大智度論 淨佛國土品之上Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Purifying the Buddha-land, Part 1 of 2

Purifying the Buddha-land, First Part: What Is the Bodhisattva Path; Training in All Dharmas without Clinging; Practising without Abiding; Awakening Is Precisely the Path; How Buddha-lands Are Purified; the Items of the Coarse Deeds of Body, Speech, and Mind

What Is Being Asked

The chapter is named "Purifying the Buddha-land", yet reading the First Part unit from head to tail, the only place that speaks directly of the pure land is one small passage at the very end—Subhūti asks 「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva purify buddha-lands", the Buddha answers 「自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業，亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」 tr. "himself removes the coarse deeds of body, removes the coarse deeds of speech, removes the coarse deeds of mind, and also purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others", and then lists the items of the coarse deeds. That whole large stretch before it asks entirely about other matters: what the bodhisattva path is, why, all dharmas being empty, one must still train in all dharmas, why practising the path does not abide, by what path awakening is obtained. The first question the First Part has to answer is this seemingly off-topic way of proceeding: how does the asking about the path lead out into the asking about the pure land?

The sūtra itself gives the clue. The occasion of Subhūti's question is 「菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴」 tr. "abiding in this path, the bodhisattva can take on such a great adornment"—what he asks about from the first is not the names of the path, but the path that can accomplish the great adornment. The Buddha opens the bodhisattva path all the way from the six perfections to 「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva", and then presses out 「菩薩不學一切法，不能得一切種智」 tr. "if the bodhisattva does not train in all dharmas, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds"; Subhūti then asks back on the meaning of emptiness, and the Buddha then answers with 「眾生實不知一切法空」 tr. "beings in reality do not know that all dharmas are empty", so that the bodhisattva, having obtained the path, 「分別諸法為眾生說」 tr. "distinguishes dharmas and proclaims them for beings". It is pushed all the way to awakening and the path being not two; Subhūti has nothing more to ask, and so he turns to ask about purifying buddha-lands. The treatise-author points out this turning point very plainly: 「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事。」 tr. "Subhūti has heard from the Buddha the mark of awakening and the mark of the path, and the bringing of beings to accomplishment is finished; now he asks about the matter of purifying buddha-lands." The mark of the path fully spoken, the bringing of beings to accomplishment fully spoken, what remains is the place where beings dwell—the land. Asking about the path and asking about the land are the two ends of one line.

The second question lies in 「不住」 tr. "not abiding". The sūtra lists a long string of not abiding: not abiding in the six perfections, not abiding in the four dhyānas and so on up to the nine successive absorptions, not abiding in the fruits of the paths and the pratyekabuddha path either. Subhūti asks why, and the Buddha answers with two causes and conditions: the first is 「諸道果性空，無住處，亦無所用法，亦無住者」 tr. "the nature of the fruits of the paths is empty; there is no place to abide, nor any dharma made use of, nor anyone who abides", the second is 「不以少事為足」 tr. "he is not content with a small matter". The former is that in principle there is nothing to abide in; the latter is that in resolve he is unwilling to abide. These two must be looked at together: speak only of the first, and not abiding will be read as nothing needing to be obtained; speak only of the second, and not abiding will be read as craving for more. The second question the First Part has to answer is whether ‘not abiding’ is after all not obtaining, or obtaining and not stopping.

The third question is the most perilous, and lies in the four alternatives. Subhūti asks in succession whether awakening can be obtained by the path of arising, the path of non-arising, the path of neither arising nor non-arising, and the Buddha answers all alike 「不也」 tr. "no". The four alternatives exhausted, Subhūti can only ask 「云何當得菩提」 tr. "how can awakening be obtained", and the Buddha's answer is a sentence wholly outside the four alternatives: 「非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提。須菩提！菩提即是道，道即是菩提。」 tr. "Awakening is not obtained by means of the path, nor is awakening obtained by means of what is not the path. Subhūti! Awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening." Here the treatise-author sets up an extra layer of probing objection—since 「生」 tr. "arising" and 「不生」 tr. "non-arising" both have faults, 「非生非不生」 tr. "neither arising nor non-arising" ought by rights to have no fault, so why is it also said not to obtain? The answer has only one crucial sentence—if one discriminates ‘neither arising nor non-arising’ as good or as ugly, then 「取相生著故，故言有過」 tr. "because one grasps at marks and gives rise to clinging, it is said to have faults". What has a fault has never been that sentence; it is grasping at marks. The third question the First Part has to answer is what the breaking of the four alternatives breaks.

