：「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故。」先前是就法立難而問眾生，如今是就眾生立難而問法；一經一論之間的轉軸，就落在這一句上。
轉軸既立，論主隨即自設一問，這一問是全單元的真關節：「一切菩薩見眾生苦惱，為度眾生故發大悲心，今何以言為實際？」問得極平常，卻問著了一切學大乘者的心病——我發心是為了眾生，你如今說是為了實際，那眾生豈不落空？論主的答法出人意表：他不從空義上辯，反而從「苦」上老老實實地往下推。滅苦須知苦因，苦因是生，生因是有，有因是取，取因是愛，愛因是受，受因是觸，觸因是六入，六入因是名色，名色因是識，識因是行，行因是無明。十二支逆溯到無明，再問無明的體相是什麼——一求，就求進了畢竟空。「復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。」
到這裡，開頭那個問題才算答完：為實際，正是為眾生。因為眾生之所以是眾生，只在顛倒；顛倒之根在無明；無明之體即是實際。所以菩薩通達實際，不是掉頭不顧眾生，是把眾生的病根拿在手裡。這一段十二因緣的逆推，在本論之中是難得一見的長篇連貫推理，也是本單元最見論主手法之處——不以空義壓人，以病理服人。
其下的文字轉入第二重：性空既然破一切法，菩薩住在性空之中，還怎麼行布施、怎麼求一切種智、怎麼度眾生？論主的答法只有一句要害——「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？」你之所以難得成立，是因為你把「性空」也當成了一個相；若性空本無相可取，難處自消。此後歷十八空、常住法相、化人說法、狂人妄見、虛空風雲諸喻，反覆只說一事：世諦故有說有度，第一義中無說無度，而二者不相礙。
末後一重最險，也最見本論之奇。經段末以「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行」逼問取捨，論主便就這一句連設三問：阿羅漢的菩提本不在有漏心、無記心中行，佛何以拿夢來問？佛尚且有眠，何以說阿羅漢不眠？答在「眠有二種」——眠而夢與眠而不夢；阿羅漢受四大之身而有息眠，卻無夢眠。這一段看似枝節，實則是全單元收束處的關鍵：夢是取相之極，夢中無菩提行處，正說明菩提本無行處；而佛之現眠，又正是「方便」二字的現身說法。
所以之下要讀的，是把之上經文的三句話落到實處：一句是「實際、眾生際不異」——用十二因緣逆推證成；一句是「以方便力故」——用性空無相與世諦施設證成；一句是「世諦故說名菩薩」——用夢、化人、阿羅漢三重譬喻證成。品名「實際」二字，到此方有著落。
逐段解明
一、牒上品之難，點出兩難之轉軸。 論段開口即回顧上品：「上品中須菩提種種因緣難：『若諸法空，云何有五道生死、善不善法？』」先問一句：既是釋經，何不逕釋本品經文，卻先回頭引上品？因為本品的問題不是憑空生起的，是上品之問的翻轉。上品難的是法——法既空，五道生死與善惡之別何以能立；本品難的是人——「若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若？」論主一句點破這轉軸：「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故。」上一問是拿法之空來逼眾生之有，這一問是拿眾生之空來逼法之有。讀此段先立一個準備：以下全部論文，都是在這兩端之間行走，不可只守一端。
二、佛答為實際，而須菩提所意者為眾生。 「佛答：『為實際故，菩薩行般若波羅蜜。』」論主隨即把問答兩方的心思分開來擺：「須菩提意謂：菩薩為度眾生故行般若波羅蜜。」「佛意：眾生假名虛誑、畢竟不可得；菩薩為一切實法故，行般若波羅蜜。實法即是實際。」此段之要，在「意」字。論主不是在字面上校對佛與須菩提誰對誰錯，是把兩人所指的東西拆給人看：須菩提指的是一個被度的對象，佛指的是一切真實之法。這裡要防一個滑失——不要把「為實際」讀成佛否認度眾生。下文整段十二因緣的推求，正是為度眾生而作；佛所改的不是目的，是目的所繫之處。
三、大悲與實際之間——第一問。 論主自設：「一切菩薩見眾生苦惱，為度眾生故發大悲心，今何以言為實際？」這一問替一切讀者問了。答曰：「初發意菩薩但為滅眾生苦故發大悲心。苦者，所謂老、病、死等，及身心衰惱。」答得不急——先承認發心確實是為滅苦，並把「苦」界定清楚：不是抽象的苦諦二字，是老、病、死與身心衰惱這些看得見的事。「初發意」三字尤其要留意：論主沒有說這樣發心是錯的，只說這是初發意之分位。分位不同而非是非不同，這是本論通例。
四、滅苦必先尋因，因在於生。 「云何滅是苦？尋苦因緣，由生故」——此句是全段推理的起點。論主隨即引佛語為據：「何因緣故有老、病、死？以有生故。」先問一句：滅苦何必先尋因？因為不尋因而滅苦，只能滅眼前一事；尋到因而斷之，才能滅苦之相續。這是醫家的道理，也是本段以下良醫之喻所由來。讀者於此當立一個準備：以下十二支的逆推，不是在背誦一張名相表，是在一層層地追問『這是從哪裡來的』。
五、眾生亦知生是苦，菩薩何奇——第二問。 問曰：「一切眾生皆知生因緣是苦，菩薩有何奇特？」這一問問得刁：生會帶來苦，人人都懂，那菩薩的見地高在哪裡？答曰：「眾生不知由生有苦，若遭苦時，但怨恨人，自不將適，初不怨生；……」答得極準——眾生知道的是『人生是苦』這句話，不是『苦由生有』這件事。憑據就在他遇苦時的反應：他怨人、怨自己調養不當，從不曾怨到「生」上去。因為不曾怨到生上，所以「增長結使、重增生法，不知真實苦因」——他所作的每一件對治，反而都在加厚那個真正的病根。這裡不要讀成論主在苛責凡夫；他所舉的是一條驗證的辦法：看你遇苦時心往哪裡去，就知道你認不認得苦因。論主再舉一證：「有人無鞭杖、刀兵、諸愁惱苦，而有死苦」——這人一生沒挨過打、沒遇過兵、沒有愁惱，照樣要死；這死從哪裡來？「從生而有。」把別的緣都減掉，剩下的那一個，才是真因。
六、生定是苦本——草木之喻。 論主再推一層：「復次，鞭杖、刀兵、愁惱，皆由生故有。」前段是減法，此段是加法：那些看似別有來處的苦，也仍舊以生為本。「餘法或有苦、或無苦，是生法必定有苦」——別的法與苦之間是或然的關係，唯獨生與苦之間是必然的關係。論主更把範圍推到極處：「正使大智及諸天，有生必有死，有死必有苦，是故知『生定是苦本』。」大智之人與諸天是世間所能想到的最好處境，仍不出此例。末以草木為喻：「如草木有生故，必可焚燒；若當不生，雖有猛火、大風，無所燒害。」喻的取點只在一處——可燒之性繫於有生，不繫於火之猛與風之大。所以對治不在躲火，在不生。讀此喻不要牽其餘：草木之生滅與眾生之生死，事相不同，取的只是『有生方有可燒』這一義。
七、逆推至六入——有、取、愛、受、觸。 「菩薩既得苦因緣，復推生因緣」——推理由此正式展開。生因是有，有分三：「欲有、色有、無色有」；著此三有而起善惡業，便是受生之因。有因是四種取，取因是愛等煩惱。此處論主下了一個極要緊的界說：「小者未能起業，故名為愛；增長能起業，故名為取：……」愛與取不是兩樣東西，是同一煩惱的兩個階段——未能造業時叫愛，能造業時叫取。四取之目，論主逐一列出：「欲取、見取、戒取、我語取」——四者皆是取著之相，而所取之境有別，「取著是四事故，能起種種業」。愛因是三種受，受因是六種觸。觸之界說亦在此段：「觸名受等諸心數法」，其生起之理是「情、塵、識三事和合故，心中生受等心數法」。末一句最要留意：「根本雖三事，和合故生觸，為六情依止住處故，但說六入」——三事和合才生觸，而十二支中卻只標六入，是因為六情是心識依止安住之處。此是舉其所依而攝其能依，不是說外塵與識可廢。
八、六入與名色之分際。 「六入因緣，名色。六入雖即是名色分，成就名六入，未成就名名色」——先問一句：六入既是名色的一分，兩者豈不重複？論主答得明白：分別不在體，在成就與未成就。更細分之：「色成就名五入，名成就名一入。」眼耳鼻舌身五入屬色，意入屬名。末句點出這一整段的處所：「是胎中時因緣次第。」所說的不是一生一世的粗相，是入胎之後身心成形的先後。讀此段不要以為論主在作生理之說；他所辨的是名相之分際，所據的是成就與否，不是別立一物。
九、名色之因在識——中陰五眾。 「名色因緣，是識。若識不入胎，胎初則爛壞。」論主隨即界定此處的識：「識名中陰中五眾。是五眾細故，但名為識。」先問一句：五眾何以只稱作識？因為在中陰位上五眾極細，難以分別而說，故舉其一以攝其餘。末以反證收之：「若識不入而胎成者，如一切和合時，皆應成胎！」若識非必要條件，則凡是諸緣和合之時都該成胎——事實不然，可見識是不可少的一支。這一句是標準的歸謬：不是正面證明識入胎，是顯示否認它會導出何等荒謬。
十、識何因緣入胎——風吹絕焰之喻。 問曰：「識何因緣故入胎？」答曰：「行因緣。行即是過去三種業，業將識入胎。」要害在「將」字——識不是自己走進去的，是業帶它進去的。喻曰：「如風吹絕焰，空中而去，焰則依止於風；……」火焰本身無有行走之力，是風帶著它移動；識之入胎亦復如是。「先世作人身時然六識故，命終時，業將識入胎」——前世作人身時燃起六識，命終之際，業便挾此識而受後有。讀此喻要防一個滑失：不要把識讀成一個被風吹動的實物。喻所取者只在『無自行之力而由他力而行』這一點，不在焰之有體。
十一、同是業而名有名行——名之所由。 問曰：「上業何以名有？今業何以名行？」前面說有支是業，此處說行支也是業，同是業而異名，難免起疑。答曰：「上是『今世業，為未來有，故名為有』；今『業過去世已滅盡，但有名，名為行』。」分別只在時位：今世所造而將感未來果者，就其能感而名為有；過去世已滅盡而唯餘名字者，就其已謝而名為行。所以十二支中的名相不是各自一物，是同一事在不同時位上的不同稱謂。這一問一答，是讀十二因緣最容易卡住的地方，論主特為拈出。
十二、行之因緣名無明——何以獨標無明。 「是行因緣名無明。」隨即解釋何以獨標此一支：「一切煩惱雖是過去業因緣，無明是根本故，但名無明。」與前段「但說六入」是同一手法——舉其根本而攝其餘。論主更以今昔相對而說：「今世現在著愛、取多故，愛、取愛名；過去世中是疑、邪見處故，但名無明。」今世顯著者是愛與取，過去世所繫者是疑與邪見，故各就其顯而立名。末一句收得極重：「今得一切苦惱根本，是無明。」從老死一路推到此處，所求的那個「真實苦因」，至此才算求到。
十三、何以止齊無明。 問曰：「無始生死展轉甚多，何以止齊無明？」既然生死無始，無明之前豈不還有？答曰：「是事先已答。」答得極短，短到讀者容易滑過。此處不必以為論主敷衍：本論前文已辨此義，而其正面之理即在下文第十七段——更求其本則墮邊見、墮戲論。所以此處之簡，是因為義在別處已具，不是無可答。讀論遇此類極簡之答，當回頭尋其所指，不可逕以為闕。
十四、所斷者唯在未來——良醫與滅火之喻。 「菩薩思惟，為人從苦得脫故，求苦因緣」——回到起點，而所求已得，於是轉入「怎麼斷」。論主先立一個限定：「眾生過去、現在老死等苦，不可得除；為除未來世老死苦，斷相續，不令復生。」先問一句：既說滅苦，何以過去現在之苦皆不可除？因為過去已謝，現在已成，二者皆非人力所及；可施力者唯在未來之因。喻有其二。良醫之喻：「過去病不可治，現在病亦不可治；服藥但能治應起病，破其冷熱，不復令起。」滅火之喻：「不為已過去火故勤滅，亦不為現在火故勤滅，但為未來火不令更燒故勤滅。」論主隨即為這兩喻下一句要緊的按語：「良醫、滅火人勤方便亦不虛」——限定之後不可倒向消極。所斷雖只在未來，其功不虛。合之於菩薩：「破是生法，老死等苦自然永滅。」破其因而果自謝，不必於果上一一相抵。
十五、順數現在之八因緣。 前段是逆推，此段是回看：「是故菩薩欲滅未來世老死等苦因緣生，得現在『有』等八因緣：……」八支之目，論主逐一安立：一是有漏業；二是現在世諸煩惱，即「四取、一愛」；此二種煩惱從受與觸二心數法生；觸之所以得名為受之因緣，是因為「觸能生一切心數法，受前生故」；受雖能生三毒，而「一切眾生，愛是舊煩惱」；觸之因緣是內六入，此處特為辨明何以不取外六入：「雖有外六入，內六入無故觸等心數法不生，是故內六入得名」——外塵雖在，內根若闕則觸不生，故就其決定者立名；名色是六入之因緣；「初入胎識，是名色因緣」。此段之要，在「得現在」三字：菩薩所推之十二支，不是一張過去的圖表，是現前可驗之事。
十六、從胎中到成人——次第之實相。 論主把前段的名相安回一生之中看：「識、名色在胎中，此中雖有六入，未成就、未可用故，未得名字。」既生為嬰孩，「未能有所作，但有六入」；再長則「有六觸」，而「如小兒蹈火履氷，但有觸，未知苦樂」；再長則「受苦樂，未深愛著」，其驗在「如小兒雖瞋，未能起殺等惡業；雖喜，未能起施等善業」；至於成人，則「得苦生恚、得樂生愛」，「求樂具故，取欲等四取」，「取時，能起善惡業」。先問一句：論主何必如此細說一個人的長大？因為十二支最易被讀成三世輪迴的抽象排列，一旦落到一個人身上，愛與取之別、觸與受之別便都成了可驗之事。讀者於此當作一次自檢：自己此刻是在觸上、在受上，還是已在取上。
十七、一世可知億萬世，更求其本則墮戲論。 「若知先一世無明、業因緣，則億萬世可知；譬如現在火熱，過去、未來火亦如是。」喻取一點：火之為熱，不因時世而異；因緣之理亦然。知一世之理，不必逐世去數。隨即斷其更求：「若無明因緣更求其本，則無窮，即墮邊見，失涅槃道，是故不應求；若更求，則墮戲論，非是佛法。」此處正是第十三段「是事先已答」之所指。要防一個滑失：不要把「不應求」讀成禁人思惟。所禁者是向無窮之前際追溯根本——那是求不到而又必生邊見的路；所不禁者是求無明之體相，那正是下一段所作之事。一個是往前推，一個是往裡看，方向全異。
十八、求無明體相，即入畢竟空。 「菩薩欲斷無明故，求無明體相；求時，即入畢竟空。」先問一句：何以一求就空？論主引佛經為據：「無明相：內法不知，外法不知，內外法不知。」無明的相不是一個有，是三重「不知」。既是不知，則以空觀照之即散：「菩薩以內空觀內法，內法即空；以外空觀外法，外法即空；以內外空觀內外法，內外法即空。」三觀對三不知，一一相當。末以舊文為證：「如先品《德女經》中『破無明』廣說。」此處要留意論主的手法：他不是用空義去否定無明，是順著無明自己的定義去看它——它本來就是以「不知」為相，而不知無體可得。
十九、求無明體即時是明——蠶作繭之喻。 「復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。」全單元的題目至此才第一次被正面點出。「即時」二字不可略過：不是破了無明之後另得一個明，是求其體之當下即是明。其下說眾生之所以受苦：「觀諸法如幻如化，眾生顛倒因緣故，起諸煩惱，作惡罪業，輪轉五道，受生死苦。」喻曰：「譬如蠶出絲自裹縛，入沸湯火炙。」喻之取點在「自」字——縛蠶者不是外人，是牠自己吐出來的絲。合喻：凡夫「初生時未有諸煩惱，後自生貪欲、瞋恚等諸煩惱；是煩惱因緣故，覆真智慧，轉身受地獄火燒湯煮」。末後歸到菩薩身上：「菩薩知是法本末皆空，但眾生顛倒錯故受如是苦」，所以「於此眾生起大悲心，欲破是顛倒故，求於實法，行般若波羅蜜，通達實際」，而後「種種因緣教化眾生，令住實際」。結句是全段之判：「是故住實際無咎。」第三段那個「今何以言為實際」的問題，到此才算真正答完——為實際正是為眾生，因為眾生的病根就在實際被覆之處。
二十、眾生際與實際若異，則行般若無所為。 「復次，經中說：『若眾生與實際異，菩薩不應行般若波羅蜜。』」論主隨即把「異」的意思說死：「異者，實際是畢竟空，眾生際是決定有；……」一空一有，兩不相及。若如此，則有兩重難：一者「若諸法實際相空，菩薩云何為眾生故修是實際」——所修者空，所為者有，不相應；二者「若眾生畢竟空、實際定有，無眾生則無所利益，為誰故行實際」——反過來說亦不相應。論主的結論只有一句：「今眾生際實不異實際，故行般若波羅蜜。」其用處則在下句：「欲覺悟狂惑顛倒凡夫故，行般若波羅蜜；令眾生住實際中，而不壞實際。」不異，所以可度；不壞，所以度而無所度。這一段是本品題目的義理核心，讀時要把「不異」與「是一」分清——下段即辨此。
廿一、以實際著實際之難——指端不能自觸指端。 「是時，須菩提更問：『若眾生際、實際不異，云何以實際著實際？』」難得極巧：你既說不異，那建立眾生於實際，豈不等於把實際安在實際上？論主替這一難補出所據之通則：「自性不應自性中住，如指端不能自觸指端。」喻的取點只在一處——同一物不能以自身為所對之境。刀不自割、目不自見，皆同此理。此難若不解，則「建立眾生於實際」一語自壞。
廿二、不一不二，亦不不一不二。 「佛可其意，菩薩以方便故，建立眾生於實際，如眾生、實際不異，一亦不可得。」先承認難成立——若真是一，則「若是一，則壞實際相」，何以故？「所以者何？得是一性故」：既說是一，便有一之自性可得，而實際正以無自性為相。於是論主下了本段最要緊的一句：「菩薩知是二法不一不二，亦不不一、亦不不二，畢竟寂滅無戲論相。」四句俱遣，不是玩弄語勢，是把「不異」從「是一」裡拆出來：不異者非一，非一而不二。末後仍歸到行處：「菩薩生大悲心，但欲拔出眾生離於顛倒故，教化眾生。」理極玄而事極平，這是本論的常態。
廿三、云何名方便——建立眾生於檀而說檀三世空。 「又問：『云何名方便？』」佛答的樣式是「建立眾生於檀中，說是檀先際、後際空，中際亦爾」。論主先指其所出：「如經中廣說」「如先〈檀品〉中說」，又點出菩薩用方便的立足處：「菩薩知實際者到眾生邊。」知實際的人不是住在實際裡不動，是到眾生那一邊去。其下寫出方便何以必要——這是全段最生動之處：眾生聞法之後「發心，折薄煩惱，深著布施」；菩薩憐愍之，心中所念是「我從慳中拔出，今復著布施」；著布施的後患，論主說得很實：「眾生若受布施，福盡受諸苦惱；又受富貴因緣，得作大罪，則墮地獄」，總之是「得少許時樂而受苦長久」。所以次一步才說布施實相：「是布施過去已滅，不可見、不可得、不可用，但可憶念，如夢所見無異；未來未生故，亦無所有、畢竟空。是布施先、後際無故，中際亦無。」現在一分則引舊文為破：「現在布施雖眼見，分分破析，乃至微塵不可得。」三世既空，則「布施三世空，施者、受者、果報亦如是」。此段要防一個滑失：不要把說布施空讀成不要人布施。次第是先拔慳、後破著，兩步不可顛倒——顛倒則成以空廢行。
廿四、甘露味與甘露果。 「菩薩語施者言：『布施等法是初入佛法門；實際中，實際相亦無，何況布施！……』」一句斷其著處，隨即給出正行：「汝莫念、莫著布施等法！若不念、不著如布施體相，如是布施者，則得甘露味、甘露果。」論主隨後把這兩個名目落實：「甘露味者，是八聖道分；甘露果者，是涅槃。」末句收回方便：「菩薩雖住實際中，以方便力，布施門度眾生。」住實際是體，布施門是用；體不礙用，用不離體。讀此段可知本論所謂「方便」並非權宜遷就，是知其空而仍就其門而入。
廿五、餘波羅蜜例同。 「餘波羅蜜亦如是，如經中廣說。」一句帶過，而其所指即經段之持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定四門。此處論主不逐門重釋，是因為理已具於檀門。讀論遇此類略語，當回頭取前門之理以例其餘，不可逕以為闕釋。
廿六、住性空中云何求一切種智。 「須菩提白佛言：『世尊！若一切法性空，性空中無法及非法、亦無眾生，菩薩云何住是空中求一切種智？』」難得很正：所立者空，所求者智，兩不相容。「佛答：『菩薩安立性空中故，能行是布施等諸法。』」答得極短而極倒逆常情——不是『雖住性空而能行』，是『正因安立性空故能行』。何以如此，下段方解。
廿七、性空破一切法，云何還能行善法。 「又問：『性空破一切法悉盡無餘，云何菩薩住性空中能行布施等諸善法？』」這是把前難再逼一層。「佛可須菩提意而說因緣」——先認其問之是，再說其所以然：「菩薩知諸法實相，住是中，能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。諸法實相者，即是性空。」關節在「諸法實相者，即是性空」一句：性空不是一個破法之器，是諸法的實相；住實相而行，故行不被破。其下順說教化：「若一切法性不空，菩薩不應住是諸法性空中」，得菩提已「為眾生說性空法」——自色性空、受想行識性空，乃至「一切種智、斷煩惱習性空法」。
廿八、十八空若性不空，是為壞空體。 「復次，『須菩提！十八空，若性不空，是為壞空體。』」論主釋其所以：「十八空能令一切法空，若自不空，則為虛誑」——能空一切而自不空，是自違其例；「又若不空者，則墮常邊著處，能生煩惱」——凡有一法不空，便有可著之處，便生煩惱。其下正說性空之相：「性空無實住處，無所從來、去無所至，是名常住法相。」隨即並出其異名：「常住法相是性空之異名，亦名諸法實相。」末列其相之六無：「是相中無生無滅、無增無減、無垢無淨。」此段最易讀錯處，在「常住」二字——常住法相不是說有一法常住，是說無所從來去無所至這件事不隨時遷，故名常住。下段之「不退」正繫於此。
廿九、住是中則不退不疑不悔——方便力之正解。 「『菩薩住是中，見一切法性空，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不退、不疑、不悔。何以故？不見諸法能障礙者，以方便力故度眾生。』」三不之所以然只有一句：不見有法能作障礙。障礙之所以起，是因為先有一個可著之相；相既不可得，礙從何來。末後論主為「方便力」下了全單元最精要的一個界說：「方便力者，畢竟無法、亦無眾生，而度眾生。」不是先承認有眾生然後善巧地度，是在畢竟無中而度——這才叫方便。讀此一句，前面經段五門教化的所有文字才有著落。
三十、既無眾生，為誰作方便。 問曰：「若眾生及法從本已來無，為誰作方便？為度脫誰？」這是把「畢竟無法、亦無眾生」逼到底。答曰：「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？若有性空相，應當作難！」這一答是全單元的樞紐。論主不答「有誰」也不答「無誰」，是指出問者的難本身有一個暗藏的前提——他把性空當成了一個有相之物，然後在這相上推出『既空則無所度』。若性空連空之性也無，這個推論的立足點就不存在。末句「若有性空相，應當作難」是坦白的讓步式說法：你若舉得出一個性空之相來，這難才算成立。
卅一、狂人妄見之喻——為凡夫故說。 「復次，得諸法實相者，知是性空，是人則知諸法性空——無法、無眾生。」得實相者如此，未得者則不然：「凡夫未得實相故，種種憶想分別；如狂人妄有所見，以為實有。」喻取一點：狂人所見之物本無，而其見自真。「為度凡夫狂人故言：『為眾生說狂法中有是諸法分別，實法中則無。』」說法之所以立，是就狂人所見之境而說，不是承認其境為實。末後把菩薩度生之所以然補足：「菩薩欲滿本願故、又不著性空故，有度眾生。」一是願，一是不著空；二者具足，故度生之事不礙。結句：「此中則不應難。」
卅二、佛自說因緣，世諦故非是實。 「復次，此經中佛自說因緣：『性空中眾生不可得，知者、見者亦不可得，乃至八十隨形好亦如是。』」引經為證，而後下判：「而菩薩立是法為眾生說，是世諦故，非是實。」此段是全單元「二諦」一線的明文處。要留意論主的措辭：他說「非是實」，不說「是虛妄」——世諦之說不是騙人，是不居第一義之位。
卅三、化人為四部眾說法之喻。 「此中佛說譬喻：『如佛作化人，又化作四部眾而為說法，可有得道者不？』」下句作：「須菩提言：『不也。所以者何？無定根本實事，何有得須陀洹乃至得佛者？』」喻之取點在「無定根本實事」六字——說者是化，聽者亦是化，兩頭皆無實體，故無得道之人可言。先問一句：此喻豈不是說佛說法亦無用？不是。喻所遣者是『有一個實有的得道者』這個結構，不是說法之事。下段即以合喻收之。