The final passage turns to the pure land, and the very first sentence of the Buddha's answer differs from the pure land people commonly imagine: it does not first speak of the seven jewels, does not first speak of the boundaries of the land, but says 「從初發意已來，自除身麁業」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent until now, himself removes the coarse deeds of body". For this the treatise-author specially sets up a question—purifying buddha-lands is a matter that comes after obtaining the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and abiding in the perfection of the supernormal powers, so why is it said to be from the first arousing of intent? The answer gives the most solid cause and effect of this unit: 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions"; because of evil speech the ground grows thorns, because of flattery and deceit the ground is high and low and uneven, because of stinginess water and drought are out of season and the ground grows sand and gravel. The pure land is not a separate place made anew; it is the outer dharmas evoked by the inner dharmas. The last question of the First Part is why the cause of the pure land falls upon one's own three kinds of deeds.

Passage by Passage

1. Subhūti does not speak but asks about the path in thought; the Buddha answers that the six perfections and so on up to all dharmas are all the bodhisattva path. The sūtra opens with a special way of raising a question: Subhūti makes no sound; it is 「作是念」 tr. "had this thought", and 「佛知須菩提心所念，告須菩提」 tr. "the Buddha knew what Subhūti was thinking in his mind, and told Subhūti". What is asked is 「何等是菩薩摩訶薩道？菩薩住是道，能作如是大莊嚴」 tr. "what is the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva? Abiding in this path, the bodhisattva can take on such a great adornment". The Buddha's answer falls into two layers: first he lists the items—the six perfections, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, the eighteen emptinesses, the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions, the Buddha's ten powers and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; then he adds one sentence that pushes all the items wide open—「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva". At the end he closes with a counter-question, 「頗有法菩薩所不學能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不？」 tr. "Is there any dharma that the bodhisattva does not train in and yet can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?", and answers it himself, 「無有法菩薩所不應學者」 tr. "there is no dharma that the bodhisattva should not train in", the reason being 「菩薩不學一切法，不能得一切種智」 tr. "if the bodhisattva does not train in all dharmas, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds". What is to be looked at is this character 「亦」 tr. "too": the first five items are the path, and all dharmas are 「亦」 tr. "too" the path; the two are not set side by side on the same level, and below the treatise-author will separate them.

2. All dharmas being empty, why is it said that one trains in all dharmas; the Buddha assents to their emptiness and states what distinguishing is for. Subhūti's counter-question is extremely heavy in form: 「將無世尊無戲論中作戲論耶？」 tr. "Is it not that the World-Honored One makes idle discourse within the absence of idle discourse?" He lists six pairs—this and that, worldly and world-transcending, with outflows and without outflows, conditioned and unconditioned, ordinary people and the arhat, the pratyekabuddha and the dharma of the Buddha—to point at the distinctions the Buddha speaks of. The Buddha's answer first concedes everything: 「如是！如是！一切法實空。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! All dharmas are truly empty." And he turns round to set up a still stronger statement: 「若一切法不空者，菩薩摩訶薩不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "If all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva could not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Emptiness is not an obstacle; emptiness is precisely the condition for being able to obtain. As for distinguishing, the Buddha ties it to beings: 「若世間眾生知一切法空，菩薩摩訶薩不學一切法、得一切種智。」 tr. "If the beings of the world knew that all dharmas are empty, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva would not train in all dharmas and obtain the omniscience of all kinds." If beings knew emptiness of themselves, distinguishing would not need to exist; 「今眾生實不知一切法空」 tr. "now beings in reality do not know that all dharmas are empty", and so 「得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提已，分別諸法為眾生說」 tr. "after he has obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he distinguishes dharmas and proclaims them for beings". The reason distinguishing is not idle discourse is that it is set up for people who do not know emptiness, not something the Buddha himself needs.

3. From the very beginning reflecting thus—a fixed nature is unfindable and yet dharmas have names; observing the mental activity of beings and knowing that they are easily delivered; teaching and transforming by the power of skilful means and bidding them not keep in mind that dharmas exist. This is the longest passage of Sūtra ①, and within the one passage there are three turns. The first turn is the bodhisattva's own reflection: 「一切諸法中定性不可得，但從和合因緣起法故有名字諸法」 tr. "within all dharmas a fixed nature is unfindable; it is only from causes and conditions coming together that dharmas arise, and so there are dharmas that are names", and so he takes as his object throughout the nature of the six perfections, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the fruit of the arhat, the pratyekabuddha path and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet 「無所著」 tr. "clings to nothing"; and he sets up for himself a layer of protection—「一切法、一切法性空，空不著空，空亦不可得，何況空中有著」 tr. "all dharmas, and the nature of all dharmas, are empty; emptiness does not cling to emptiness, and emptiness too is unfindable—how much less is there clinging within emptiness". The second turn looks outward: 「住是學中，觀眾生心行——是眾生心在何處行？」 tr. "abiding in this training, he observes where the minds of beings go—where do the minds of these beings go?" The answer is 「知眾生虛妄不實中行」 tr. "he knows that beings go within what is false and unreal", and so there is that extremely important judgement: 「是眾生著不實虛妄法，易度耳！」 tr. "What these beings cling to are unreal, false dharmas; they are easily delivered, that is all!" The third turn is the tone of teaching and transforming: he urges them to practise giving and yet 「亦莫恃布施果報而自高」 tr. "also not to rely on the retribution of giving and exalt themselves"; he urges morality, meditative concentration, and wisdom likewise; he urges them to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the pratyekabuddha path and the Buddha path, and yet 「莫念有是法」 tr. "not to keep in mind that these dharmas exist". The three turns are gathered into one concluding sentence: 「如是教化，行菩薩道而無所著」 tr. "teaching and transforming in this way, he practises the bodhisattva path without clinging to anything". Take note of the two Chinese characters 「易度」 tr. "easily delivered"; below, the treatise-author will set up a simile specially to explain them.

4. Practising the bodhisattva path with nowhere to abide—not abiding in the six perfections, the meditative absorptions, or the fruits; the two causes and conditions of not abiding. The sūtra spreads out 「無所住」 tr. "nowhere to abide" item by item: of each of the six perfections in turn, 「亦不住是中」 tr. "he does not abide in it either"; the first dhyāna and so on up to the fourth dhyāna, kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity, the four formless absorptions, the eight liberations, and the nine successive absorptions are likewise; the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the fruit of the arhat, together with the pratyekabuddha path, are likewise. Among these, for the first dhyāna the Buddha himself gives the reason: 「是初禪初禪相空，行禪者亦空，所用法亦空」 tr. "the mark of the first dhyāna of this first dhyāna is empty, the one who practises dhyāna is empty too, and the dharma used is empty too"—the dharma practised, the person who practises, the means used: all three places are empty, and so there is nothing to abide in. Subhūti asks 「何因緣故不住是中」 tr. "by reason of what causes and conditions does he not abide in it", and the Buddha answers with two causes and conditions: the first concerns principle, 「諸道果性空，無住處，亦無所用法，亦無住者」 tr. "the nature of the fruits of the paths is empty; there is no place to abide, nor any dharma made use of, nor anyone who abides"; the second concerns resolve, 「不以少事為足」 tr. "he is not content with a small matter". The words he speaks to himself under the second cause and condition are worth looking at sentence by sentence: 「我不應不得須陀洹果，我必應當得須陀洹果，我但不應是中住」 tr. "I should not fail to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; I surely should obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; only I should not abide in it". It is not that he does not obtain; he obtains and does not stop; and he pushes the ground for not stopping back to the first mind—「我從初發意已來，更無餘心，一心向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "from my first arousing of intent until now I have had no other mind; with one mind I face anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". The final sentence, 「是菩薩摩訶薩住是一心，能生菩提道」 tr. "this bodhisattva-mahāsattva, abiding in this one mind, can give rise to the path of awakening", joins the one mind to giving rise to the path, and so leads into the objection of the next passage.