卅四、破妄想不破眾生。 「菩薩說法度眾生亦如是：眾生無有定實，但欲於顛倒中拔出眾生，著無顛倒中。」合喻既立，論主隨即辨明無顛倒處亦不可執：「無顛倒法亦無處所，是中無眾生，乃至無知者、見者。」其下一句最見分寸：「雖空性一相，而顛倒多、不顛倒少；是故貴是性空不顛倒法。」空性雖是一相，而眾生分上顛倒者多、不顛倒者少，所以此法可貴——這是就現量說，不是就理體說。末句是全段之判，也是本單元最當記取的一句：「菩薩住此中，但破眾生妄想，不破眾生。」所破者是妄想，不是人。
卅五、無漏法以生滅故不如第一義。 「又無漏法，乃至八聖道分，雖是無漏，以生滅故，不如第一義。」先問一句：無漏之法何以尚有不足？所據只在「生滅」二字——有生有滅則是有為，有為則非第一義。此段極短，卻是下段「唯有是道」的伏筆：既然道品猶不得為第一義，則所謂諸佛一道者必不在道品之列。
卅六、性空唯有是道，更無異道。 「『須菩提！是性空，一切諸佛唯有是道，更無異道。』」論主釋其所以：「諸佛皆求實智不壞不異法」——所求者是不壞不異之法。十力、四無所畏諸法雖勝，「不名為一道」，何以故？「此皆是有為法，轉變無常故。」與前段同一判準。其下重述性空之相：「是性空中，無眾生，亦無色等諸法。」末句收到發心之處：「菩薩不為菩薩道故求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，但為性空故。」此語極易讀錯，下段即設問辨之。
卅七、何等是性空、何等是菩薩道。 問曰：「何等是性空？何等是菩薩道？」答曰先立二諦之分：「第一義中無分別，世諦中有分別。」而後各與定義：「諸法實相名性空，餘布施等乃至八十隨形好是菩薩道。」二者既分，則前段那句話的意思也就明白了：「雖行是法，不為此法，為求性空故，是故說：『不為菩薩道故行。』」不是不行菩薩道，是行而不以菩薩道為目的。這一段是本單元『行而不著』一義最清楚的注腳。
卅八、性空非力所使——虛空風雲之喻。 「是性空，先亦性空，中、後亦性空；從本已來常空，無有作者；……」隨即遮兩種誤解：「非是福德力故使空，亦非智慧力故使空，但性自爾故。」空不是修出來的。那麼諸佛賢聖的福德智慧作什麼用？「破眾生心中顛倒，令知性空」——所作在破顛倒，不在造空。喻曰：虛空「性常清淨，不著垢闇」，風雲遮蔽時人便說「虛空不淨」，猛風吹除時人便說「虛空清淨」，「而虛空實無垢無淨」。合喻：「諸佛亦如是，以說法猛風，吹却顛倒雲翳，令得清淨，而諸法性常自無垢無淨。」喻之取點只在垢淨之屬於雲翳而不屬於虛空。讀此喻要防一個滑失：不要因「無垢無淨」而以為除障之事可廢——吹雲之風仍是要吹的。
卅九、隨意壽命——如幻菩薩道。 「是菩薩知一切法性空故，能行一切種種道度眾生；具足一切道，淨佛國土、教化眾生；得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，隨意壽命。」論主特為「隨意壽命」作釋：「菩薩得無生忍法，入如幻菩薩道，能一時變化作千億萬身，周遍十方，具足行一切菩薩道；處處國土中，隨眾生壽命長短而受其形。」並舉實事為證：「如釋迦牟尼佛，於此國土壽命百年，於莊嚴佛國壽七百阿僧祇劫。」末句定其分位：「佛法於五不可思議中是第一不可思議。」此段承『知一切法性空故能行一切道』而來，所顯者正是性空與大用不相礙——愈是知空，用愈無方。
四十、離性空則無道無果。 「佛告須菩提：一切法性空，是諸佛真法！」其下三句遞說：「若得是法，則名為佛；若說此法，名為度眾生。三世佛皆亦如是。」而後斷之：「離是性空，則無道無果。」道果之目隨即給出：「道者，八聖道分；果者，七種果。」何以離性空則無？「若離性空別有定法，則取相生著，著故亦無離欲，無離欲故則無道果」——取相則著，著則不離欲，不離欲則無道果，三步相扣。其下更說離性空而行善法之果：「雖行布施、持戒，行慈、悲等，善法力故，雖不墮惡道，生天果盡，還墮惡道，如本不異。」善法能致善趣，不能出輪迴，這是極要緊的分際。末句對照作結：「行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃。行餘法，生著心，有退失；若行此法，則無退失。」
四一、行性空而不壞性空相——內外虛空之喻。 「須菩提歡喜白佛言：『甚希有！菩薩行是性空法，亦不壞性空相。』」佛答先以反面立：「若色等法與性空異，菩薩則不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。何以故？有空法則不可得離。」次以正面立：「今色等諸法實性空；菩薩知是法已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」其中辨凡夫之病：「此中無有一法定是常，但凡夫生我心故，著內外法，不得脫生、老、病、死，……」所以菩薩之行是「行是性空，和合六波羅蜜，不壞色等諸法相」。「不壞」之義論主解得極細：「所謂若空、若不空、若空不空、若非空非不空；不作如是示諸法相，是名不壞。」四句皆不作，才叫不壞——凡有所示，即是有所壞。末以自破為證：「色實相即是性空，性空云何自壞性空？」喻曰：「如內虛空不壞外虛空，以同體故。」同體故不相壞，此喻與廿一段「指端不能自觸指端」正相對照：彼以自不對自破「是一」，此以同體無壞成「不異」，兩喻各據一邊。
四二、於何處得菩提——分別二相則不得。 「須菩提問：『世尊！若諸法性空無別異，菩薩於何處得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？』」既無別異，則無處可指。「佛可其意言：『如是！若分別有二相，則不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』」答得直截：問處即是病處——你既要一個「何處」，便已分別二相。此段起，本單元進入取捨一路的詰問，直到卷末。
四三、菩提名實智慧，不行色中。 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提名實智慧，於色法中不行，所謂不著、不染。」先問一句：不行色中，豈是離色別有？論主隨即釋其所以：「是智慧不為取色故行，是故不行色中。」不行者非不緣，是不為取。此一句把「不行」二字的分寸定死了——遮的是取，不是緣。
四四、取與捨之三重分別。 「須菩提復問：『若菩提不取中行、不捨中行，當於何處行？』」論主於此不急答何處，先把「取」「捨」二名逐重界定：「取名實法，捨名空法。取名著行，捨名不著行。取名二行，捨名不二行。如是等分別。」三重之中，前一重是所緣之法，次二重是心之行相，第三重是分別之數。列此三重是要顯明一事：取捨不是一件事而是一串結構，凡問「何處行」者，所求的都在這串結構之內；而菩提不在其內。下三段三喻，正是依次破此。
四五、化人何處行——無心無心數法。 「佛反問須菩提：『於汝意云何？佛所化人為何處行？』」下句作：「須菩提言：『是化人無處行，化人無心、無心數法故。菩提亦如是。』」第一喻。取點在「無心、無心數法」六字——行處之所以成立，要有能行之心；心與心數既無，行處自無。須菩提自己答出「菩提亦如是」，可見此喻不待佛合。
四六、阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行。 「復問：『於汝意云何？阿羅漢夢中菩提為在何處行？』」下句作：「須菩提言：『阿羅漢尚不眠，何況夢中菩提有行處！』」第二喻，比前喻更重一層：化人是無心，此則是連夢之緣也無。須菩提的答法是層遞——連眠尚且不有，何況夢中之菩提有行處。此答看似隨口，卻引出下面三重問答，是本單元收束處最費筆墨之處。
四七、佛何以拿夢來問——必無處故問。 問曰先辨菩提之三種與其所行之心：「菩提有三種：阿羅漢菩提、辟支佛菩提、佛菩提。阿羅漢菩提不在有漏心中、無記心中行，但在無漏心中行；……」既然如此，「佛何以故問『阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行』？」問得有理：夢中之心非無漏，阿羅漢菩提本不在其中行，此問豈不多餘。答曰：「阿羅漢是一切漏盡聖人則無夢，佛以必無處故問，欲明必無行法。」答的要害在「佛以必無處故問」——佛正是取一個決定無處的境來問，好顯明菩提之無行法。取最極端之例以立通則，這是論主常用的讀經法。
四八、佛猶有眠，何以言阿羅漢尚不眠——眠有二種。 問曰引二事為證。其一是佛命阿難：「汝四襞優多羅僧敷，我欲小眠，汝為諸比丘說法。」其二是薩遮尼乾之問答：問「佛自念晝日有眠不」，佛言「春末夏初，以時熱故小眠息，除食患故」；薩遮尼乾舉他人之說「晝日眠是癡相」，佛則正其名相：「汝置！汝不別癡相。諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡；若是諸漏永滅無餘，雖眠不名癡。」佛既自言有眠，則「須菩提何以言『阿羅漢尚不眠』」？答曰立一分別以解之：「眠有二種：一者、眠而夢，二者、眠而不夢。」阿羅漢之眠屬後者，其所以然是「非為安隱著樂故眠，但受四大身法，應有食、息、眠、覺，是故少許時息名為『眠』；不為夢眠」。既不為夢而眠，則須菩提之語不誤。此段之要，在佛自正癡相之名：癡不繫於眠不眠，繫於諸漏之滅不滅。
四九、有人言——離欲得定則無眠。 「有人言：『離欲者，得禪定，色界繫四大入身中，身心歡樂則無有眠；慧解脫阿羅漢，色界四大不入身中，故有眠。』」此說與前答不同科：前答就眠之二種分，此說就阿羅漢之二類分——離欲得禪定者，色界四大入身故無眠；慧解脫阿羅漢，色界四大不入身中故有眠。論主錄之而以「是故須菩提言：『阿羅漢尚不眠。』」承接，末句作一總收：「是故阿羅漢有眠、有不眠。」兩說並存而不判其優劣，只取其同歸於須菩提之語不誤。讀此段要留意論主的體例：凡舊說可通者，錄而不廢。
五十、佛以方便現眠。 「佛以方便力，為度眾生，受人法故現眠。」一句解了第四八段那個問。佛之眠不在眠之二種之內，是第三種——為度眾生而隨順人法之示現。此句與廿九段「方便力者，畢竟無法、亦無眾生，而度眾生」正相照應：彼說方便之體，此示方便之相。
五一、既無處行，云何從一地至十地。 「須菩提復問：『若不行者，云何菩薩從一地至十地，乃至得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？』」無行處則階位無所立，此難甚正。「佛可其意」而後補其所闕：「菩提雖無處行，未具足六波羅蜜諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」無處行是理，具足萬行是事，兩者並立。其下說菩薩之住與不住：「是菩薩住色相，乃至菩提相中住，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；不捨色等法，亦不著菩提相，知色等法即是菩提，常寂滅，無法若增、若減，若垢、若淨，若得道、若得果。」住而不著，不捨而不取。末以二諦收之：「但世諦故說菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，第一義中無有色乃至菩提。」
五二、汝得道時有所得不。 「佛欲明是事故，反問須菩提：『於汝意云何？汝斷煩惱得道時，有所得不？所謂如夢等五眾、若道、若道果，決定一法不？』」此問最利：以須菩提自身之證為例，問他當日得道時可曾得著一法。「須菩提言：『不得也！』」論主為此答補出所以然：「須菩提意：住無相門中入道，云何取相？」他是從無相門入的，入時無相可取，則得時亦無法可得。此段之妙，在佛不引他例而引問者自己的經驗——理不待辯而自明。
五三、既不得法，云何說汝為阿羅漢。 「佛言：『汝若乃至不得微細少法，云何說汝為阿羅漢？』」逼到底：既一法不得，阿羅漢之名何所繫。「須菩提言：『世諦法故，說言阿羅漢；凡夫顛倒法中有得、有失，有眾生、有法。』」答得乾淨：名繫於世諦，得失繫於顛倒。此答是下段佛所要取用的樣本——須菩提自己已把二諦之分說出來了。
五四、菩提亦如是——諸法性尚不可得。 「佛言：『菩提亦如是，世諦法故，說有菩薩、說有色等乃至菩提；菩提中，無有定法，亦無眾生，亦無菩提。……』」佛就須菩提自己的答例之於菩提，一句便合。其下說菩薩之觀：「菩薩觀是菩提法，無有增、無有減。所以者何？諸法性如是。」再遞一層：「菩薩亦不得是諸法性，何況有初發心乃至十地，及六波羅蜜、三十七品乃至十八不共法當有所得！無有是處！」連諸法性尚不可得，何況其餘。論主為此更出一句所以然：「諸法性是一切法根本尚不可得，何況六波羅蜜等是作法當有定實！」根本尚不可得，作法豈有定實。末句是全卷的落處：「如是！菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生。」不得一法，而大利益眾生——全單元自「為實際故行般若」問起，至此方始收束：所謂為實際，正是這樣的為眾生。
不要讀錯
不要把「為實際故」讀成佛不許為眾生。論主開篇即把兩造之意分寫：須菩提所意者是「菩薩為度眾生故行般若波羅蜜」，佛所意者是「菩薩為一切實法故，行般若波羅蜜」。所改者是所為之處，不是所為之心；其證即在下文——十二因緣一路推求，句句是為滅眾生之苦。若讀成佛否認度生，則第十九段「菩薩於此眾生起大悲心」以下一整段皆無著落。
不要把「止齊無明」讀成無明是第一因。論主對「無始生死展轉甚多，何以止齊無明」只答「是事先已答」，其正面之理在下文：「若無明因緣更求其本，則無窮，即墮邊見，失涅槃道，……」止齊無明是為了不墮邊見，不是斷言無明之前更無所有。所遮者是向前際無窮追溯，所許者是向內求其體相——第十八段「求無明體相；求時，即入畢竟空」正是後者。二事方向全異，不可混為一談。
不要把「求無明體，即時是明」讀成破無明之後另得一明。「即時」二字是關節：不是先滅一物再生一物，是求其體之當下無體可得，無體可得即是明。若讀成二物相代，則「所謂諸法實相，名為實際」一語便成一個待取之境，而下文「實際中，實際相亦無」即與之相違。
不要把「實際、眾生際不異」讀成二者是一。須菩提正是以「是一」為難——「若眾生際、實際不異，云何以實際著實際」，而論主的答是四句俱遣：「菩薩知是二法不一不二，亦不不一、亦不不二，……」更明說「一亦不可得」，並出其所以「若是一，則壞實際相」。不異者非一，非一而不二；若取作一，則實際成了有自性之物，本品之義全失。
不要把『說布施三世空』讀成勸人不必布施。經文與論文的次第是兩步：先「從慳中拔出」，後「為說布施實相」。論主明說眾生「深著布施」之患才說空，而說空之後所歸者仍是「則得甘露味、甘露果」與「以方便力，布施門度眾生」。若把第二步提到第一步之前，便是以空廢行，正是本論處處所破的斷見。
不要把「性空」當作一個可以取來作難的相。第三十段那一答是全單元的樞紐：「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？若有性空相，應當作難！」凡是『既然一切皆空，那麼某某便不能成立』這一類的推論，其暗藏的前提都是把空當成了一個有相之物。論主不與之辯結論，直接指出其前提不成立。這一手法在本單元反覆出現，讀時當識其一貫。
不要把「破眾生妄想，不破眾生」讀成眾生實有。此句所立的分際是：所破者是妄想，不是人；而人之無定實，前文「眾生無有定實」已明說。兩句並看方是全義——不破眾生，不是因為眾生是實有而不可破，是因為所以為病者在妄想，破妄想則事畢。
不要把『無漏法不如第一義』讀成佛法可廢。所據只在「以生滅故」——有為之法不得為第一義，如此而已。其證在下段：十力、四無所畏「諸異法，不名為一道」，所以者何，「此皆是有為法，轉變無常故」。而第五一段又明說「未具足六波羅蜜諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。不如第一義，不等於可不行。
不要把「非是福德力故使空，亦非智慧力故使空」讀成修行無用。此句所遮的是『空是修出來的』這個誤解；而同段緊接著就說諸佛賢聖「以大福德、智慧方便力故，破眾生心中顛倒，令知性空」。虛空之喻亦同此意——垢淨不屬虛空，而吹除雲翳的猛風仍是要吹的。所空者非力所造，而除障者正須其力。
不要把「阿羅漢尚不眠」讀成阿羅漢絕無睡眠。論主自設此難並自解之：「眠有二種：一者、眠而夢，二者、眠而不夢。」阿羅漢「但受四大身法，應有食、息、眠、覺」，所無者是夢眠，非是息眠。末後更錄異說，收在「是故阿羅漢有眠、有不眠」。若讀成絕無睡眠，則佛自言「春末夏初，以時熱故小眠息」一段無處安放。
不要把佛自言有眠讀成佛與凡夫同。佛於薩遮尼乾之問中已自正其名：「諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡；若是諸漏永滅無餘，雖眠不名癡。」癡之判準在諸漏之滅不滅，不在眠不眠。而論主更補一句：「佛以方便力，為度眾生，受人法故現眠。」佛之眠是示現，不入前二種之數。
不要把「世諦法故，說言阿羅漢」讀成聖果是假的。須菩提之答有兩句，須並讀：「世諦法故，說言阿羅漢；凡夫顛倒法中有得、有失，有眾生、有法。」前句說名之所繫，後句說得失之所在。名繫世諦而非虛妄，得失屬顛倒而非實有；若因「世諦故說」而以為聖果可廢，則佛下文「菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生」一語亦當廢。
修行作用
拿「眾生不知由生有苦，若遭苦時，但怨恨人」勘自己遇事之心。這是本單元給出的第一條驗證法，而且極好用：不必問自己信不信苦諦，只看遇苦之時心往哪裡去——去怨人，去怨自己沒調養好，還是回到苦之所由。三處之別，就是見地深淺之別，一日之中可勘者甚多。
拿「餘法或有苦、或無苦，是生法必定有苦」分別或然與必然。用功之人常把或然的緣當作必然的因去對治——換環境、換方式、換人事，以為除此便無苦。此句是一把尺：凡是換掉之後苦仍舊來的，那所換的就不是因。
拿「服藥但能治應起病」安頓自己對過去的悔。過去之苦已成，現在之苦「先世因緣成就故不可却」，可施力者唯在未來之因。悔之無益，正在它把力氣用在不可施力之處；而論主同段又說「良醫、滅火人勤方便亦不虛」——限定範圍不是勸人消極，是叫人把力氣放到用得上的地方。
拿「小者未能起業，故名為愛；增長能起業，故名為取」認自己現在所在之位。同一念貪，在愛位時只是傾向，在取位時已能造業；兩位之間有一段可以回頭的餘地。修行的著力點多半就在這一段上——不是等它成了業再懺，是在它由愛轉取之際認得出來。
拿「如小兒蹈火履氷，但有觸，未知苦樂」看自己的粗細。一境現前，有人只在觸上，有人已在受上，有人早已在取上而不自知。這段文字本是說一個人的長大，拿來看一念之生滅亦相當——愈能在前分認得，愈省力。
拿「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難」自察自己談空的方式。凡是說出『既然都是空的，那還……』這一類話的時候，先回頭看一看：那個『都是空的』在自己心裡是不是已經成了一個東西。若是，則所推出的一切結論皆不足據——病不在結論，在前提。
拿「菩薩住此中，但破眾生妄想，不破眾生」定自己待人之法。與人論理而意在破其人者，已違此句；所當破者只是那一個妄想，而人須留著。此語於教人、於諍議、於自責皆可用——自責之時亦當破妄想而不破自己。
拿「行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃」分別行與著。行一法而以為守住它便是到家，這叫著；行而知其性空、並且連性空也不守，這才叫行。論主緊接著給出驗證之相：「行餘法，生著心，有退失；若行此法，則無退失。」有無退失，是最誠實的一面鏡子。
拿「若離性空，雖行布施、持戒，行慈、悲等，善法力故，雖不墮惡道，生天果盡，還墮惡道，如本不異」衡量自己所修之向。善法能致善趣，這是實；善趣不出輪迴，這也是實。兩句並記，則既不輕慢福德，也不以福德為究竟——所欠的只是一個『迴向性空』的動作。
拿「不作如是示諸法相，是名不壞」檢自己說法與自語的習慣。空、不空、亦空亦不空、非空非不空——四句只要落於一句去示人，即是有所壞。此語不必只用在說法上，自己心裡給一件事下定論的時候，亦同此例。
拿「是智慧不為取色故行，是故不行色中」分別緣與取。境不可不緣，緣而不為取，即是不行其中。以為修行是不接觸境界，便是把「不行」讀成了不緣；真正的分際在動機——是為了取，還是不為取。
拿「住無相門中入道，云何取相」自問所求。用功而心中隱隱期待一個可指認的結果，此語即是當頭一問：你是從哪個門進去的？若是從無相門，則所期待的那個結果本身就與門相違。
拿「諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡」重定自己的判準。修行人最易以外相自考——坐得久不久、眠得少不少。佛此語把判準挪到諸漏之滅不滅上。外相之勤可以是助，不可以是證。
拿「菩薩亦不得是諸法性，何況有初發心乃至十地，及六波羅蜜、三十七品乃至十八不共法當有所得」收自己的計功之心。階位、法門、功課，凡可數者皆是作法；連諸法性尚不可得，何況所數之物。此語不是叫人不修，是叫人修而不計——末句「得佛時，能大利益眾生」正是不計之後的果。
承衍
本單元在全品之中是「論」的一半，其與經段之關係，古德判之極明。吉藏《大品經義疏》釋此品，於品初即立其大意云：「此下第三、明為化之意。」又云：「然實際是無之異名、正法之別目耳」——以「實際」為無之異名、正法之別目，與論主「求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際」一語同科。其判品之科段為二：「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。」於論主所點之轉軸，吉藏所述與論文全同：「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法。」
於本單元最要之「二際不異」一義，吉藏更設問答以顯其所破：「有所得人皆云實際是真諦故，眾生是世諦」，故有「但為度眾生故行般若，不度真諦故般若」之失，「所以佛破之云二際不異。度眾生即如度實際，實際無所度，度眾生亦無所度也」。此與論主「異者，實際是畢竟空，眾生際是決定有」一段所破者是同一病。於須菩提「以實際著實際」之難，吉藏所引之喻與論文相同：「一際云何還建立一際？如指端不自觸」
於十八空一段，吉藏之釋可與論主「若性不空，是為壞空體」互看：「以十八空入諸法空，此十八空亦空，乃名性空」，又云「故知有性不可得、空性不可得」。此正是本單元第三十段「性空名空性亦無」之義，而吉藏以「有性」「空性」雙不可得立言，語勢更直。
於卷末阿羅漢眠不眠一段，吉藏所判之二種與論主全同：「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。」其於本論所錄之異說，亦明繫其出處云「論更出一解云」，並述其義云「慧解脫羅漢不得色界定，故無色界四大事入身有眠也」。是以本論「有人言」一段，吉藏視為論主別錄之一解，而非論主自立之說——此可為讀本單元第四九段之一助。
於道果之目，吉藏於「果謂七果，道謂八正」之下更出己說：「七果應是四果，緣覺佛菩薩也。」本論此處只云「果者，七種果」而未列其目，吉藏之數乃其所判，並錄之而不代論主決之。於化人之喻，吉藏標其喻類云「舉化人喻，菩提無處行是處喻也」；於卷末須菩提「云何菩薩從一地至十地」之問，吉藏判為「第二段、菩提雖寂滅要具萬行方乃得之」——與本單元第五一段『無處行是理，具足萬行是事』之讀法相合。
慧影《大智度論疏》於本品闕釋：其現存文本止於釋大方便品第六十九之中，本品全然在其疏本範圍之外，非是有疏而不釋。均正《大乘四論玄義》體例為主題式玄義而非逐品之疏，於本品無所繫屬。天台一系之文獻，亦未見明引本品品題或逐字引用本單元之文。凡此皆據實標闕，不以他處之文充之。
卷尾收合之處，諸本所題不一，並錄如下而不強為判定。底本卷末作「大智度論卷第九十」；石本於此前一字之下增「釋第七十九品竟」，於「論」字作「論經」，又於卷數作「九十一」；聖本於「論」字作「經論」，又於卷數之下增「釋第七十九品」。是聖、石二本皆以「第七十九品」稱本品，較底本之「第八十」恆少一；此一少一之例，於本品卷首題處亦同，首尾一貫而非單點之異。二系品次所以不同，屬古來所傳之異，如實錄之，其取捨屬譯者。
The Limit of Reality, Last Part: Taking Up the Sūtra to Explain the Limit of Reality, Tracing the Twelve Links of Causes and Conditions Back to the Root of Suffering, the Emptiness of Nature and Skilful Means, and Where the Arhat's Awakening in a Dream Practises
What Is Being Asked
The First Part is sūtra; the Last Part is treatise. The general headrope set up by the sūtra section is only one sentence—the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different, and so the bodhisattva practises prajñā neither for the sake of a really existent being, nor by leaving beings to guard a really existent limit of reality. Here Subhūti presses objection after objection all the way along: since they are not different, does not establishing beings in the limit of reality become setting the limit of reality upon the limit of reality, setting self-nature within self-nature? The Buddha takes only the three Chinese characters 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means" as the eye of his explanation, and then passes through five places—giving, keeping morality, patience, vigour, and meditative concentration—showing in each one the order of teaching and transforming in which ‘the emptiness of nature is the substance, skilful means is the function’; at the end he presses with the two marks of taking and giving up, presses on as far as 「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行」 tr. "where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise", and gathers it all up in the one sentence 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth he is named bodhisattva".
What the Last Part asks is the same topic as the First Part, with another way of asking put in its place. What the sūtra section asks is 「怎麼做」 tr. "how is it done"—by what skilful means the bodhisattva establishes beings in the limit of reality; what the treatise section asks is 「憑什麼」 tr. "on what grounds"—why it is said that the bodhisattva practises prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality and not for the sake of beings. As soon as he opens his mouth the treatise-author takes up the objection of the previous chapter and points out the dividing line between the two objections: 「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故。」 tr. "Before, he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas." Before, the objection was set up on the side of dharmas and the question was about beings; now the objection is set up on the side of beings and the question is about dharmas; the pivot between the one sūtra and the one treatise falls on just this sentence.
The pivot once set up, the treatise-author at once poses a question himself, and this question is the true joint of the whole unit: 「一切菩薩見眾生苦惱，為度眾生故發大悲心，今何以言為實際？」 tr. "All bodhisattvas, seeing beings' suffering and vexation, arouse the mind of great compassion for the sake of delivering beings; why is it now said to be for the sake of the limit of reality?" The question is asked in the most ordinary way, yet it strikes the heart-sickness of all who train in the Great Vehicle—I aroused the mind for the sake of beings; now you say it is for the sake of the limit of reality, so do not beings fall into emptiness? The treatise-author's way of answering is beyond expectation: he does not argue from the meaning of emptiness, but instead pushes down, plainly and honestly, from 「苦」 tr. "suffering". To extinguish suffering one must know the cause of suffering; the cause of suffering is birth, the cause of birth is existence, the cause of existence is grasping, the cause of grasping is craving, the cause of craving is feeling, the cause of feeling is contact, the cause of contact is the six entries, the cause of the six entries is name-and-form, the cause of name-and-form is consciousness, the cause of consciousness is constructions, the cause of constructions is ignorance. The twelve links are traced back to ignorance, and then it is asked what the substance and mark of ignorance are—and as soon as it is sought, the seeking goes straight into ultimate emptiness. 「復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。」 tr. "Further, when the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality."
Only here is the question of the beginning fully answered: to be for the sake of the limit of reality is precisely to be for the sake of beings. For beings are beings only by inversion; the root of inversion lies in ignorance; the substance of ignorance is precisely the limit of reality. So the bodhisattva's penetrating the limit of reality is not turning his head away and paying no heed to beings; it is taking the root of beings' sickness into his own hand. This tracing back of the twelve links of causes and conditions is, within this treatise, a long and connected chain of reasoning rarely to be seen, and it is also the place in this unit where the treatise-author's hand is most clearly seen—he does not press people down with the meaning of emptiness; he wins them over with the course of the sickness.
The text below turns into the second layer: since the emptiness of nature breaks all dharmas, how can the bodhisattva, abiding within the emptiness of nature, still practise giving, still seek the omniscience of all kinds, still deliver beings? The treatise-author's answer has only one vital sentence—「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？」 tr. "The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection?" Your objection can stand only because you have also taken 「性空」 tr. "the emptiness of nature" as a mark; if the emptiness of nature has from the first no mark to be taken hold of, the difficulty dissolves of itself. After this, passing through the similes of the eighteen emptinesses, the constantly abiding marks of dharmas, the conjured person teaching the Dharma, the madman's false seeing, and the wind and clouds in space, it says again and again only one thing: by reason of worldly truth there is speaking and there is delivering; within the highest meaning there is no speaking and no delivering; and the two do not obstruct each other.
The last layer is the most perilous, and also shows most clearly what is extraordinary in this treatise. At the end of the sūtra section 「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行」 tr. "where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise" presses the question of taking and giving up, and the treatise-author sets up three questions in a row on this one sentence: the arhat's awakening from the first does not practise within the mind with outflows or the indeterminate mind, so why does the Buddha use a dream to ask? Even the Buddha sleeps, so why is it said that the arhat does not sleep? The answer lies in 「眠有二種」 tr. "there are two kinds of sleep"—sleeping with dreams and sleeping without dreams; the arhat, having taken on a body of the four elements, has the sleep of rest, yet has no dreaming sleep. This passage looks like a side-branch, but in fact it is the key at the gathering-up place of the whole unit: a dream is the extreme of grasping at marks, and that within a dream there is no place where awakening practises shows precisely that awakening from the first has no place in which it practises; while the Buddha's showing sleep is, again, the two Chinese characters 「方便」 tr. "skilful means" teaching the Dharma in their own person.
So what is to be read in the Last Part is the three sentences of the sūtra text of the First Part brought down to solid ground: one sentence is 「實際、眾生際不異」 tr. "the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different"—proved by tracing back the twelve links of causes and conditions; one sentence is 「以方便力故」 tr. "by the power of skilful means"—proved by the signlessness of the emptiness of nature and the setting-up of worldly truth; one sentence is 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth he is named bodhisattva"—proved by the threefold simile of the dream, the conjured person, and the arhat. Only here do the two Chinese characters 「實際」 tr. "the limit of reality" of the chapter's name find their footing.
Passage by Passage
1. Taking up the objection of the previous chapter, and pointing out the pivot between the two objections. As soon as it opens, the treatise section looks back at the previous chapter: 「上品中須菩提種種因緣難：『若諸法空，云何有五道生死、善不善法？』」 tr. "In the previous chapter Subhūti raised objections by way of all kinds of causes and conditions: ‘If all dharmas are empty, how can there be the births and deaths of the five destinies, and wholesome and unwholesome dharmas?’" First ask a question: since this is an explanation of the sūtra, why does it not explain this chapter's sūtra text directly, but first turn back to cite the previous chapter? Because the problem of this chapter does not arise out of nothing; it is the overturning of the question of the previous chapter. What the previous chapter objected to was dharmas—since dharmas are empty, how can the births and deaths of the five destinies and the distinction of good and evil be set up; what this chapter objects to is the person—「若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若？」 tr. "If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñā?" The treatise-author lays this pivot bare in one sentence: 「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故。」 tr. "Before, he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas." The former question took the emptiness of dharmas to press upon the existence of beings; this question takes the emptiness of beings to press upon the existence of dharmas. In reading this passage, first get ready for one thing: the whole of the treatise text below walks between these two ends, and one may not keep to one end only.