5. All dharmas do not arise; how can the path of awakening be given rise to. Subhūti seizes on the character 「生」 tr. "arise" to raise an objection. The Buddha's answer only goes round in a circle: 「如是！如是！一切法無生。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! All dharmas are non-arising." Then he himself explains the meaning of non-arising—「無所作、無所起者，一切法不生故」 tr. "it is without anything made and without anything raised up, because all dharmas do not arise". Here the Buddha does not directly explain how 「能生菩提道」 tr. "can give rise to the path of awakening" and 「一切法無生」 tr. "all dharmas are non-arising" are compatible; the answer is filled in only by the constant abiding of the marks of dharmas in the next passage and the four alternatives in the passage after that; in reading, this passage should not be taken as already settled.

6. Whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the marks of dharmas of all dharmas abide constantly; the path of awakening is given rise to for the sake of beings. Subhūti asks again from another angle: 「有佛、無佛，諸法法相不常住耶？」 tr. "Whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, do not the marks of dharmas of all dharmas abide constantly?" The Buddha again first assents: 「如是！如是！有佛、無佛，是諸法法相常住。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! Whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, these marks of dharmas of all dharmas abide constantly." Then he places the 「生」 tr. "giving rise" of the path of awakening on beings' not knowing: 「以眾生不知是法住法相，為是故，菩薩摩訶薩為眾生故生菩提道，用是道拔出眾生生死。」 tr. "Because beings do not know these marks of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, for this reason the bodhisattva-mahāsattva gives rise to the path of awakening for the sake of beings, and with this path pulls beings out of birth and death." This sentence fills the gap of the previous passage—the arising of the path does not lie on the side of the marks of dharmas, but on the side of beings' not knowing; the marks of dharmas abide constantly, so the path adds nothing to them; beings do not know, so the path cannot but arise.

7. The path of arising, the path of non-arising, the path of neither arising nor non-arising: three questions and three answers, all saying no; how can awakening be obtained. Here the sūtra is pressed into a set of extremely short questions and answers, the sentences short and tightening step by step: 「用生道得菩提？」 tr. "Is awakening obtained by the path of arising?" The Buddha said: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" 「用不生道得菩提？」 tr. "Is awakening obtained by the path of non-arising?" The Buddha said: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" 「用不生非不生道得菩提？」 tr. "Is awakening obtained by the path of neither arising nor non-arising?" The Buddha said: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" After the three answers Subhūti can only ask: 「云何當得菩提？」 tr. "Then how can awakening be obtained?" Three of the four alternatives having been denied, the remaining roads are already blocked; this question is forced out, not a new meaning raised.

8. Awakening is not obtained by means of the path, nor is awakening obtained by means of what is not the path; awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening. The Buddha's answer has two halves. The first half is still a denial, and it closes even a fifth road outside the four alternatives—「非用道得菩提，亦不用非道得菩提」 tr. "awakening is not obtained by means of the path, nor is awakening obtained by means of what is not the path"; neither side, the path or what is not the path, is what obtaining relies on. The second half is the eye of the whole passage: 「菩提即是道，道即是菩提。」 tr. "Awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening." The question is changed from ‘by means of what is it obtained’ into ‘what is obtained and what is used are from the first not two’. Since they are not two, the very way of asking with 「用」 tr. "by means of" falls empty; this is precisely why the Buddha does not answer with the four alternatives but answers with non-duality.

9. The objection that if the path is awakening the bodhisattva should be precisely the Buddha; the Buddha answers with a counter-question; the vajra samādhi and the wisdom associated with a single thought. Subhūti at once pushes out a predicament: 「今菩薩未作佛，應當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提！」 tr. "The bodhisattva now, not yet having become a Buddha, should already have obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi!" If the path is precisely awakening, the person practising the path should already have obtained it; then how are the Buddha's thirty-two marks, eighty minor marks, ten powers, four fearlessnesses, four unobstructed knowledges, eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion to be spoken of? The Buddha does not explain head-on, but answers with a counter-question in its place: 「佛得菩提不？」 tr. "Does the Buddha obtain awakening?" Subhūti answers it himself, 「不也」 tr. "no", and himself states the reason: 「佛即是菩提，菩提即是佛。」 tr. "The Buddha is precisely awakening, awakening is precisely the Buddha." The Buddha follows this answer and finishes the words: the bodhisattva must 「具足六波羅蜜、三十七助道法，具足佛十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法，具足住如金剛三昧，用一念相應慧得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是時名為佛，一切法中得自在」 tr. "be complete with the six perfections and the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, be complete with the Buddha's ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, and the eighteen unshared dharmas, being complete with them abide in the like-vajra samādhi, and by the wisdom associated with a single thought obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; at this time he is named Buddha, and within all dharmas obtains mastery". Non-duality is said with regard to the substance of the dharma; completeness is said with regard to accomplishment; the objection becomes an objection only by merging the two layers into one.