2. The Buddha answers that it is for the sake of the limit of reality, while what Subhūti has in mind is beings. 「佛答：『為實際故，菩薩行般若波羅蜜。』」 tr. "The Buddha answered: ‘It is for the sake of the limit of reality that the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā.’" The treatise-author at once sets out the minds of the two sides of question and answer separately: 「須菩提意謂：菩薩為度眾生故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "What Subhūti had in mind was: the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of delivering beings." 「佛意：眾生假名虛誑、畢竟不可得；菩薩為一切實法故，行般若波羅蜜。實法即是實際。」 tr. "The Buddha's meaning: beings are a provisional name, false and deceptive, ultimately unfindable; it is for the sake of all real dharmas that the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā. The real dharma is precisely the limit of reality." The crux of this passage lies in the Chinese character 「意」 tr. "meaning". The treatise-author is not checking, at the level of the wording, who is right and who is wrong between the Buddha and Subhūti; he takes apart for people to see what each of the two is pointing at: what Subhūti points at is an object to be delivered; what the Buddha points at is all true and real dharmas. Here one slip must be guarded against—do not read 「為實際」 tr. "for the sake of the limit of reality" as the Buddha denying the delivering of beings. The whole passage of seeking through the twelve links of causes and conditions below is done precisely for the sake of delivering beings; what the Buddha changes is not the aim, but where the aim is fastened.
3. Between great compassion and the limit of reality—the first question. The treatise-author poses it himself: 「一切菩薩見眾生苦惱，為度眾生故發大悲心，今何以言為實際？」 tr. "All bodhisattvas, seeing beings' suffering and vexation, arouse the mind of great compassion for the sake of delivering beings; why is it now said to be for the sake of the limit of reality?" This question asks on behalf of all readers. The answer: 「初發意菩薩但為滅眾生苦故發大悲心。苦者，所謂老、病、死等，及身心衰惱。」 tr. "The bodhisattva at the first arousing of intent arouses the mind of great compassion only in order to extinguish the suffering of beings. Suffering means old age, sickness, death, and the like, together with the decline and vexation of body and mind." The answer is not hasty—it first admits that arousing the mind is indeed for extinguishing suffering, and defines 「苦」 tr. "suffering" clearly: not the abstract two Chinese characters for the truth of suffering, but these visible things, old age, sickness, death, and the decline and vexation of body and mind. The three Chinese characters 「初發意」 tr. "the first arousing of intent" especially deserve attention: the treatise-author does not say that arousing the mind in this way is wrong; he says only that this is the position of the first arousing of intent. A difference of position and not a difference of right and wrong—this is the general rule of this treatise.
4. To extinguish suffering one must first seek its cause, and the cause lies in birth. 「云何滅是苦？尋苦因緣，由生故」 tr. "How is this suffering to be extinguished? Seeking the causes and conditions of suffering, it is because of birth"—this sentence is the starting-point of the reasoning of the whole passage. The treatise-author at once cites the Buddha's words as proof: 「何因緣故有老、病、死？以有生故。」 tr. "By what causes and conditions are there old age, sickness, and death? Because there is birth." First ask a question: why must one first seek the cause in order to extinguish suffering? Because extinguishing suffering without seeking the cause can extinguish only the one matter before one's eyes; only by finding the cause and severing it can the continuity of suffering be extinguished. This is the physician's reasoning, and it is also where the simile of the good physician later in this passage comes from. The reader should here get ready for one thing: the tracing back of the twelve links below is not the recitation of a table of names and marks; it is asking, layer upon layer, ‘where does this come from?’
5. Beings too know that birth is suffering, so what is exceptional about the bodhisattva—the second question. The question: 「一切眾生皆知生因緣是苦，菩薩有何奇特？」 tr. "All beings know that the causes and conditions of birth are suffering; what then is exceptional about the bodhisattva?" This question is a sly one: that birth brings suffering, everyone understands, so where is the bodhisattva's insight higher? The answer: 「眾生不知由生有苦，若遭苦時，但怨恨人，自不將適，初不怨生；……」 tr. "Beings do not know that suffering comes from birth; when they meet with suffering they only resent other people and their own failure to take proper care, and never at all blame birth; ……" The answer is most exact—what beings know is the sentence ‘life is suffering’, not the fact ‘suffering comes from birth’. The evidence lies in how they respond when they meet with suffering: they blame other people, blame themselves for not having taken proper care, and never once lay the blame on 「生」 tr. "birth". Because they never lay the blame on birth, 「增長結使、重增生法，不知真實苦因」 tr. "they increase the fetters, make heavier the dharma of birth, and do not know the true and real cause of suffering"—every remedy they apply instead thickens that true root of the sickness. Here do not read the treatise-author as harshly rebuking ordinary people; what he offers is a method of verification: see where your mind goes when you meet with suffering, and you will know whether you recognise the cause of suffering. The treatise-author offers a further proof: 「有人無鞭杖、刀兵、諸愁惱苦，而有死苦」 tr. "Some people have no suffering of whips and staves, knives and weapons, or the various sorrows and vexations, and yet they have the suffering of death"—this person has never been beaten in his whole life, never met with weapons, has no sorrows or vexations, and still has to die; where does this death come from? 「從生而有。」 tr. "It exists from birth." Take away all the other conditions, and the one that remains is the true cause.
6. Birth is definitely the root of suffering—the simile of grass and trees. The treatise-author pushes one layer further: 「復次，鞭杖、刀兵、愁惱，皆由生故有。」 tr. "Further, whips and staves, knives and weapons, sorrows and vexations, all exist because of birth." The previous passage was subtraction; this passage is addition: those sufferings that seem to have some other source still have birth as their root. 「餘法或有苦、或無苦，是生法必定有苦」 tr. "Other dharmas may have suffering or may have no suffering; this dharma of birth definitely has suffering"—between other dharmas and suffering the relation is one of maybe; only between birth and suffering is the relation one of necessity. The treatise-author pushes the range further to the extreme: 「正使大智及諸天，有生必有死，有死必有苦，是故知『生定是苦本』。」 tr. "Even people of great wisdom and the gods: where there is birth there is definitely death, where there is death there is definitely suffering; so it is known that ‘birth is definitely the root of suffering’." People of great wisdom and the gods are the best situations that can be thought of in the world, and still they do not escape this rule. At the end grass and trees are taken as a simile: 「如草木有生故，必可焚燒；若當不生，雖有猛火、大風，無所燒害。」 tr. "As grass and trees, because they have birth, can definitely be burnt; if they were not born, then even with a fierce fire and a great wind there would be nothing to burn and harm." The point the simile takes lies in one place only—the nature of being burnable is fastened to having birth, not to the fierceness of the fire or the greatness of the wind. So the remedy lies not in hiding from the fire but in not being born. In reading this simile do not drag in the rest: the arising and ceasing of grass and trees and the birth and death of beings are different as matters and marks; what is taken is only the one meaning ‘only where there is birth is there something burnable’.
7. Tracing back as far as the six entries—existence, grasping, craving, feeling, contact. 「菩薩既得苦因緣，復推生因緣」 tr. "Having found the causes and conditions of suffering, the bodhisattva goes on to trace the causes and conditions of birth"—from here the reasoning formally unfolds. The cause of birth is existence, and existence is divided into three: 「欲有、色有、無色有」 tr. "the existence of desire, the existence of form, the existence of the formless"; clinging to these three existences one gives rise to good and evil deeds, and this is the cause of receiving birth. The cause of existence is the four kinds of grasping; the cause of grasping is craving and the other afflictions. Here the treatise-author lays down a most important definition: 「小者未能起業，故名為愛；增長能起業，故名為取：……」 tr. "When it is small and cannot yet give rise to deeds, it is therefore named craving; when it has grown and can give rise to deeds, it is therefore named grasping: ……" Craving and grasping are not two different things; they are two stages of the same affliction—when it cannot yet make deeds it is called craving, when it can make deeds it is called grasping. The items of the four kinds of grasping the treatise-author lists one by one: 「欲取、見取、戒取、我語取」 tr. "grasping at sense-desires, grasping at views, grasping at precepts, grasping at the doctrine of self"—all four are marks of grasping and clinging, while the objects grasped differ; 「取著是四事故，能起種種業」 tr. "because one grasps and clings to these four things, one can give rise to all kinds of deeds". The cause of craving is the three kinds of feeling; the cause of feeling is the six kinds of contact. The definition of contact is also in this passage: 「觸名受等諸心數法」 tr. "contact is named together with feeling and the other mental-factor dharmas", and the principle of its arising is 「情、塵、識三事和合故，心中生受等心數法」 tr. "because the three things, faculty, sense-object, and consciousness, come together, feeling and the other mental-factor dharmas arise in the mind". The last sentence most deserves attention: 「根本雖三事，和合故生觸，為六情依止住處故，但說六入」 tr. "although the root is three things, contact arises because they come together; because the six faculties are the place where support is taken and abiding is, only the six entries are spoken of"—only when the three things come together does contact arise, and yet among the twelve links only the six entries are marked, because the six faculties are the place where mind and consciousness take support and abide securely. This is naming what is relied on so as to gather in what relies on it; it is not saying that the outer sense-objects and consciousness can be discarded.
8. The dividing line between the six entries and name-and-form. 「六入因緣，名色。六入雖即是名色分，成就名六入，未成就名名色」 tr. "The causes and conditions of the six entries are name-and-form. Although the six entries are precisely a part of name-and-form, when accomplished they are named the six entries, when not yet accomplished they are named name-and-form"—first ask a question: since the six entries are a part of name-and-form, do the two not overlap? The treatise-author answers clearly: the distinction lies not in the substance but in being accomplished or not yet accomplished. Dividing more finely: 「色成就名五入，名成就名一入。」 tr. "When form is accomplished it is named the five entries; when name is accomplished it is named the one entry." The five entries of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body belong to form; the mind-entry belongs to name. The last sentence points out the place of this whole passage: 「是胎中時因緣次第。」 tr. "This is the sequence of causes and conditions at the time in the womb." What is spoken of is not the coarse appearance of one whole life, but the order, earlier and later, in which body and mind take shape after entering the womb. In reading this passage do not take the treatise-author to be giving a physiological account; what he distinguishes is the dividing line of names and marks, and what he relies on is whether or not something is accomplished, not the setting up of a separate thing.
9. The cause of name-and-form lies in consciousness—the five aggregates of the intermediate existence. 「名色因緣，是識。若識不入胎，胎初則爛壞。」 tr. "The causes and conditions of name-and-form are consciousness. If consciousness did not enter the womb, the embryo would rot and decay at its very beginning." The treatise-author at once defines the consciousness meant here: 「識名中陰中五眾。是五眾細故，但名為識。」 tr. "Consciousness is named the five aggregates within the intermediate existence. Because these five aggregates are subtle, they are named only consciousness." First ask a question: why are the five aggregates called only consciousness? Because in the position of the intermediate existence the five aggregates are extremely subtle and hard to speak of separately, so one of them is named to gather in the rest. At the end he closes it with a proof from the contrary: 「若識不入而胎成者，如一切和合時，皆應成胎！」 tr. "If the embryo were formed without consciousness entering, then at every time of coming together an embryo should be formed!" If consciousness were not a necessary condition, then whenever the various conditions came together an embryo should be formed—in fact it is not so, and so it can be seen that consciousness is a link that cannot be lacking. This sentence is a standard reduction to absurdity: it does not prove directly that consciousness enters the womb; it shows what absurdity denying it would lead to.
10. By what causes and conditions consciousness enters the womb—the simile of the wind blowing a cut-off flame. The question: 「識何因緣故入胎？」 tr. "By what causes and conditions does consciousness enter the womb?" The answer: 「行因緣。行即是過去三種業，業將識入胎。」 tr. "By the causes and conditions of constructions. Constructions are precisely the three kinds of deeds of the past; deeds carry consciousness into the womb." The vital point lies in the Chinese character 「將」 tr. "carry"—consciousness does not walk in by itself; deeds bring it in. The simile says: 「如風吹絕焰，空中而去，焰則依止於風；……」 tr. "As the wind blows a flame that has been cut off and it goes away through the air, the flame taking support in the wind; ……" The flame itself has no power of travelling; it is the wind that carries it and moves it; consciousness's entering the womb is also like this. 「先世作人身時然六識故，命終時，業將識入胎」 tr. "Because in a former life, when one had a human body, the six consciousnesses were kindled, at the end of life deeds carry consciousness into the womb"—when one had a human body in the former life the six consciousnesses were kindled; at the moment of the end of life deeds then carry this consciousness to receive a later existence. In reading this simile one slip must be guarded against: do not read consciousness as a real thing blown along by the wind. What the simile takes lies only in the one point ‘having no power of its own to travel and travelling by the power of another’, not in the flame's having a substance.
11. Both are deeds, yet one is named existence and one is named constructions—where the names come from. The question: 「上業何以名有？今業何以名行？」 tr. "Why are the deeds above named existence? Why are the deeds here named constructions?" Earlier it was said that the link of existence is deeds, and here it is said that the link of constructions is also deeds; both are deeds yet the names differ, and doubt can hardly fail to arise. The answer: 「上是『今世業，為未來有，故名為有』；今『業過去世已滅盡，但有名，名為行』。」 tr. "Above is ‘deeds of this present life, which are to be future existence, and so are named existence’; here is ‘deeds of past lives that have already ceased entirely, with only a name remaining, which are named constructions’." The distinction lies only in the position in time: what is made in this present life and is about to bring about a future fruit is named existence with regard to its ability to bring it about; what has already ceased entirely in past lives, with only the name remaining, is named constructions with regard to its having already passed away. So the names and marks among the twelve links are not each a thing of its own; they are different names for one and the same matter at different positions in time. This question and answer is the place where reading the twelve links of causes and conditions most easily gets stuck, and the treatise-author picks it out specially.
12. The causes and conditions of constructions are named ignorance—why ignorance alone is marked. 「是行因緣名無明。」 tr. "The causes and conditions of these constructions are named ignorance." He at once explains why this one link alone is marked: 「一切煩惱雖是過去業因緣，無明是根本故，但名無明。」 tr. "Although all the afflictions are causes and conditions of past deeds, because ignorance is the root, it is named only ignorance." This is the same method as 「但說六入」 tr. "only the six entries are spoken of" in the earlier passage—naming the root so as to gather in the rest. The treatise-author further speaks by setting present against past: 「今世現在著愛、取多故，愛、取愛名；過去世中是疑、邪見處故，但名無明。」 tr. "Because in this present life the clinging to craving and grasping is much, craving and grasping take the name; because within past lives was the place of doubt and wrong views, it is named only ignorance." What is prominent in this present life is craving and grasping; what is fastened to past lives is doubt and wrong views; so each sets up its name by what is prominent in it. The last sentence closes very weightily: 「今得一切苦惱根本，是無明。」 tr. "The root of all suffering and vexation now found is ignorance." Pushing all the way from old age and death to here, that 「真實苦因」 tr. "true and real cause of suffering" that was sought is only here found.
13. Why the tracing stops at ignorance. The question: 「無始生死展轉甚多，何以止齊無明？」 tr. "Since beginningless time birth and death have turned round a great many times; why does the tracing stop at ignorance?" Since birth and death are beginningless, is there not still something before ignorance? The answer: 「是事先已答。」 tr. "This matter has already been answered before." The answer is extremely short, so short that the reader easily slides past it. Here there is no need to think the treatise-author is putting the questioner off: the earlier text of this treatise has already discussed this meaning, and its direct principle lies in the seventeenth passage below—seeking further for the root, one falls into the extreme view and falls into idle discourse. So the brevity here is because the meaning is already complete elsewhere, not because there is nothing to answer. When reading the treatise and meeting this kind of extremely brief answer, one should turn back to seek what it points to, and may not straightway take it as a gap.
14. What is severed lies only in the future—the similes of the good physician and of putting out a fire. 「菩薩思惟，為人從苦得脫故，求苦因緣」 tr. "The bodhisattva reflects: in order that people may obtain liberation from suffering, he seeks the causes and conditions of suffering"—he returns to the starting-point, and what was sought has been found, so he turns to 「怎麼斷」 tr. "how to sever it". The treatise-author first sets a limitation: 「眾生過去、現在老死等苦，不可得除；為除未來世老死苦，斷相續，不令復生。」 tr. "The past and present sufferings of old age, death, and the rest of beings cannot be removed; it is in order to remove the suffering of old age and death of future lives that he severs the continuity and does not let it arise again." First ask a question: since he speaks of extinguishing suffering, why can past and present suffering not be removed at all? Because the past has already passed away and the present is already formed, and neither is within reach of human strength; what strength can be applied to is only the cause of the future. There are two similes. The simile of the good physician: 「過去病不可治，現在病亦不可治；服藥但能治應起病，破其冷熱，不復令起。」 tr. "Past illness cannot be cured, present illness also cannot be cured; taking medicine can cure only the illness that is about to arise, breaking its cold and heat so that it does not arise again." The simile of putting out a fire: 「不為已過去火故勤滅，亦不為現在火故勤滅，但為未來火不令更燒故勤滅。」 tr. "One does not strive to put it out for the sake of the fire that has already passed, nor does one strive to put it out for the sake of the present fire; one strives to put it out only for the sake of the future fire, so that it does not burn further." The treatise-author at once adds to these two similes a vital remark: 「良醫、滅火人勤方便亦不虛」 tr. "the striving and skilful means of the good physician and of the person putting out the fire are not in vain either"—after the limitation one may not topple over into passivity. Although what is severed lies only in the future, its work is not in vain. Applied to the bodhisattva: 「破是生法，老死等苦自然永滅。」 tr. "When this dharma of birth is broken, the suffering of old age, death, and the rest naturally ceases forever." Break the cause and the fruit passes away of itself; there is no need to counter the fruits one by one.
15. Counting forward the eight present causes and conditions. The previous passage traced backward; this passage looks back over it: 「是故菩薩欲滅未來世老死等苦因緣生，得現在『有』等八因緣：……」 tr. "Therefore the bodhisattva, wishing to extinguish birth, the causes and conditions of the suffering of old age, death, and the rest of future lives, finds the eight present causes and conditions, ‘existence’ and the rest: ……" The items of the eight links the treatise-author sets up one by one: the first is deeds with outflows; the second is the various afflictions of the present life, namely 「四取、一愛」 tr. "the four kinds of grasping and the one craving"; these two kinds of affliction arise from the two mental-factor dharmas of feeling and contact; contact can be named the causes and conditions of feeling because 「觸能生一切心數法，受前生故」 tr. "contact can give rise to all mental-factor dharmas, and feeling arises first"; although feeling can give rise to the three poisons, 「一切眾生，愛是舊煩惱」 tr. "for all beings, craving is the old affliction"; the causes and conditions of contact are the inner six entries, and here he specially makes clear why the outer six entries are not taken: 「雖有外六入，內六入無故觸等心數法不生，是故內六入得名」 tr. "although there are the outer six entries, because without the inner six entries contact and the other mental-factor dharmas do not arise, therefore the inner six entries obtain the name"—although the outer sense-objects are there, if the inner faculties are lacking contact does not arise, so the name is set up by what is decisive; name-and-form is the causes and conditions of the six entries; 「初入胎識，是名色因緣」 tr. "the consciousness that first enters the womb is the causes and conditions of name-and-form". The crux of this passage lies in the three Chinese characters 「得現在」 tr. "finds the present": the twelve links the bodhisattva traces are not a chart of the past; they are matters that can be verified right now.
16. From the womb to adulthood—the real face of the sequence. The treatise-author sets the names and marks of the previous passage back within one life to look at them: 「識、名色在胎中，此中雖有六入，未成就、未可用故，未得名字。」 tr. "Consciousness and name-and-form are in the womb; although within this there are the six entries, because they are not yet accomplished and cannot yet be used, they have not yet obtained their names." Once born as an infant, 「未能有所作，但有六入」 tr. "it cannot yet do anything; there are only the six entries"; growing older, 「有六觸」 tr. "there are the six contacts", and 「如小兒蹈火履氷，但有觸，未知苦樂」 tr. "as a small child treads on fire and steps on ice: there is only contact, and it does not yet know suffering and pleasure"; growing older still, 「受苦樂，未深愛著」 tr. "it experiences suffering and pleasure, but has not yet deeply craved and clung", the evidence being 「如小兒雖瞋，未能起殺等惡業；雖喜，未能起施等善業」 tr. "as a small child, though it grows angry, cannot yet give rise to evil deeds such as killing; though it is glad, cannot yet give rise to wholesome deeds such as giving"; coming to adulthood, 「得苦生恚、得樂生愛」 tr. "obtaining suffering one gives rise to anger, obtaining pleasure one gives rise to craving", 「求樂具故，取欲等四取」 tr. "for the sake of seeking the things of pleasure, one grasps the four kinds of grasping, of sense-desires and the rest", 「取時，能起善惡業」 tr. "at the time of grasping, one can give rise to good and evil deeds". First ask a question: why must the treatise-author tell in such detail of one person's growing up? Because the twelve links are most easily read as an abstract arrangement of rebirth through the three times; once they come down onto one person, the difference between craving and grasping and the difference between contact and feeling all become matters that can be verified. Here the reader should make a self-examination: is one at this moment at contact, at feeling, or already at grasping?
17. From one life the myriads of koṭi of lives can be known; seeking further for the root, one falls into idle discourse. 「若知先一世無明、業因緣，則億萬世可知；譬如現在火熱，過去、未來火亦如是。」 tr. "If one knows the causes and conditions of ignorance and deeds of a single former life, then myriads of koṭi of lives can be known; just as present fire is hot, past and future fire are also like this." The simile takes one point: fire's being hot does not differ with the times and ages; the principle of causes and conditions is also so. Knowing the principle of one life, there is no need to count life after life. He at once cuts off further seeking: 「若無明因緣更求其本，則無窮，即墮邊見，失涅槃道，是故不應求；若更求，則墮戲論，非是佛法。」 tr. "If one seeks further for the root of the causes and conditions of ignorance, there is no end to it; one then falls into the extreme view and loses the path of nirvāṇa, so one should not seek it; if one seeks further, one falls into idle discourse, and it is not the Buddha's Dharma." This is precisely what 「是事先已答」 tr. "this matter has already been answered before" in the thirteenth passage points to. One slip must be guarded against: do not read 「不應求」 tr. "one should not seek it" as forbidding people to think. What is forbidden is tracing the root back toward an endless prior limit—that is a road on which nothing can be found and which is sure to give rise to an extreme view; what is not forbidden is seeking the substance and mark of ignorance, which is exactly what the next passage does. The one is pushing forward, the other is looking inward; the directions are wholly different.
18. Seeking the substance and mark of ignorance is at once entering ultimate emptiness. 「菩薩欲斷無明故，求無明體相；求時，即入畢竟空。」 tr. "Because the bodhisattva wishes to sever ignorance, he seeks the substance and mark of ignorance; when he seeks, he at once enters ultimate emptiness." First ask a question: why is it empty as soon as it is sought? The treatise-author cites a sūtra of the Buddha as proof: 「無明相：內法不知，外法不知，內外法不知。」 tr. "The mark of ignorance: not knowing inner dharmas, not knowing outer dharmas, not knowing inner and outer dharmas." The mark of ignorance is not an existent; it is a threefold 「不知」 tr. "not knowing". Since it is not knowing, when it is illumined by the contemplation of emptiness it scatters: 「菩薩以內空觀內法，內法即空；以外空觀外法，外法即空；以內外空觀內外法，內外法即空。」 tr. "The bodhisattva contemplates inner dharmas by inner emptiness, and inner dharmas are at once empty; he contemplates outer dharmas by outer emptiness, and outer dharmas are at once empty; he contemplates inner and outer dharmas by inner-and-outer emptiness, and inner and outer dharmas are at once empty." The three contemplations answer the three kinds of not knowing, each matching each. At the end an older text is taken as proof: 「如先品《德女經》中『破無明』廣說。」 tr. "As is broadly said under ‘refuting ignorance’ in the Sūtra of the Virtuous Woman in an earlier chapter." Here attention should be paid to the treatise-author's method: he does not use the meaning of emptiness to deny ignorance; he looks at ignorance by following its own definition—it has from the first 「不知」 tr. "not knowing" as its mark, and not knowing has no substance to be found.
19. Seeking the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination—the simile of the silkworm making its cocoon. 「復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。」 tr. "Further, when the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality." Only here is the title of the whole unit pointed out directly for the first time. The two Chinese characters 「即時」 tr. "at that very moment" may not be passed over: it is not that after ignorance is broken another illumination is obtained; it is that the very moment its substance is sought, that is illumination. Below this he speaks of why beings undergo suffering: 「觀諸法如幻如化，眾生顛倒因緣故，起諸煩惱，作惡罪業，輪轉五道，受生死苦。」 tr. "He contemplates all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration; beings, because of the causes and conditions of inversion, give rise to the various afflictions, make evil and sinful deeds, turn round in the five destinies, and undergo the suffering of birth and death." The simile says: 「譬如蠶出絲自裹縛，入沸湯火炙。」 tr. "It is like a silkworm that puts out silk to wrap and bind itself, and goes into boiling water and is scorched by fire." The point the simile takes lies in the Chinese character 「自」 tr. "itself"—what binds the silkworm is not someone outside, but the silk it has spat out itself. Applying the simile: ordinary people 「初生時未有諸煩惱，後自生貪欲、瞋恚等諸煩惱；是煩惱因緣故，覆真智慧，轉身受地獄火燒湯煮」 tr. "at the time of their first birth have none of the various afflictions; later they themselves give rise to greed, anger, and the other afflictions; because of the causes and conditions of these afflictions, true wisdom is covered over, and turning their bodies they undergo being burnt by fire and boiled in water in the hells". At the end it comes back to the bodhisattva: 「菩薩知是法本末皆空，但眾生顛倒錯故受如是苦」 tr. "the bodhisattva knows that these dharmas are all empty from root to branch, and that it is only because beings are inverted and confused that they undergo such suffering", and so 「於此眾生起大悲心，欲破是顛倒故，求於實法，行般若波羅蜜，通達實際」 tr. "toward these beings he gives rise to the mind of great compassion, and, in order to break this inversion, seeks the real dharma, practises prajñāpāramitā, and penetrates the limit of reality", and after that 「種種因緣教化眾生，令住實際」 tr. "by all kinds of causes and conditions teaches and transforms beings and causes them to abide in the limit of reality". The closing sentence is the judgement of the whole passage: 「是故住實際無咎。」 tr. "Therefore there is no fault in abiding in the limit of reality." The question of the third passage, 「今何以言為實際」 tr. "why is it now said to be for the sake of the limit of reality", is only here truly answered in full—to be for the sake of the limit of reality is precisely to be for the sake of beings, because the root of beings' sickness lies exactly where the limit of reality is covered over.
20. If the limit of beings and the limit of reality were different, practising prajñā would accomplish nothing. 「復次，經中說：『若眾生與實際異，菩薩不應行般若波羅蜜。』」 tr. "Further, the sūtra says: ‘If beings and the limit of reality were different, the bodhisattva should not practise prajñāpāramitā.’" The treatise-author at once pins down the meaning of 「異」 tr. "different": 「異者，實際是畢竟空，眾生際是決定有；……」 tr. "Different means: the limit of reality is ultimate emptiness, the limit of beings is definitely existent; ……" The one empty, the other existent, the two do not reach each other. If it were so, there would be a double objection: first, 「若諸法實際相空，菩薩云何為眾生故修是實際」 tr. "if the mark of the limit of reality of all dharmas is empty, how could the bodhisattva, for the sake of beings, cultivate this limit of reality"—what is cultivated is empty, what it is for is existent, and they do not correspond; second, 「若眾生畢竟空、實際定有，無眾生則無所利益，為誰故行實際」 tr. "if beings were ultimately empty and the limit of reality definitely existent, then with no beings there would be nothing to benefit; for whose sake would he practise the limit of reality"—put the other way round, they still do not correspond. The treatise-author's conclusion is only one sentence: 「今眾生際實不異實際，故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Now the limit of beings is in reality not different from the limit of reality, and so he practises prajñāpāramitā." Its use lies in the next sentence: 「欲覺悟狂惑顛倒凡夫故，行般若波羅蜜；令眾生住實際中，而不壞實際。」 tr. "In order to awaken ordinary people who are mad, deluded, and inverted, he practises prajñāpāramitā; he causes beings to abide within the limit of reality, and yet does not destroy the limit of reality." Not different, so they can be delivered; not destroyed, so they are delivered and yet there is no one delivered. This passage is the doctrinal core of this chapter's title; in reading it one must keep 「不異」 tr. "not different" and 「是一」 tr. "being one" clearly apart—the next passage discusses exactly this.
21. The objection of setting the limit of reality upon the limit of reality—the tip of a finger cannot touch the tip of that finger. 「是時，須菩提更問：『若眾生際、實際不異，云何以實際著實際？』」 tr. "At this time Subhūti asked further: ‘If the limit of beings and the limit of reality are not different, how can the limit of reality be set upon the limit of reality?’" The objection is most ingenious: since you say they are not different, is not establishing beings in the limit of reality the same as setting the limit of reality upon the limit of reality? The treatise-author supplies for this objection the general rule it rests on: 「自性不應自性中住，如指端不能自觸指端。」 tr. "Self-nature should not abide within self-nature, as the tip of a finger cannot itself touch the tip of that finger." The point the simile takes lies in one place only—one and the same thing cannot take itself as an object it faces. A knife does not cut itself, an eye does not see itself; all follow the same principle. If this objection were not resolved, the phrase 「建立眾生於實際」 tr. "establishing beings in the limit of reality" would destroy itself.
22. Not one and not two, and also not not-one and not not-two. 「佛可其意，菩薩以方便故，建立眾生於實際，如眾生、實際不異，一亦不可得。」 tr. "The Buddha approved his meaning: the bodhisattva, by skilful means, establishes beings in the limit of reality; as beings and the limit of reality are not different, even one is unfindable." First he admits that the objection stands—if they were truly one, then 「若是一，則壞實際相」 tr. "if it were one, the mark of the limit of reality would be destroyed", and why? 「所以者何？得是一性故」 tr. "Why? Because a nature of one would be found": once it is said to be one, there is a self-nature of one to be found, while the limit of reality has precisely the absence of self-nature as its mark. Thereupon the treatise-author lays down the most important sentence of this passage: 「菩薩知是二法不一不二，亦不不一、亦不不二，畢竟寂滅無戲論相。」 tr. "The bodhisattva knows that these two dharmas are not one and not two, and also not not-one and also not not-two, ultimately quiescent and without the mark of idle discourse." Sending away all four alternatives together is not playing with turns of phrase; it is taking 「不異」 tr. "not different" apart from 「是一」 tr. "being one": not different is not one, and not one and yet not two. At the end it still returns to the place of practice: 「菩薩生大悲心，但欲拔出眾生離於顛倒故，教化眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva gives rise to the mind of great compassion and teaches and transforms beings only because he wishes to pull beings out and free them from inversion." The principle is most profound and the matter most plain; this is the usual state of this treatise.
23. What is named skilful means—establishing beings in dāna and saying that dāna is empty in the three times. 「又問：『云何名方便？』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘What is named skilful means?’" The pattern of the Buddha's answer is 「建立眾生於檀中，說是檀先際、後際空，中際亦爾」 tr. "he establishes beings in dāna, and says that this dāna is empty in the former limit and in the latter limit, and the middle limit is likewise". The treatise-author first points out where it comes from: 「如經中廣說」 tr. "as is broadly said in the sūtra", 「如先〈檀品〉中說」 tr. "as was said earlier in the chapter ‘Dāna’", and further points out where the bodhisattva who uses skilful means takes his stand: 「菩薩知實際者到眾生邊。」 tr. "The bodhisattva who knows the limit of reality goes over to the side of beings." The one who knows the limit of reality does not abide unmoving within the limit of reality; he goes over to the side where beings are. Below this he writes out why skilful means is necessary—this is the most vivid place in the whole passage: after hearing the Dharma beings 「發心，折薄煩惱，深著布施」 tr. "arouse the mind, break down and thin their afflictions, and cling deeply to giving"; the bodhisattva pities them, and what he thinks in his heart is 「我從慳中拔出，今復著布施」 tr. "I pulled him out of stinginess, and now he again clings to giving"; the after-trouble of clinging to giving the treatise-author tells very plainly: 「眾生若受布施，福盡受諸苦惱；又受富貴因緣，得作大罪，則墮地獄」 tr. "if beings receive the retribution of giving, when the merit is exhausted they undergo all kinds of suffering and vexation; and receiving the causes and conditions of riches and honour, they come to commit great sins and then fall into the hells", in short 「得少許時樂而受苦長久」 tr. "they obtain a little while of pleasure and undergo suffering for a long time". So only the next step speaks of the real mark of giving: 「是布施過去已滅，不可見、不可得、不可用，但可憶念，如夢所見無異；未來未生故，亦無所有、畢竟空。是布施先、後際無故，中際亦無。」 tr. "This giving in the past has already ceased; it cannot be seen, is unfindable, cannot be used, and can only be recollected, no different from what is seen in a dream; the future, because it has not yet arisen, is also without anything existent, ultimately empty. Because this giving has neither a former nor a latter limit, there is no middle limit either." The present portion he breaks by citing an older text: 「現在布施雖眼見，分分破析，乃至微塵不可得。」 tr. "Although present giving is seen by the eye, when it is broken down and analysed part by part, even down to atoms it is unfindable." The three times being empty, then 「布施三世空，施者、受者、果報亦如是」 tr. "giving is empty in the three times, and so likewise are the giver, the recipient, and the retribution". In this passage one slip must be guarded against: do not read the saying that giving is empty as telling people not to give. The order is first to pull out of stinginess and then to break the clinging; the two steps may not be inverted—inverted, it becomes discarding practice by means of emptiness.
24. The flavour of ambrosia and the fruit of ambrosia. 「菩薩語施者言：『布施等法是初入佛法門；實際中，實際相亦無，何況布施！……』」 tr. "The bodhisattva says to the giver: ‘Giving and the other dharmas are the gate of first entering the Buddha's Dharma; within the limit of reality there is not even the mark of the limit of reality, how much less giving! ……’" With one sentence he cuts off the place of clinging, and at once gives the right practice: 「汝莫念、莫著布施等法！若不念、不著如布施體相，如是布施者，則得甘露味、甘露果。」 tr. "You must not recollect, must not cling to giving and the other dharmas! If one does not recollect and does not cling, as is the substance and mark of giving, one who gives thus obtains the flavour of ambrosia and the fruit of ambrosia." The treatise-author afterwards sets these two names down on solid ground: 「甘露味者，是八聖道分；甘露果者，是涅槃。」 tr. "The flavour of ambrosia is the eightfold noble path; the fruit of ambrosia is nirvāṇa." The last sentence brings skilful means back: 「菩薩雖住實際中，以方便力，布施門度眾生。」 tr. "Although the bodhisattva abides within the limit of reality, by the power of skilful means he delivers beings through the gate of giving." Abiding in the limit of reality is the substance, the gate of giving is the function; the substance does not obstruct the function, the function does not part from the substance. Reading this passage, one can know that what this treatise calls 「方便」 tr. "skilful means" is not a stopgap accommodation; it is knowing that something is empty and still going in by its gate.
25. The other pāramitās are of the same pattern. 「餘波羅蜜亦如是，如經中廣說。」 tr. "The other pāramitās are likewise, as is broadly said in the sūtra." It is passed over in one sentence, and what it points to is the four gates of the sūtra section, keeping morality, patience, vigour, and meditative concentration. Here the treatise-author does not explain them again gate by gate, because the principle is already complete in the gate of dāna. When reading the treatise and meeting this kind of abbreviated wording, one should turn back and take the principle of the preceding gate to serve as the pattern for the rest, and may not straightway take it as a gap in the explanation.
26. Abiding within the emptiness of nature, how does he seek the omniscience of all kinds? 「須菩提白佛言：『世尊！若一切法性空，性空中無法及非法、亦無眾生，菩薩云何住是空中求一切種智？』」 tr. "Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! If all dharmas are empty of nature, and within the emptiness of nature there is neither dharma nor what is not a dharma, nor are there beings, how does the bodhisattva abide within this emptiness and seek the omniscience of all kinds?’" The objection is most upright: what is set up is emptiness, what is sought is knowledge, and the two do not fit together. 「佛答：『菩薩安立性空中故，能行是布施等諸法。』」 tr. "The Buddha answered: ‘Because the bodhisattva is securely set within the emptiness of nature, he can practise giving and these various dharmas.’" The answer is extremely short and runs extremely counter to ordinary feeling—it is not ‘although he abides in the emptiness of nature he can still practise’; it is ‘precisely because he is securely set within the emptiness of nature he can practise’. Why it is so is explained only in the next passage.
27. The emptiness of nature breaks all dharmas; how can he still practise wholesome dharmas? 「又問：『性空破一切法悉盡無餘，云何菩薩住性空中能行布施等諸善法？』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘The emptiness of nature breaks all dharmas completely with nothing remaining; how can the bodhisattva abide within the emptiness of nature and practise giving and the various wholesome dharmas?’" This presses the previous objection one layer further. 「佛可須菩提意而說因緣」 tr. "The Buddha approved Subhūti's meaning and spoke the causes and conditions"—first he acknowledges that his question is right, then he speaks of why it is so: 「菩薩知諸法實相，住是中，能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。諸法實相者，即是性空。」 tr. "The bodhisattva knows the real mark of all dharmas and, abiding within it, can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The real mark of all dharmas is precisely the emptiness of nature." The joint lies in the sentence 「諸法實相者，即是性空」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas is precisely the emptiness of nature": the emptiness of nature is not an instrument for breaking dharmas; it is the real mark of dharmas; one abides in the real mark and practises, and so the practice is not broken. Below this he speaks of teaching and transforming in order: 「若一切法性不空，菩薩不應住是諸法性空中」 tr. "If the nature of all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva should not abide within this emptiness of the nature of all dharmas"; having obtained awakening, 「為眾生說性空法」 tr. "he speaks for beings the dharma of the emptiness of nature"—from form being empty of nature, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness being empty of nature, up to 「一切種智、斷煩惱習性空法」 tr. "the dharma that the omniscience of all kinds and the severance of the afflictions and their habitual residues are empty of nature".