10. How buddha-lands are purified; the Buddha answers: oneself removing the three kinds of coarse deeds, and also purifying the three kinds of coarse deeds of others. Only here does the main topic of the whole unit come out. Subhūti asks 「云何菩薩摩訶薩淨佛國土」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva purify buddha-lands", and the Buddha's answer is a single sentence divided into two halves: 「自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業」 tr. "himself removes the coarse deeds of body, removes the coarse deeds of speech, removes the coarse deeds of mind" is purifying oneself; 「亦淨他人身、口、意麁業」 tr. "also purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of others" is purifying others. And it is headed with a time—「從初發意已來」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent until now". The matter of the pure land does not start from the supernormal powers, does not start from the boundaries of the land, but starts from the three kinds of deeds, and from the very moment of first arousing the mind. This sentence is the root of this chapter.

11. What the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind are—unwholesome deeds, six kinds of coarse mind, impure morality, being far from the limbs of the path, craving the realisation of a fruit. Subhūti goes on to ask the items of the coarse deeds, and the Buddha answers in five sections. The first section is general: 「不善業，若殺生乃至邪見，是名菩薩摩訶薩身、口、意麁業」 tr. "unwholesome deeds—such as killing living beings and so on up to wrong views—these are named the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva"—that is, the ten unwholesome paths. The second section, with 「復次」 tr. "further", adds six kinds of mind: 「慳貪心、破戒心、瞋心、懈怠心、亂心、愚癡心，是名菩薩意麁業」 tr. "the mind of stinginess, the mind of breaking morality, the mind of anger, the mind of slackness, the scattered mind, the deluded mind—these are named the coarse deeds of mind of the bodhisattva"—exactly the reverse side of the six perfections. The third section: 「復次，戒不淨，是名菩薩身、口麁業」 tr. "further, impure morality—this is named the coarse deeds of body and speech of the bodhisattva". The fourth section counts the limbs of the path in as well: being far from the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, and from the emptiness, signless, and non-action samādhi, 「亦名菩薩麁業」 tr. "is also named a coarse deed of the bodhisattva". The fifth section pushes to the farthest point: 「菩薩摩訶薩貪須陀洹果，乃至貪阿羅漢果證、辟支佛道，是名菩薩摩訶薩麁業。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva craving the fruit of the srota-āpanna, and so on up to craving the realisation of the fruit of the arhat and the pratyekabuddha path—this is named a coarse deed of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva." The five sections are one line narrowing as it rises: from the ten unwholesome paths, to the six kinds of coarse mind, to subtle matters of morality, to withdrawing from the limbs of the path, to craving the realisation of the two vehicles. Section by section the items look less and less ‘like evil deeds’, and yet in the bodhisattva's portion all alike are judged coarse.

12. Explanation—why Subhūti did not ask but thought in his mind: the doubts of the assembly at that time, and those who had entered deeply into meditative concentration. At the very opening the treatise-author explains the way the question was raised, giving two causes and conditions. The first concerns the Dharma assembly: 「上來須菩提常種種問空法，以時會疑其已體寂滅無戲論法猶復多問，是以不問而心念。」 tr. "Above, Subhūti had constantly asked about the dharma of emptiness in all kinds of ways; because the assembly at that time doubted why, having already embodied the dharma of quiescent extinction without idle discourse, he still asked so much, he therefore did not ask but thought in his mind." He had asked a great deal, the listeners had already given rise to doubt, and so he changed to thinking in his mind. The second concerns the listeners: 「有菩薩及諸天深入禪定，不好語言而欲得法利」 tr. "there were bodhisattvas and gods who had entered deeply into meditative concentration, who did not like words and yet wished to obtain the benefit of the Dharma", and so he made no sound. Of the two causes and conditions, one is for stilling doubt about himself, the other for not disturbing others.