28. If the nature of the eighteen emptinesses were not empty, this would be destroying the substance of emptiness. 「復次，『須菩提！十八空，若性不空，是為壞空體。』」 tr. "Further: ‘Subhūti! If the nature of the eighteen emptinesses were not empty, this would be destroying the substance of emptiness.’" The treatise-author explains why: 「十八空能令一切法空，若自不空，則為虛誑」 tr. "the eighteen emptinesses can make all dharmas empty; if they themselves were not empty, they would be false and deceptive"—able to make everything empty and yet not itself empty would be going against its own rule; 「又若不空者，則墮常邊著處，能生煩惱」 tr. "further, if they were not empty, they would fall to the side of permanence, a place of clinging, able to give rise to afflictions"—wherever there is one dharma not empty, there is a place to cling to, and afflictions arise. Below this he speaks directly of the mark of the emptiness of nature: 「性空無實住處，無所從來、去無所至，是名常住法相。」 tr. "The emptiness of nature has no real abiding-place, comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere; this is named the constantly abiding marks of dharmas." He at once sets out its other names alongside: 「常住法相是性空之異名，亦名諸法實相。」 tr. "The constantly abiding marks of dharmas are another name for the emptiness of nature, and are also named the real mark of all dharmas." At the end he lists the six absences of its mark: 「是相中無生無滅、無增無減、無垢無淨。」 tr. "Within this mark there is non-arising and non-ceasing, no increase and no decrease, no stain and no purity." The place in this passage most easily misread lies in the two Chinese characters 「常住」 tr. "constantly abiding"—the constantly abiding marks of dharmas do not say that there is a dharma that abides constantly; they say that this fact of coming from nowhere and going to nowhere does not shift with time, and so it is named constantly abiding. The 「不退」 tr. "non-retrogressing" of the next passage is fastened precisely to this.
29. Abiding within this, he does not retrogress, does not doubt, does not regret—the right understanding of the power of skilful means. 「『菩薩住是中，見一切法性空，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不退、不疑、不悔。何以故？不見諸法能障礙者，以方便力故度眾生。』」 tr. "‘The bodhisattva abides within this, sees that all dharmas are empty of nature, and with regard to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is non-retrogressing, does not doubt, and does not regret. Why? Because he does not see any dharma that can obstruct, and by the power of skilful means he delivers beings.’" Why there are these three negations is only one sentence: he does not see any dharma that can make an obstruction. Obstruction arises because first there is a mark that can be clung to; since the mark is unfindable, where would obstruction come from? At the end the treatise-author lays down for 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means" the most essential definition of the whole unit: 「方便力者，畢竟無法、亦無眾生，而度眾生。」 tr. "The power of skilful means is this: ultimately there are no dharmas and no beings, and yet he delivers beings." It is not first admitting that there are beings and then skilfully delivering them; it is delivering within ultimate non-existence—only this is called skilful means. Reading this one sentence, all the words of the five gates of teaching and transforming in the sūtra section before only now find their footing.
30. Since there are no beings, for whom is skilful means made? The question: 「若眾生及法從本已來無，為誰作方便？為度脫誰？」 tr. "If beings and dharmas have from the beginning not existed, for whom is skilful means made? Whom is it to deliver and liberate?" This presses 「畢竟無法、亦無眾生」 tr. "ultimately there are no dharmas and no beings" to the bottom. The answer: 「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？若有性空相，應當作難！」 tr. "The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection? If there were a mark of the emptiness of nature, you would be right to raise an objection!" This answer is the pivot of the whole unit. The treatise-author answers neither 「有誰」 tr. "there is someone" nor 「無誰」 tr. "there is no one"; he points out that the questioner's objection itself has a hidden premise—he has taken the emptiness of nature as a thing with a mark, and then on this mark he infers ‘since it is empty there is no one to deliver’. If the emptiness of nature has not even a nature of emptiness, the footing of this inference does not exist. The last sentence, 「若有性空相，應當作難」 tr. "if there were a mark of the emptiness of nature, you would be right to raise an objection", is a frank way of speaking by concession: only if you can produce a mark of the emptiness of nature does this objection stand.
31. The simile of the madman's false seeing—spoken for the sake of ordinary people. 「復次，得諸法實相者，知是性空，是人則知諸法性空——無法、無眾生。」 tr. "Further, one who obtains the real mark of all dharmas knows that this is the emptiness of nature; this person then knows that all dharmas are empty of nature—there are no dharmas and no beings." So it is for one who has obtained the real mark; for one who has not obtained it, it is not so: 「凡夫未得實相故，種種憶想分別；如狂人妄有所見，以為實有。」 tr. "Ordinary people, because they have not obtained the real mark, engage in all kinds of recollection, imagining, and discrimination; as a madman falsely sees things and takes them to really exist." The simile takes one point: the things the madman sees are from the first non-existent, while his seeing is itself genuine. 「為度凡夫狂人故言：『為眾生說狂法中有是諸法分別，實法中則無。』」 tr. "For the sake of delivering ordinary people, these madmen, it is said: ‘For beings it is said that within the dharma of madness there are these distinctions of dharmas, but within the real dharma there are not.’" Teaching the Dharma is set up by speaking with regard to the realm the madman sees, not by admitting that realm to be real. At the end he fills out why the bodhisattva delivers beings: 「菩薩欲滿本願故、又不著性空故，有度眾生。」 tr. "Because the bodhisattva wishes to fulfil his original vow, and further because he does not cling to the emptiness of nature, there is the delivering of beings." One is the vow, one is not clinging to emptiness; the two being complete, the matter of delivering beings is not obstructed. The closing sentence: 「此中則不應難。」 tr. "Here then one should not raise an objection."
32. The Buddha himself states the causes and conditions; by reason of worldly truth, not real. 「復次，此經中佛自說因緣：『性空中眾生不可得，知者、見者亦不可得，乃至八十隨形好亦如是。』」 tr. "Further, in this sūtra the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions: ‘Within the emptiness of nature beings are unfindable, the knower and the seer are also unfindable, and so on up to the eighty minor marks, which are likewise.’" He cites the sūtra as proof, and then gives his judgement: 「而菩薩立是法為眾生說，是世諦故，非是實。」 tr. "Yet the bodhisattva sets up these dharmas and speaks them for beings; this is by reason of worldly truth, and is not real." This passage is where the 「二諦」 tr. "two truths" thread of the whole unit is stated in plain words. Attention should be paid to the treatise-author's wording: he says 「非是實」 tr. "is not real"; he does not say 「是虛妄」 tr. "is false"—what is spoken in worldly truth is not deceiving people; it simply does not occupy the position of the highest meaning.
33. The simile of the conjured person teaching the Dharma for the fourfold assembly. 「此中佛說譬喻：『如佛作化人，又化作四部眾而為說法，可有得道者不？』」 tr. "Here the Buddha speaks a simile: ‘As if the Buddha made a conjured person, and further conjured the fourfold assembly and taught the Dharma for them—could there be anyone who obtains the path?’" The next sentence reads: 「須菩提言：『不也。所以者何？無定根本實事，何有得須陀洹乃至得佛者？』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘No. Why? There is no fixed real root-substance; how could there be anyone who obtains srota-āpanna-hood and so on up to anyone who obtains buddhahood?’" The point the simile takes lies in the six Chinese characters 「無定根本實事」 tr. "there is no fixed real root-substance"—the speaker is conjured, the hearers are also conjured, both ends are without real substance, and so no person who obtains the path can be spoken of. First ask a question: does this simile not say that the Buddha's teaching the Dharma is also useless? No. What the simile sends away is the structure ‘there is a really existent one who obtains the path’, not the matter of teaching the Dharma. The next passage closes it by applying the simile.
34. Breaking false imaginings, not breaking beings. 「菩薩說法度眾生亦如是：眾生無有定實，但欲於顛倒中拔出眾生，著無顛倒中。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's teaching the Dharma to deliver beings is also like this: beings have no fixed reality; he only wishes to pull beings out of inversion and set them in non-inversion." The application of the simile once set up, the treatise-author at once makes clear that the place of non-inversion also may not be held to: 「無顛倒法亦無處所，是中無眾生，乃至無知者、見者。」 tr. "The dharma of non-inversion also has no place; within it there are no beings, and so on up to no knower and no seer." The next sentence most shows his sense of measure: 「雖空性一相，而顛倒多、不顛倒少；是故貴是性空不顛倒法。」 tr. "Although the nature of emptiness is of one mark, inversion is much and non-inversion little; therefore this dharma of the emptiness of nature, non-inversion, is prized." Although the nature of emptiness is one mark, on the side of beings those inverted are many and those not inverted few, and so this dharma is precious—this is said with regard to what is directly seen, not with regard to the substance of the principle. The last sentence is the judgement of the whole passage, and also the sentence of this unit most to be remembered: 「菩薩住此中，但破眾生妄想，不破眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva abides within this and only breaks beings' false imaginings; he does not break beings." What is broken is false imagining, not the person.
35. The dharmas without outflows, because of arising and ceasing, are not like the highest meaning. 「又無漏法，乃至八聖道分，雖是無漏，以生滅故，不如第一義。」 tr. "Again, the dharmas without outflows, and so on up to the eightfold noble path, although they are without outflows, because of arising and ceasing are not like the highest meaning." First ask a question: why do the dharmas without outflows still fall short? What it rests on lies only in the two Chinese characters 「生滅」 tr. "arising and ceasing"—having arising and ceasing, they are conditioned, and being conditioned they are not the highest meaning. This passage is extremely short, yet it is the foreshadowing of 「唯有是道」 tr. "only this is the path" in the next passage: since even the limbs of the path cannot be the highest meaning, what is called the one path of the buddhas surely does not lie among the limbs of the path.
36. The emptiness of nature is the only path; there is no other path. 「『須菩提！是性空，一切諸佛唯有是道，更無異道。』」 tr. "‘Subhūti! This emptiness of nature—all the buddhas have only this path; there is no other path.’" The treatise-author explains why: 「諸佛皆求實智不壞不異法」 tr. "all the buddhas seek the dharma of real knowledge, indestructible and not different"—what is sought is the dharma that is indestructible and not different. Although the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and such dharmas are superior, 「不名為一道」 tr. "they are not named the one path"—why? 「此皆是有為法，轉變無常故。」 tr. "Because these are all conditioned dharmas, changing and impermanent." This is the same criterion as in the previous passage. Below this he restates the mark of the emptiness of nature: 「是性空中，無眾生，亦無色等諸法。」 tr. "Within this emptiness of nature there are no beings, nor are there form and the various dharmas." The last sentence comes round to the place of arousing the mind: 「菩薩不為菩薩道故求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，但為性空故。」 tr. "The bodhisattva seeks anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi not for the sake of the bodhisattva path, but only for the sake of the emptiness of nature." This saying is extremely easy to misread; the next passage sets up a question to discuss it.
37. What is the emptiness of nature, and what is the bodhisattva path? The question: 「何等是性空？何等是菩薩道？」 tr. "What is the emptiness of nature? What is the bodhisattva path?" The answer first sets up the division of the two truths: 「第一義中無分別，世諦中有分別。」 tr. "Within the highest meaning there is no discrimination; within worldly truth there is discrimination." And then gives each its definition: 「諸法實相名性空，餘布施等乃至八十隨形好是菩薩道。」 tr. "The real mark of all dharmas is named the emptiness of nature; the rest, giving and so on up to the eighty minor marks, is the bodhisattva path." The two once divided, the meaning of that sentence in the previous passage also becomes clear: 「雖行是法，不為此法，為求性空故，是故說：『不為菩薩道故行。』」 tr. "Although he practises these dharmas, it is not for the sake of these dharmas; it is for the sake of seeking the emptiness of nature; therefore it is said: ‘He does not practise for the sake of the bodhisattva path.’" It is not that he does not practise the bodhisattva path; it is that he practises it and does not take the bodhisattva path as his aim. This passage is the clearest footnote in this unit to the meaning ‘practising and not clinging’.
38. The emptiness of nature is not brought about by any power—the simile of the wind and clouds in space. 「是性空，先亦性空，中、後亦性空；從本已來常空，無有作者；……」 tr. "This emptiness of nature was the emptiness of nature before, and in the middle and afterwards is also the emptiness of nature; from the beginning it is ever empty, and there is no maker of it; ……" He at once blocks two kinds of misunderstanding: 「非是福德力故使空，亦非智慧力故使空，但性自爾故。」 tr. "It is not by the power of merit that it is made empty, nor is it by the power of wisdom that it is made empty; it is only that its nature is so of itself." Emptiness is not something produced by cultivation. Then what use are the merit and wisdom of the buddhas and the worthies and sages? 「破眾生心中顛倒，令知性空」 tr. "To break the inversion in the minds of beings and cause them to know the emptiness of nature"—what they do lies in breaking inversion, not in creating emptiness. The simile says: space 「性常清淨，不著垢闇」 tr. "is by nature ever pure and is not touched by stain and darkness"; when wind and clouds cover it people then say 「虛空不淨」 tr. "space is impure"; when a fierce wind blows them away people then say 「虛空清淨」 tr. "space is pure", 「而虛空實無垢無淨」 tr. "yet space is in reality without stain and without purity". Applying the simile: 「諸佛亦如是，以說法猛風，吹却顛倒雲翳，令得清淨，而諸法性常自無垢無淨。」 tr. "The buddhas are also like this: with the fierce wind of teaching the Dharma they blow away the clouds and films of inversion and cause beings to obtain purity, while the nature of all dharmas is ever of itself without stain and without purity." The point the simile takes lies only in stain and purity belonging to the clouds and films and not belonging to space. In reading this simile one slip must be guarded against: do not, because of 「無垢無淨」 tr. "without stain and without purity", think that the work of removing obstructions can be discarded—the wind that blows the clouds still has to blow.
39. A life-span as he wishes—the bodhisattva path like an illusion. 「是菩薩知一切法性空故，能行一切種種道度眾生；具足一切道，淨佛國土、教化眾生；得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，隨意壽命。」 tr. "Because this bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are empty of nature, he can practise all kinds of paths to deliver beings; making all paths complete, he purifies buddha-lands and teaches and transforms beings; when he obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he has a life-span as he wishes." The treatise-author specially explains 「隨意壽命」 tr. "a life-span as he wishes": 「菩薩得無生忍法，入如幻菩薩道，能一時變化作千億萬身，周遍十方，具足行一切菩薩道；處處國土中，隨眾生壽命長短而受其形。」 tr. "The bodhisattva obtains the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, enters the bodhisattva path like an illusion, and can at one time transform himself into thousands of koṭi of myriads of bodies, pervading the ten directions, and practise all the bodhisattva paths completely; in lands everywhere, according to the length or shortness of beings' life-spans, he takes on their form." And he offers an actual case as proof: 「如釋迦牟尼佛，於此國土壽命百年，於莊嚴佛國壽七百阿僧祇劫。」 tr. "As Śākyamuni Buddha in this land has a life-span of a hundred years, and in the Adorned Buddha-land a life-span of seven hundred asaṃkhyeya kalpas." The last sentence fixes its position: 「佛法於五不可思議中是第一不可思議。」 tr. "Among the five kinds of the inconceivable, the dharmas of the Buddha are the foremost inconceivable." This passage comes on from ‘because he knows that all dharmas are empty of nature he can practise all paths’, and what it shows is precisely that the emptiness of nature and great function do not obstruct each other—the more one knows emptiness, the more the function is without bounds.
40. Apart from the emptiness of nature there is no path and no fruit. 「佛告須菩提：一切法性空，是諸佛真法！」 tr. "The Buddha told Subhūti: That all dharmas are empty of nature is the true Dharma of the buddhas!" Below this three sentences follow one upon another: 「若得是法，則名為佛；若說此法，名為度眾生。三世佛皆亦如是。」 tr. "If one obtains this Dharma, one is named a Buddha; if one teaches this Dharma, it is named delivering beings. The buddhas of the three times are all likewise." And then he judges it: 「離是性空，則無道無果。」 tr. "Apart from this emptiness of nature there is no path and no fruit." The items of path and fruit are at once given: 「道者，八聖道分；果者，七種果。」 tr. "The path is the eightfold noble path; the fruit is the seven kinds of fruit." Why is there nothing apart from the emptiness of nature? 「若離性空別有定法，則取相生著，著故亦無離欲，無離欲故則無道果」 tr. "If apart from the emptiness of nature there were some other fixed dharma, one would grasp at marks and give rise to clinging; because of clinging there would be no freedom from desire either, and because there is no freedom from desire there would be no path and fruit"—grasping at marks one clings, clinging one is not free from desire, not free from desire there is no path and fruit: three steps linked together. Below this he further speaks of the fruit of practising wholesome dharmas apart from the emptiness of nature: 「雖行布施、持戒，行慈、悲等，善法力故，雖不墮惡道，生天果盡，還墮惡道，如本不異。」 tr. "Although one practises giving and keeping morality, and practises kindness, compassion, and the rest, by the power of wholesome dharmas, although one does not fall into the evil destinies, when the fruit of being born in heaven is exhausted, one still falls into the evil destinies, no different from before." Wholesome dharmas can bring about good destinies but cannot bring one out of the round of rebirth; this is a most important dividing line. The last sentence closes by contrast: 「行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃。行餘法，生著心，有退失；若行此法，則無退失。」 tr. "Practising the dharma of the emptiness of nature, and also not clinging to the emptiness of nature—this is precisely nirvāṇa. Practising other dharmas, one gives rise to a clinging mind and there is retreat and loss; if one practises this dharma, there is no retreat and loss."
41. Practising the emptiness of nature without destroying the mark of the emptiness of nature—the simile of inner and outer space. 「須菩提歡喜白佛言：『甚希有！菩薩行是性空法，亦不壞性空相。』」 tr. "Subhūti joyfully said to the Buddha: ‘Most rare! The bodhisattva practises this dharma of the emptiness of nature, and yet does not destroy the mark of the emptiness of nature.’" The Buddha's answer first sets it up from the reverse side: 「若色等法與性空異，菩薩則不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。何以故？有空法則不可得離。」 tr. "If form and the other dharmas were different from the emptiness of nature, the bodhisattva would not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Why? If there were a dharma of emptiness, parting from it could not be obtained." Next it sets it up from the direct side: 「今色等諸法實性空；菩薩知是法已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Now form and the various dharmas are in reality empty of nature; having known this dharma, the bodhisattva obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Within this he discerns the sickness of ordinary people: 「此中無有一法定是常，但凡夫生我心故，著內外法，不得脫生、老、病、死，……」 tr. "Within this there is not one dharma that is definitely permanent; it is only because ordinary people give rise to the mind of self that they cling to inner and outer dharmas and cannot escape birth, old age, sickness, and death, ……" So the bodhisattva's practice is 「行是性空，和合六波羅蜜，不壞色等諸法相」 tr. "practising this emptiness of nature, he brings the six perfections together and does not destroy the marks of form and the various dharmas". The meaning of 「不壞」 tr. "not destroying" the treatise-author explains most finely: 「所謂若空、若不空、若空不空、若非空非不空；不作如是示諸法相，是名不壞。」 tr. "Namely either empty, or not empty, or empty and not empty, or neither empty nor not empty; not representing the marks of dharmas in this way is named not destroying." Only when none of the four alternatives is made is it called not destroying—whatever is represented, something is destroyed. At the end he takes its not destroying itself as proof: 「色實相即是性空，性空云何自壞性空？」 tr. "The real mark of form is precisely the emptiness of nature; how could the emptiness of nature itself destroy the emptiness of nature?" The simile says: 「如內虛空不壞外虛空，以同體故。」 tr. "As inner space does not destroy outer space, because they are of one substance." Being of one substance, they do not destroy each other; this simile is set exactly against 「指端不能自觸指端」 tr. "the tip of a finger cannot touch the tip of that finger" of the twenty-first passage: that one breaks 「是一」 tr. "being one" by a thing's not facing itself; this one establishes 「不異」 tr. "not different" by one substance's being without destruction; the two similes each rest on one side.
42. Where is awakening obtained—if two marks are discriminated it is not obtained. 「須菩提問：『世尊！若諸法性空無別異，菩薩於何處得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked: ‘World-Honored One! If all dharmas are empty of nature and without distinction or difference, where does the bodhisattva obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?’" Since there is no distinction or difference, there is no place that can be pointed to. 「佛可其意言：『如是！若分別有二相，則不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』」 tr. "The Buddha approved his meaning and said: ‘Just so! If one discriminates and has two marks, one does not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.’" The answer is straight to the point: the place of the question is the place of the sickness—once you want a 「何處」 tr. "where", you have already discriminated two marks. From this passage on, this unit enters the line of interrogation on taking and giving up, right through to the end of the fascicle.
43. Awakening is named real wisdom; it does not practise within form. 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提名實智慧，於色法中不行，所謂不著、不染。」 tr. "Anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is named real wisdom; it does not practise within the dharma of form, namely it does not cling and is not stained." First ask a question: does not practising within form mean that there is something apart from form? The treatise-author at once explains why: 「是智慧不為取色故行，是故不行色中。」 tr. "This wisdom does not practise for the sake of taking form, and therefore it does not practise within form." Not practising is not not taking as object; it is not doing so in order to take. This one sentence pins down the measure of the two Chinese characters 「不行」 tr. "does not practise"—what is blocked is taking, not taking as object.
44. Threefold distinction of taking and giving up. 「須菩提復問：『若菩提不取中行、不捨中行，當於何處行？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked again: ‘If awakening does not practise within taking and does not practise within giving up, where then should it practise?’" Here the treatise-author is not in a hurry to answer where; he first defines the two names 「取」 tr. "taking" and 「捨」 tr. "giving up" layer by layer: 「取名實法，捨名空法。取名著行，捨名不著行。取名二行，捨名不二行。如是等分別。」 tr. "Taking names the real dharma; giving up names the empty dharma. Taking names clinging practice; giving up names non-clinging practice. Taking names the practice of two; giving up names the practice of not two. Such are the distinctions." Of the three layers, the first is the dharma taken as object, the next two are the practising aspect of the mind, and the third is the count of discrimination. Listing these three layers is to make one thing clear: taking and giving up are not one matter but a chain of structure; whoever asks 「何處行」 tr. "where does it practise", what he seeks lies within this chain of structure; and awakening is not within it. The three passages and three similes below break exactly this, in order.
45. Where does the conjured person practise—no mind and no mental-factor dharmas. 「佛反問須菩提：『於汝意云何？佛所化人為何處行？』」 tr. "The Buddha in turn asked Subhūti: ‘What do you think? Where does the person conjured by the Buddha practise?’" The next sentence reads: 「須菩提言：『是化人無處行，化人無心、無心數法故。菩提亦如是。』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘This conjured person has no place in which it practises, because the conjured person has no mind and no mental-factor dharmas. Awakening is also like this.’" The first simile. The point it takes lies in the six Chinese characters 「無心、無心數法」 tr. "no mind and no mental-factor dharmas"—for a place of practice to be set up, there must be a mind that can practise; since there is neither mind nor mental factors, there is of itself no place of practice. Subhūti himself answers 「菩提亦如是」 tr. "awakening is also like this", from which it can be seen that this simile does not wait for the Buddha to apply it.
46. Where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise? 「復問：『於汝意云何？阿羅漢夢中菩提為在何處行？』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘What do you think? Where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise?’" The next sentence reads: 「須菩提言：『阿羅漢尚不眠，何況夢中菩提有行處！』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘The arhat does not even sleep, how much less could awakening in a dream have a place in which it practises!’" The second simile, one layer heavier than the previous simile: the conjured person is without mind, while here there is not even the condition of a dream. Subhūti's way of answering is by steps—there is not even sleep, how much less a place where awakening in a dream practises. This answer seems offhand, yet it draws out the threefold question and answer below, and is the place at the gathering-up of this unit where the most ink is spent.
47. Why does the Buddha use a dream to ask—he asks because there is definitely no place. The question first distinguishes the three kinds of awakening and the minds in which they practise: 「菩提有三種：阿羅漢菩提、辟支佛菩提、佛菩提。阿羅漢菩提不在有漏心中、無記心中行，但在無漏心中行；……」 tr. "Awakening is of three kinds: the awakening of the arhat, the awakening of the pratyekabuddha, and the awakening of the Buddha. The arhat's awakening does not practise within the mind with outflows or within the indeterminate mind; it practises only within the mind without outflows; ……" Since it is so, 「佛何以故問『阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行』？」 tr. "why does the Buddha ask ‘where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise’?" The question is reasonable: the mind in a dream is not without outflows, and the arhat's awakening from the first does not practise within it, so is this question not superfluous? The answer: 「阿羅漢是一切漏盡聖人則無夢，佛以必無處故問，欲明必無行法。」 tr. "The arhat is a sage whose outflows are all exhausted, and so he has no dreams; the Buddha asks because there is definitely no place, wishing to make clear that there is definitely no dharma of practising." The vital point of the answer lies in 「佛以必無處故問」 tr. "the Buddha asks because there is definitely no place"—the Buddha takes precisely a realm where there is decidedly no place in order to ask, so as to make plain that awakening has no dharma of practising. Taking the most extreme case to set up a general rule—this is a way of reading the sūtra the treatise-author often uses.
48. Even the Buddha sleeps, so why is it said that the arhat does not even sleep—there are two kinds of sleep. The question cites two matters as proof. The first is the Buddha's instruction to Ānanda: 「汝四襞優多羅僧敷，我欲小眠，汝為諸比丘說法。」 tr. "Fold the uttarāsaṅga in four and spread it out; I wish to sleep a little; you teach the Dharma for the bhikṣus." The second is the question and answer of the Nirgrantha Satyaka: he asked 「佛自念晝日有眠不」 tr. "does the Buddha, thinking of himself, sleep by day", and the Buddha said 「春末夏初，以時熱故小眠息，除食患故」 tr. "at the end of spring and the beginning of summer, because the season is hot, I sleep and rest a little, to remove the discomfort after eating"; the Nirgrantha Satyaka put forward what others said, 「晝日眠是癡相」 tr. "sleeping by day is a mark of delusion", and the Buddha then corrected the name and mark: 「汝置！汝不別癡相。諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡；若是諸漏永滅無餘，雖眠不名癡。」 tr. "Stop! You do not distinguish the mark of delusion. The outflows that can make the later body continue without break—this is named the mark of delusion; even if one constantly does not sleep, it is still delusion; if these outflows have ceased forever without remainder, even if one sleeps it is not named delusion." Since the Buddha himself says that he sleeps, then 「須菩提何以言『阿羅漢尚不眠』」 tr. "why does Subhūti say ‘the arhat does not even sleep’"? The answer sets up a distinction to resolve it: 「眠有二種：一者、眠而夢，二者、眠而不夢。」 tr. "There are two kinds of sleep: first, sleeping with dreams; second, sleeping without dreams." The arhat's sleep belongs to the latter, and why it is so is that 「非為安隱著樂故眠，但受四大身法，應有食、息、眠、覺，是故少許時息名為『眠』；不為夢眠」 tr. "he does not sleep for the sake of ease and attachment to pleasure; it is only that, having taken on the dharma of a body of the four elements, he must have food, rest, sleep, and waking; therefore a little while of rest is named ‘sleep’; he does not sleep for dreaming". Since he does not sleep for dreaming, Subhūti's words are not mistaken. The crux of this passage lies in the Buddha's own correction of the name of the mark of delusion: delusion is fastened not to sleeping or not sleeping, but to whether the outflows have ceased or not.
49. Someone says—one who is free from desire and has obtained concentration does not sleep. 「有人言：『離欲者，得禪定，色界繫四大入身中，身心歡樂則無有眠；慧解脫阿羅漢，色界四大不入身中，故有眠。』」 tr. "Someone says: ‘One who is free from desire and has obtained meditative concentration has the four elements bound to the form realm enter his body; body and mind are joyful and so there is no sleep; the arhat liberated by wisdom does not have the four elements of the form realm enter his body, and so he sleeps.’" This account is not of the same category as the preceding answer: the preceding answer divides by the two kinds of sleep; this account divides by two classes of arhat—one who is free from desire and has obtained meditative concentration does not sleep because the four elements of the form realm enter his body; the arhat liberated by wisdom sleeps because the four elements of the form realm do not enter his body. The treatise-author records it and follows it on with 「是故須菩提言：『阿羅漢尚不眠。』」 tr. "Therefore Subhūti says: ‘The arhat does not even sleep.’", and the last sentence makes a general gathering-up: 「是故阿羅漢有眠、有不眠。」 tr. "Therefore among arhats there are those who sleep and those who do not sleep." The two accounts stand side by side and he does not judge which is better; he takes only what they share in coming back to Subhūti's words being not mistaken. In reading this passage attention should be paid to the treatise-author's practice: wherever an older account can hold, he records it and does not discard it.
50. The Buddha shows sleep by skilful means. 「佛以方便力，為度眾生，受人法故現眠。」 tr. "The Buddha, by the power of skilful means, in order to deliver beings, having taken on the dharma of humans, shows sleep." One sentence resolves the question of the forty-eighth passage. The Buddha's sleep is not within the two kinds of sleep; it is a third kind—a showing that conforms to the dharma of humans for the sake of delivering beings. This sentence answers exactly to 「方便力者，畢竟無法、亦無眾生，而度眾生」 tr. "the power of skilful means is this: ultimately there are no dharmas and no beings, and yet he delivers beings" of the twenty-ninth passage: that speaks of the substance of skilful means; this shows the mark of skilful means.
51. Since there is no place in which it practises, how does one go from the first ground to the tenth ground? 「須菩提復問：『若不行者，云何菩薩從一地至十地，乃至得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked again: ‘If it does not practise, how does the bodhisattva go from the first ground to the tenth ground, and so on up to obtaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?’" With no place of practice, the stages have nothing on which to be set up; this objection is most upright. 「佛可其意」 tr. "The Buddha approved his meaning", and then supplies what was lacking: 「菩提雖無處行，未具足六波羅蜜諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Although awakening has no place in which it practises, if the six perfections and the various dharmas are not yet made complete, one never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Having no place to practise is the principle; making the myriad practices complete is the matter; the two stand side by side. Below this he speaks of the bodhisattva's abiding and not abiding: 「是菩薩住色相，乃至菩提相中住，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；不捨色等法，亦不著菩提相，知色等法即是菩提，常寂滅，無法若增、若減，若垢、若淨，若得道、若得果。」 tr. "This bodhisattva abides in the mark of form, and so on up to abiding within the mark of awakening, and obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; he does not give up form and the other dharmas, nor does he cling to the mark of awakening; he knows that form and the other dharmas are precisely awakening, ever quiescent, with no dharma that either increases or decreases, is either stained or pure, either obtains the path or obtains the fruit." Abiding and not clinging, not giving up and not taking. At the end he gathers it up with the two truths: 「但世諦故說菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，第一義中無有色乃至菩提。」 tr. "It is only by reason of worldly truth that it is said that the bodhisattva obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; within the highest meaning there is no form and so on up to no awakening."
52. When you obtained the path, did you obtain anything? 「佛欲明是事故，反問須菩提：『於汝意云何？汝斷煩惱得道時，有所得不？所謂如夢等五眾、若道、若道果，決定一法不？』」 tr. "The Buddha, wishing to make this matter clear, in turn asked Subhūti: ‘What do you think? When you severed the afflictions and obtained the path, did you obtain anything? Namely the five aggregates that are like a dream and so on, or the path, or the fruit of the path—was there one decided dharma?’" This question is the sharpest: taking Subhūti's own realisation as the case, it asks him whether, on the day he obtained the path, he obtained a single dharma. 「須菩提言：『不得也！』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘I did not obtain anything!’" The treatise-author supplies the reason for this answer: 「須菩提意：住無相門中入道，云何取相？」 tr. "Subhūti's meaning: having entered the path abiding within the gate of signlessness, how could he grasp at marks?" He entered by the gate of signlessness; at the time of entering there was no mark to be grasped, and so at the time of obtaining too there was no dharma to be obtained. The wonder of this passage lies in the Buddha's not citing another case but citing the questioner's own experience—the principle does not wait to be argued, and is clear of itself.
53. Since you did not obtain any dharma, how is it said that you are an arhat? 「佛言：『汝若乃至不得微細少法，云何說汝為阿羅漢？』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘If you do not obtain even the most subtle trifling dharma, how is it said that you are an arhat?’" He presses to the bottom: since not one dharma is obtained, to what is the name of arhat fastened? 「須菩提言：『世諦法故，說言阿羅漢；凡夫顛倒法中有得、有失，有眾生、有法。』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘By reason of worldly dharmas, it is said, arhat; within the inverted dharmas of ordinary people there is gain and there is loss, there are beings and there are dharmas.’" The answer is clean: the name is fastened to worldly truth, gain and loss are fastened to inversion. This answer is the model the Buddha will take up and use in the next passage—Subhūti himself has already spoken out the division of the two truths.
54. Awakening is also like this—even the nature of dharmas is unfindable. 「佛言：『菩提亦如是，世諦法故，說有菩薩、說有色等乃至菩提；菩提中，無有定法，亦無眾生，亦無菩提。……』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘Awakening is also like this: by reason of worldly dharmas, it is said that there is a bodhisattva, said that there is form and so on up to awakening; within awakening there is no fixed dharma, nor are there beings, nor is there awakening. ……’" The Buddha takes Subhūti's own answer as a pattern for awakening, and in one sentence it fits. Below this he speaks of the bodhisattva's contemplation: 「菩薩觀是菩提法，無有增、無有減。所以者何？諸法性如是。」 tr. "The bodhisattva contemplates this dharma of awakening as without increase and without decrease. Why? Because the nature of dharmas is like this." Then one layer further: 「菩薩亦不得是諸法性，何況有初發心乃至十地，及六波羅蜜、三十七品乃至十八不共法當有所得！無有是處！」 tr. "The bodhisattva does not find even this nature of dharmas, how much less could there be the first arousing of the mind and so on up to the ten grounds, and the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, that should have something to be attained! There is no such case!" Even the nature of dharmas is unfindable, how much less the rest. For this the treatise-author gives one more sentence of reason: 「諸法性是一切法根本尚不可得，何況六波羅蜜等是作法當有定實！」 tr. "The nature of dharmas, which is the root of all dharmas, is itself unfindable; how much less could the six perfections and the rest, which are made dharmas, have a fixed reality!" Since the root is unfindable, how could made dharmas have a fixed reality? The last sentence is where the whole fascicle comes to rest: 「如是！菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生。」 tr. "Just so! The bodhisattva practising this nature of dharmas, when he becomes a Buddha, can greatly benefit beings." Not obtaining a single dharma, and yet greatly benefiting beings—the whole unit, which began asking from 「為實際故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality", only here comes to its close: what is called being for the sake of the limit of reality is precisely being for the sake of beings in just this way.
Do Not Misread
Do not read 「為實際故」 tr. "for the sake of the limit of reality" as the Buddha not permitting one to act for the sake of beings. At the opening of the passage the treatise-author writes out the meaning of the two parties separately: what Subhūti has in mind is 「菩薩為度眾生故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of delivering beings"; what the Buddha means is 「菩薩為一切實法故，行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "it is for the sake of all real dharmas that the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā". What is changed is the place for whose sake one acts, not the mind that acts for its sake; the proof lies in the text below—the seeking all the way through the twelve links of causes and conditions is, sentence by sentence, for the sake of extinguishing the suffering of beings. If it were read as the Buddha denying the delivering of beings, then the whole passage of the nineteenth section from 「菩薩於此眾生起大悲心」 tr. "toward these beings the bodhisattva gives rise to the mind of great compassion" onward would have no footing.
Do not read 「止齊無明」 tr. "stopping at ignorance" as ignorance being the first cause. To 「無始生死展轉甚多，何以止齊無明」 tr. "since beginningless time birth and death have turned round a great many times; why does the tracing stop at ignorance" the treatise-author answers only 「是事先已答」 tr. "this matter has already been answered before", and its direct principle lies in the text below: 「若無明因緣更求其本，則無窮，即墮邊見，失涅槃道，……」 tr. "If one seeks further for the root of the causes and conditions of ignorance, there is no end to it; one then falls into the extreme view and loses the path of nirvāṇa, ……" Stopping at ignorance is in order not to fall into an extreme view, not an assertion that there is nothing at all before ignorance. What is blocked is tracing back endlessly toward the prior limit; what is permitted is seeking its substance and mark inwardly—the eighteenth section's 「求無明體相；求時，即入畢竟空」 tr. "he seeks the substance and mark of ignorance; when he seeks, he at once enters ultimate emptiness" is precisely the latter. The two matters are wholly different in direction and may not be mixed up as one.
Do not read 「求無明體，即時是明」 tr. "seeking the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination" as obtaining another illumination after ignorance is broken. The two Chinese characters 「即時」 tr. "at that very moment" are the joint: it is not first extinguishing one thing and then producing another; it is that at the very moment its substance is sought, no substance can be found, and no substance being findable is precisely illumination. If it were read as two things replacing each other, then the phrase 「所謂諸法實相，名為實際」 tr. "namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality" would become a realm waiting to be taken, and the 「實際中，實際相亦無」 tr. "within the limit of reality there is not even the mark of the limit of reality" of the text below would contradict it.
Do not read 「實際、眾生際不異」 tr. "the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different" as the two being one. Subhūti makes his objection precisely with 「是一」 tr. "being one"—「若眾生際、實際不異，云何以實際著實際」 tr. "if the limit of beings and the limit of reality are not different, how can the limit of reality be set upon the limit of reality"—and the treatise-author's answer sends away all four alternatives together: 「菩薩知是二法不一不二，亦不不一、亦不不二，……」 tr. "The bodhisattva knows that these two dharmas are not one and not two, and also not not-one and also not not-two, ……" He further says plainly 「一亦不可得」 tr. "even one is unfindable", and sets out the reason, 「若是一，則壞實際相」 tr. "if it were one, the mark of the limit of reality would be destroyed". Not different is not one, and not one and yet not two; if it were taken as one, the limit of reality would become a thing with self-nature, and the meaning of this chapter would be wholly lost.