13. Why the Buddha answers with words though Subhūti is without words; the Buddha, established in the mark of quiescence, answers according to what is asked. The treatise-author sets up question and answer himself: 「須菩提雖無言，而世尊以言答？」 tr. "Although Subhūti made no sound, the World-Honored One answered with words?" The answer has two layers. The first layer concerns the Buddha's form and voice: 「佛身色，視無厭足；如色無厭，聲亦如是，雖語而不妨細禪定行」 tr. "the Buddha's bodily form one looks at without ever being satisfied; just as his form does not make people weary, his voice is likewise: though he speaks, it does not hinder the subtle practice of meditative concentration". The Buddha's voice is of a kind with the Buddha's form body and does not amount to a disturbance of deep concentration, so there is no need to imitate Subhūti's silence. The second layer concerns the Buddha's station: 「佛安立寂滅相，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提中住，不分別一切法若善、若不善等；眾生有疑而問，佛隨所問、所念而答，是故不與須菩提同。」 tr. "The Buddha is established in the mark of quiescence and abides within anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and does not discriminate all dharmas as wholesome, as unwholesome, and so on; when beings have doubts and ask, the Buddha answers according to what is asked and what is thought; so he is not the same as Subhūti." Subhūti's silence is to avoid censure and suspicion; the Buddha's speech is a response according to the occasion; the one is a weighing on the ground of training, the other is non-discrimination on the ground of the fruit, and so they are not the same.

14. Why Subhūti asks about the path—hearing the very deep meaning and not reaching its limit; why the Buddha answers—to add to the bodhisattvas. The treatise-author restates the sūtra's question as: 「何等是菩薩道？行是道，如清淨無所著六波羅蜜等諸善法莊嚴？」 tr. "What is the bodhisattva path? Practising this path, how can there be the adornment of wholesome dharmas, the six perfections and the rest, pure and without clinging?" And he points to its cause as 「聞是六波羅蜜等諸法甚深義，不能得其邊」 tr. "hearing the very deep meaning of these dharmas, the six perfections and the rest, he could not reach their limit". As for why the Buddha answers, the treatise-author gives a very candid reason: 「佛知其意，於須菩提所益雖少，為增益諸菩薩故」 tr. "the Buddha knew his meaning; though what it added for Subhūti was little, it was for the sake of adding to the bodhisattvas". This sentence separates the one the teaching is addressed to from the ones who benefit—the one who asks is not necessarily the one who benefits most.

15. The division of three kinds of bodhisattva path; all dharmas being the path belongs to the body born of the Dharma-nature; here the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions. This is the backbone passage of Treatise ①. The treatise-author first divides the items the Buddha listed into three classes: 「六波羅蜜是菩薩初發心道；次行四禪、八背捨、九次第定及三十七道品，但求涅槃；十八空、佛十力等微細，但為求佛道。」 tr. "The six perfections are the path of the bodhisattva at the first arousing of the mind; next, practising the four dhyānas, the eight liberations, the nine successive absorptions, and the thirty-seven limbs of the path, one seeks only nirvāṇa; the eighteen emptinesses, the Buddha's ten powers, and the rest are subtle, and are only for seeking the Buddha path." Then he divides them once more from another angle, pointing out that what the three classes are for differs: 「六波羅蜜道，多為眾生故；三十七品等，但求涅槃；十八空等，於涅槃中出過聲聞、辟支佛地，入菩薩位道。」 tr. "The path of the six perfections is mostly for the sake of beings; the thirty-seven limbs of the path and the rest seek only nirvāṇa; the eighteen emptinesses and the rest are the path that, within nirvāṇa, goes out beyond the grounds of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha and enters the bodhisattva's position." And then he gives an overall judgement: 「是三種，皆是生身菩薩所行。所以者何？分別諸法故。」 tr. "These three are all practised by the bodhisattva in a fleshly body. Why? Because he discriminates dharmas." Though the three classes differ in height, they stand alike in the ranks of discriminating dharmas. As for the sūtra's 「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva", the treatise-author assigns it to another station: 「今又一切法皆是菩薩道，是法性生身菩薩所行，不見諸法有好惡，安立諸法平等相故。」 tr. "Now it is further said that all dharmas are the bodhisattva path; this is practised by the bodhisattva whose body is born of the Dharma-nature, who does not see dharmas as good or bad, because he is established in the mark of the equality of dharmas." The dividing line for the character 「亦」 tr. "too" spoken of in the earlier passage lies exactly here. At the end the treatise-author points out that the sūtra carries its own reason—「此中佛自說因緣」 tr. "here the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions", what is stated being 「菩薩應學一切法，若一法不學，則不能得一切種智。」 tr. "The bodhisattva should train in all dharmas; if there is one dharma he does not train in, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds." And he glosses 「學」 tr. "training" very concretely: 「用一切種門，思惟、籌量、修觀、通達。」 tr. "By gates of every kind, reflecting, reckoning, cultivating contemplation, and penetrating." Training is not knowing the name; it is the four things all being reached.

16. The objection of idle discourse and the marks of idle discourse; the Buddha assents and speaks fully of the mark of emptiness of all dharmas. The treatise-author restates Subhūti's objection, and runs briefly through the 「戲論相」 tr. "marks of idle discourse": 「此東、彼西，是上、是下，是常、是無常，是實、是虛，是世間、是出世間，乃至是二乘法、是佛法。」 tr. "This is east, that is west; it is above, it is below; it is permanent, it is impermanent; it is real, it is false; it is worldly, it is world-transcending; and so on up to it is the dharma of the two vehicles, it is the dharma of the Buddha." Then he lays out the Buddha's answer as a proof by the contrary: 「若法實定有不空者，即是無生無滅，無生無滅故無四諦，無四諦故無佛、法、僧寶，如是三寶等諸法皆壞。」 tr. "If a dharma really and fixedly existed and were not empty, then it would be non-arising and non-ceasing; because it is non-arising and non-ceasing there would be no four truths; because there are no four truths there would be no Buddha Jewel, Dharma Jewel, or Saṅgha Jewel; in this way the Three Jewels and all dharmas would all be destroyed." The price of non-emptiness is that the Three Jewels are all destroyed; this is a fault more serious than emptiness. Emptiness established, he steps back once more to guard it: 「今諸法實空，乃至空相亦空」 tr. "now dharmas are truly empty, and so on up to the mark of emptiness too is empty"; and then he states where distinguishing comes from: beings 「愚癡顛倒故著」 tr. "cling because of delusion and inversion", and the bodhisattva therefore 「於眾生中起悲心，欲拔出故，求佛身力；欲令眾生信受其語」 tr. "arouses a mind of compassion among beings, and because he wishes to pull them out, seeks the power of a Buddha's body; he wishes to make beings believe and accept his words". At the end the dividing line is given: 「若眾生自知諸法空，菩薩但自住空相中，不須學分別一切法。」 tr. "If beings knew of themselves that dharmas are empty, the bodhisattva would need only to abide himself within the mark of emptiness, and would not need to train in distinguishing all dharmas." Distinguishing is a medicine that answers to the sickness, not something the Buddha himself needs.