Do not read ‘saying that giving is empty in the three times’ as urging people that there is no need to give. The order of the sūtra text and the treatise text is two steps: first 「從慳中拔出」 tr. "pulling out of stinginess", then 「為說布施實相」 tr. "speaking for them of the real mark of giving". The treatise-author says plainly that emptiness is spoken only because of the trouble of beings' 「深著布施」 tr. "clinging deeply to giving", and that after emptiness is spoken what it returns to is still 「則得甘露味、甘露果」 tr. "then one obtains the flavour of ambrosia and the fruit of ambrosia" and 「以方便力，布施門度眾生」 tr. "by the power of skilful means he delivers beings through the gate of giving". If the second step were brought before the first, it would be discarding practice by means of emptiness—precisely the view of annihilation that this treatise breaks everywhere.
Do not treat 「性空」 tr. "the emptiness of nature" as a mark that can be taken up to raise an objection. That answer of the thirtieth section is the pivot of the whole unit: 「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？若有性空相，應當作難！」 tr. "The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection? If there were a mark of the emptiness of nature, you would be right to raise an objection!" Every inference of the kind ‘since all is empty, then such-and-such cannot be established’ has as its hidden premise the taking of emptiness as a thing with a mark. The treatise-author does not argue with its conclusion; he points out directly that its premise does not stand. This method appears again and again in this unit, and in reading one should recognise its consistency.
Do not read 「破眾生妄想，不破眾生」 tr. "breaking beings' false imaginings, not breaking beings" as beings being really existent. The dividing line this sentence sets up is: what is broken is false imagining, not the person; and that the person has no fixed reality the earlier text has already said plainly, 「眾生無有定實」 tr. "beings have no fixed reality". Only by looking at the two sentences together is the full meaning had—not breaking beings is not because beings are really existent and cannot be broken; it is because what makes the sickness lies in false imagining, and when false imagining is broken the matter is done.
Do not read ‘the dharmas without outflows are not like the highest meaning’ as the Buddha's Dharma being something that can be discarded. What it rests on lies only in 「以生滅故」 tr. "because of arising and ceasing"—conditioned dharmas cannot be the highest meaning, and that is all. The proof lies in the next passage: the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, 「諸異法，不名為一道」 tr. "these different dharmas are not named the one path", and why? 「此皆是有為法，轉變無常故」 tr. "because these are all conditioned dharmas, changing and impermanent". And the fifty-first section says plainly again: 「未具足六波羅蜜諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "if the six perfections and the various dharmas are not yet made complete, one never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Not being like the highest meaning is not the same as being something one may leave unpractised.
Do not read 「非是福德力故使空，亦非智慧力故使空」 tr. "it is not by the power of merit that it is made empty, nor is it by the power of wisdom that it is made empty" as practice being useless. What this sentence blocks is the misunderstanding ‘emptiness is produced by cultivation’; and the same passage goes straight on to say that the buddhas and the worthies and sages, 「以大福德、智慧方便力故，破眾生心中顛倒，令知性空」 tr. "by the power of great merit, wisdom, and skilful means, break the inversion in the minds of beings and cause them to know the emptiness of nature". The simile of space has the same intent—stain and purity do not belong to space, and yet the fierce wind that blows away the clouds and films still has to blow. What is empty is not made by any power, while removing obstructions needs exactly that power.
Do not read 「阿羅漢尚不眠」 tr. "the arhat does not even sleep" as the arhat having no sleep at all. The treatise-author himself sets up this objection and himself resolves it: 「眠有二種：一者、眠而夢，二者、眠而不夢。」 tr. "There are two kinds of sleep: first, sleeping with dreams; second, sleeping without dreams." The arhat 「但受四大身法，應有食、息、眠、覺」 tr. "only, having taken on the dharma of a body of the four elements, must have food, rest, sleep, and waking"; what he lacks is dreaming sleep, not the sleep of rest. At the end he further records a differing account, gathered up in 「是故阿羅漢有眠、有不眠」 tr. "therefore among arhats there are those who sleep and those who do not sleep". If it were read as there being no sleep at all, the passage in which the Buddha himself says 「春末夏初，以時熱故小眠息」 tr. "at the end of spring and the beginning of summer, because the season is hot, I sleep and rest a little" would have nowhere to be placed.
Do not read the Buddha's own saying that he sleeps as the Buddha being the same as ordinary people. In the question of the Nirgrantha Satyaka the Buddha has already himself corrected the name: 「諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡；若是諸漏永滅無餘，雖眠不名癡。」 tr. "The outflows that can make the later body continue without break—this is named the mark of delusion; even if one constantly does not sleep, it is still delusion; if these outflows have ceased forever without remainder, even if one sleeps it is not named delusion." The criterion of delusion lies in whether the outflows have ceased or not, not in sleeping or not sleeping. And the treatise-author adds one more sentence: 「佛以方便力，為度眾生，受人法故現眠。」 tr. "The Buddha, by the power of skilful means, in order to deliver beings, having taken on the dharma of humans, shows sleep." The Buddha's sleep is a showing, and does not enter into the count of the former two kinds.
Do not read 「世諦法故，說言阿羅漢」 tr. "by reason of worldly dharmas, it is said, arhat" as the noble fruit being false. Subhūti's answer has two sentences, which must be read together: 「世諦法故，說言阿羅漢；凡夫顛倒法中有得、有失，有眾生、有法。」 tr. "By reason of worldly dharmas, it is said, arhat; within the inverted dharmas of ordinary people there is gain and there is loss, there are beings and there are dharmas." The first sentence says where the name is fastened; the second says where gain and loss lie. The name is fastened to worldly truth and is not false; gain and loss belong to inversion and are not really existent; if because of 「世諦故說」 tr. "said by reason of worldly truth" one thought the noble fruit could be discarded, then the Buddha's words below, 「菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生」 tr. "the bodhisattva practising this nature of dharmas, when he becomes a Buddha, can greatly benefit beings", would also have to be discarded.
Bearing on Practice
Take 「眾生不知由生有苦，若遭苦時，但怨恨人」 tr. "beings do not know that suffering comes from birth; when they meet with suffering they only resent other people" and examine with it the mind with which you meet events. This is the first method of verification this unit gives, and it is most useful: there is no need to ask yourself whether you believe in the truth of suffering; only look at where your mind goes at the time of suffering—to blaming other people, to blaming yourself for not having taken proper care, or back to where suffering comes from. The difference among these three places is the difference between shallow and deep insight, and within a single day there is a great deal by which to examine it.
Take 「餘法或有苦、或無苦，是生法必定有苦」 tr. "other dharmas may have suffering or may have no suffering; this dharma of birth definitely has suffering" and tell maybe apart from necessity. People who apply themselves often take a condition of maybe as a cause of necessity and treat it—changing their surroundings, changing their methods, changing their circumstances and people, thinking that once these are removed there will be no suffering. This sentence is a measuring-rod: whatever has been changed and the suffering still comes, what was changed was not the cause.
Take 「服藥但能治應起病」 tr. "taking medicine can cure only the illness that is about to arise" and settle with it your own regret over the past. Past suffering is already formed; present suffering 「先世因緣成就故不可却」 tr. "cannot be pushed away, because the causes and conditions of former lives have already been accomplished"; what strength can be applied to lies only in the cause of the future. The uselessness of regret lies precisely in its spending strength where strength cannot be applied; and the treatise-author says in the same passage 「良醫、滅火人勤方便亦不虛」 tr. "the striving and skilful means of the good physician and of the person putting out the fire are not in vain either"—limiting the range is not urging people to passivity; it is telling them to put their strength where it can be used.
Take 「小者未能起業，故名為愛；增長能起業，故名為取」 tr. "when it is small and cannot yet give rise to deeds, it is therefore named craving; when it has grown and can give rise to deeds, it is therefore named grasping" and recognise the position you are in now. One and the same thought of greed is, in the position of craving, only an inclination, and in the position of grasping can already make deeds; between the two positions there is a stretch in which one can still turn back. The point where practice applies its strength mostly lies on just this stretch—not waiting until it has become a deed and then repenting, but recognising it at the moment it turns from craving into grasping.
Take 「如小兒蹈火履氷，但有觸，未知苦樂」 tr. "as a small child treads on fire and steps on ice: there is only contact, and it does not yet know suffering and pleasure" and look at how coarse or fine you are. When a realm appears before one, some are only at contact, some are already at feeling, some have long been at grasping without knowing it themselves. This text speaks of one person's growing up, but taken to look at the arising and ceasing of a single thought it fits as well—the earlier the stage at which one can recognise it, the less strength it costs.
Take 「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難」 tr. "the emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection" and examine for yourself the way you talk about emptiness. Whenever you come out with words of the kind ‘since it is all empty, then still ……’, first turn back and look: has that ‘it is all empty’ already become a thing in your own mind? If so, then all the conclusions inferred from it are not to be relied on—the sickness lies not in the conclusion but in the premise.
Take 「菩薩住此中，但破眾生妄想，不破眾生」 tr. "the bodhisattva abides within this and only breaks beings' false imaginings; he does not break beings" and settle with it how you deal with people. To reason with someone with the intent of breaking the person already goes against this sentence; what should be broken is only that one false imagining, and the person must be kept. This saying can be used in teaching people, in disputes, and in self-reproach—at the time of self-reproach too one should break the false imagining and not break oneself.
Take 「行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃」 tr. "practising the dharma of the emptiness of nature, and also not clinging to the emptiness of nature—this is precisely nirvāṇa" and tell practising apart from clinging. Practising a dharma and thinking that holding on to it is arriving home—this is called clinging; practising and knowing it is empty of nature, and not holding even to the emptiness of nature—only this is called practising. The treatise-author goes straight on to give the sign by which to verify it: 「行餘法，生著心，有退失；若行此法，則無退失。」 tr. "Practising other dharmas, one gives rise to a clinging mind and there is retreat and loss; if one practises this dharma, there is no retreat and loss." Whether or not there is retreat and loss is the most honest of mirrors.
Take 「若離性空，雖行布施、持戒，行慈、悲等，善法力故，雖不墮惡道，生天果盡，還墮惡道，如本不異」 tr. "if one is apart from the emptiness of nature, then although one practises giving and keeping morality, and practises kindness, compassion, and the rest, by the power of wholesome dharmas, although one does not fall into the evil destinies, when the fruit of being born in heaven is exhausted, one still falls into the evil destinies, no different from before" and weigh with it the direction of what you cultivate. Wholesome dharmas can bring about good destinies—this is true; good destinies do not bring one out of the round of rebirth—this too is true. Remember the two sentences together, and you will neither slight merit nor take merit as the ultimate—what is lacking is only the one act of ‘dedication to the emptiness of nature’.
Take 「不作如是示諸法相，是名不壞」 tr. "not representing the marks of dharmas in this way is named not destroying" and check your habits in teaching the Dharma and in talking to yourself. Empty, not empty, both empty and not empty, neither empty nor not empty—as soon as one falls into any one of the four alternatives to show to people, something is destroyed. This saying need not be used only in teaching the Dharma; when in your own mind you pass a final verdict on a matter, it is the same case.
Take 「是智慧不為取色故行，是故不行色中」 tr. "this wisdom does not practise for the sake of taking form, and therefore it does not practise within form" and tell taking as object apart from taking. A realm cannot but be taken as object; taking it as object and not doing so in order to take is precisely not practising within it. To think that practice is not coming into contact with realms is to read 「不行」 tr. "does not practise" as not taking as object; the real dividing line lies in the motive—is it in order to take, or not in order to take?
Take 「住無相門中入道，云何取相」 tr. "having entered the path abiding within the gate of signlessness, how could he grasp at marks" and ask yourself what you seek. When one applies oneself and in one's heart secretly expects a result that can be pointed to, this saying is a question straight to the head: by which gate did you go in? If it was by the gate of signlessness, then that result you expect itself goes against the gate.
Take 「諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡」 tr. "the outflows that can make the later body continue without break—this is named the mark of delusion; even if one constantly does not sleep, it is still delusion" and reset your own criterion. Practitioners most easily examine themselves by outward signs—whether they sit long or not, whether they sleep little or not. These words of the Buddha move the criterion onto whether the outflows have ceased or not. Diligence in outward signs can be a help; it cannot be proof.
Take 「菩薩亦不得是諸法性，何況有初發心乃至十地，及六波羅蜜、三十七品乃至十八不共法當有所得」 tr. "the bodhisattva does not find even this nature of dharmas, how much less could there be the first arousing of the mind and so on up to the ten grounds, and the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, that should have something to be attained" and gather in your mind that counts up merit. Stages, gates of the Dharma, daily practices—whatever can be counted is a made dharma; since even the nature of dharmas is unfindable, how much less the things counted. This saying is not telling people not to cultivate; it is telling them to cultivate and not count—the last sentence, 「得佛時，能大利益眾生」 tr. "when he becomes a Buddha, he can greatly benefit beings", is precisely the fruit after not counting.
Further Resonances
Within the whole chapter this unit is the 「論」 tr. "treatise" half, and its relation to the sūtra section the ancient masters judged most clearly. Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, explaining this chapter, sets up its main intent at the very beginning of the chapter, saying: 「此下第三、明為化之意。」 tr. "From here on, third: making clear the intent of transforming." He also says: 「然實際是無之異名、正法之別目耳」 tr. "Yet the limit of reality is simply another name for non-existence, a different heading for the true Dharma"—taking 「實際」 tr. "the limit of reality" as another name for non-existence and a different heading for the true Dharma is of the same category as the treatise-author's words 「求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際」 tr. "when he seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality". His division of the chapter's sections is 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, directly making clear the intent of transforming, establishing beings in the limit; second, broadly making clear the dharma of the bodhisattva's establishing." On the pivot the treatise-author points out, what Jizang states is wholly the same as the treatise text: 「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法。」 tr. "Before, he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas."
On the most important meaning of this unit, 「二際不異」 tr. "the two limits are not different", Jizang further sets up a question and answer to show what it breaks: 「有所得人皆云實際是真諦故，眾生是世諦」 tr. "people with something to be attained all say that the limit of reality is the real truth, and so beings are worldly truth", and hence there is the fault of 「但為度眾生故行般若，不度真諦故般若」 tr. "practising prajñā only for the sake of delivering beings, and not practising prajñā for the sake of delivering the real truth"; 「所以佛破之云二際不異。度眾生即如度實際，實際無所度，度眾生亦無所度也」 tr. "therefore the Buddha breaks this, saying the two limits are not different. Delivering beings is just like delivering the limit of reality; in the limit of reality there is nothing to deliver, and in delivering beings too there is nothing delivered". This breaks the same sickness as the treatise-author's passage 「異者，實際是畢竟空，眾生際是決定有」 tr. "different means: the limit of reality is ultimate emptiness, the limit of beings is definitely existent". On Subhūti's objection of 「以實際著實際」 tr. "setting the limit of reality upon the limit of reality", the simile Jizang cites is the same as the treatise text: 「一際云何還建立一際？如指端不自觸」 tr. "How can one limit in turn establish one limit? As the tip of a finger does not touch itself"
On the passage on the eighteen emptinesses, Jizang's explanation can be read alongside the treatise-author's 「若性不空，是為壞空體」 tr. "if their nature were not empty, this would be destroying the substance of emptiness": 「以十八空入諸法空，此十八空亦空，乃名性空」 tr. "by the eighteen emptinesses one enters the emptiness of all dharmas; these eighteen emptinesses too are empty, and only this is named the emptiness of nature", and he also says 「故知有性不可得、空性不可得」 tr. "so it is known that the nature of existence is unfindable and the nature of emptiness is unfindable". This is precisely the meaning of 「性空名空性亦無」 tr. "the emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist" in the thirtieth section of this unit, while Jizang, speaking of both 「有性」 tr. "the nature of existence" and 「空性」 tr. "the nature of emptiness" as unfindable, puts it more directly.
On the passage at the end of the fascicle about whether the arhat sleeps or does not sleep, the two kinds Jizang judges are wholly the same as the treatise-author's: 「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. "There are two kinds of sleep: first, sleeping with dreams—the arhat has no such sleep; second, the sleep of resting—the arhat has this sleep." On the differing account recorded in this treatise, he also plainly fastens it to its source, saying 「論更出一解云」 tr. "the treatise further puts forward an explanation, saying", and states its meaning, saying 「慧解脫羅漢不得色界定，故無色界四大事入身有眠也」 tr. "the arhat liberated by wisdom does not obtain the concentrations of the form realm, and so there is no entering of the four elements of the form realm into his body, and he sleeps". So Jizang regards the passage of this treatise beginning 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" as one explanation recorded separately by the treatise-author, and not as an account set up by the treatise-author himself—this can be a help in reading the forty-ninth section of this unit.
On the items of path and fruit, under 「果謂七果，道謂八正」 tr. "the fruit means the seven fruits; the path means the eight right ones" Jizang further puts forward his own account: 「七果應是四果，緣覺佛菩薩也。」 tr. "The seven fruits should be the four fruits, plus the pratyekabuddha, the Buddha, and the bodhisattva." This treatise says here only 「果者，七種果」 tr. "the fruit is the seven kinds of fruit" and does not list their items; Jizang's count is his own judgement, and it is recorded alongside without deciding it on the treatise-author's behalf. On the simile of the conjured person, Jizang marks its class of simile, saying 「舉化人喻，菩提無處行是處喻也」 tr. "the simile of the conjured person is raised; it is a simile of place, that awakening has no place in which it practises"; on Subhūti's question at the end of the fascicle, 「云何菩薩從一地至十地」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva go from the first ground to the tenth ground", Jizang judges it 「第二段、菩提雖寂滅要具萬行方乃得之」 tr. "the second section: although awakening is quiescent, one must be complete with the myriad practices and only then obtains it"—which agrees with this unit's fifty-first section's reading, ‘having no place to practise is the principle; making the myriad practices complete is the matter’.
Huiying's Commentary lacks an explanation of this chapter: its extant text stops within Chapter 69, The Great Skilful Means, and this chapter lies wholly outside the range of his commentary—it is not that there is commentary on it that fails to explain it. Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises is by its form a topical discussion of profound meaning and not a chapter-by-chapter commentary, and has nothing fastened to this chapter. In the literature of the Tiantai line too, no explicit citation of this chapter's title or word-for-word citation of the text of this unit has been seen. All of these are marked as lacking according to the facts, and are not filled with text from elsewhere.
At the place where the end of the fascicle closes, the various editions' headings differ, and they are recorded side by side below without forcing a judgement. The base text at the end of the fascicle reads 「大智度論卷第九十」 tr. "Fascicle Ninety of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa"; the Ishiyama-dera manuscript adds 「釋第七十九品竟」 tr. "the explanation of the seventy-ninth chapter ends" under the character before this, for the character 「論」 tr. "treatise" reads 「論經」 tr. "treatise-sūtra", and for the fascicle number further reads 「九十一」 tr. "ninety-one"; the Shōgozō manuscript for the character 「論」 tr. "treatise" reads 「經論」 tr. "sūtra-treatise", and further adds 「釋第七十九品」 tr. "explanation of the seventy-ninth chapter" under the fascicle number. So the Shōgozō and Ishiyama manuscripts both call this chapter 「第七十九品」 tr. "the seventy-ninth chapter", always one less than the base text's 「第八十」 tr. "eightieth"; this pattern of one less is also the same at the heading at the start of this chapter's fascicle—consistent from head to tail and not a single isolated difference. Why the chapter numbering of the two lines differs belongs to the differences handed down from of old; it is recorded as it is, and choosing between them belongs to the translator.