17. The bodhisattva's own thought—ultimate emptiness alone is one dharma that is real; illuminating the bodhisattva path, his mind is at peace; training in all dharmas so as to make beings believe and accept. The treatise-author writes the bodhisattva's reflection in the sūtra as a passage of speaking to himself, its layers very clear: 「一切法無定實性，但從因緣和合起；是眾因緣亦各各從和合起，乃至到畢竟空。」 tr. "All dharmas have no fixed real nature; they arise only from the coming together of causes and conditions; these many causes and conditions too each arise from coming together, and so on until ultimate emptiness is reached." Having pushed to the bottom, he gives a judgement: 「畢竟空唯是一法實；餘者無性，故皆虛誑。」 tr. "Ultimate emptiness alone is one dharma that is real; the rest are without nature, and so all are false and deceptive." Then he turns to his own situation and to where he belongs: 「我從無始世來，著是虛誑法，於六道中厭受苦惱。我今是三世十方佛子，般若是我母，今不應復隨逐虛誑法。」 tr. "From beginningless time I have clung to these false and deceptive dharmas, and within the six destinies I have undergone suffering and vexation to the point of weariness. Now I am a son of the buddhas of the three times and the ten directions; prajñā is my mother; now I should no longer follow after false and deceptive dharmas." At the end he pushes the protection to its extreme: 「是故菩薩乃至畢竟空中亦不著，何況餘法」 tr. "so the bodhisattva does not cling even within ultimate emptiness, how much less to the other dharmas". The sentence that follows describes his state of mind: 「爾時，菩薩照明菩薩道，其心安隱，自念」 tr. "at that time the bodhisattva illuminates the bodhisattva path; his mind is at peace, and he thinks to himself"—「我但斷著心，道自然至。」 tr. "I need only sever the clinging mind, and the path will arrive of itself." The path is not sought and brought in; it arrives of itself where the clinging mind is severed. And having known this, he does not stop there—「念眾生深著世間，而畢竟空亦空、無性、無有住處，眾生難可信受」 tr. "he thinks of how beings cling deeply to the world, while ultimate emptiness too is empty, without nature, without a place to abide, and beings find it hard to believe and accept", and so 「為令眾生信受是法故，學一切法，修行生起是度眾生方便法」 tr. "in order to make beings believe and accept this Dharma, he trains in all dharmas, and cultivates and gives rise to the dharma of skilful means for delivering beings". The motive for training in all dharmas is stated most clearly here.

18. Observing the mental activity of beings and knowing that what they cling to is all false and deceptive; the simile of the little child heaping earth; if what is clung to really existed, it could not be relinquished. The treatise-author first describes the observing: 「觀眾生心行所趣，知好何法、念何事、何所志願」 tr. "he observes where the mental activity of beings tends, and knows what dharmas they like, what matters they think of, and what aspirations they have"; the result of the observing is 「眾生所著處皆是虛誑顛倒，憶想分別故著，無有根本實事」 tr. "the places beings cling to are all false, deceptive, and inverted; they cling because of recollection, imagining, and discrimination; and there is no root real matter", and so 「菩薩大歡喜」 tr. "the bodhisattva is greatly glad"—the reason for the gladness is precisely the sūtra's sentence 「眾生易度耳」 tr. "beings are easily delivered, that is all". Then he sets up the simile: a person's son 「喜在不淨中戲，聚土為穀，以草木為鳥獸，而生愛著；人有奪者，瞋恚啼哭」 tr. "liked to play in filth, heaping earth as grain and taking grass and trees as birds and beasts, and gave rise to love and attachment for them; when someone came to take them away, he would be angry and cry", while his father knew that 「此子今雖愛著，此事易離耳，小大自休」 tr. "although this son now loves and is attached to them, this matter is easily left behind, that is all; when he grows up it will stop of itself", because 「此物非真故」 tr. "these things are not real". The treatise-author states the correspondences of the simile plainly: the bodhisattva 「觀眾生愛著不淨臭身及五欲是無常，種種苦因」 tr. "observes that the impure, foul-smelling body and the five desires, which beings love and are attached to, are impermanent and the cause of all kinds of suffering", and knows that beings, 「得信等五善根成就時，即能捨離」 tr. "when the five wholesome roots, faith and the rest, are accomplished, will be able to relinquish them". After the simile there is one more layer of proof by the contrary, showing the greatest force: 「若小兒所著實是真物，雖復年至百歲，著之轉深，不可得捨」 tr. "if what the little child clung to were really real things, then even when he reached a hundred years of age his clinging would grow deeper, and he could not give them up". The ground on which beings can be delivered lies not in beings' strength, but in the falseness of the things clung to. At the end one more simile is added: when they obtain the pure eye of wisdom without outflows they can be far from what they clung to, and 「大自慚愧」 tr. "feel great shame", 「譬如狂病，所作非法，醒悟之後，羞慚無顏」 tr. "just as with madness, all that one does is out of keeping with what is proper, and when one comes to one's senses one is so ashamed that one has no face left".

19. Teaching and transforming by skilful means without making them cling; the simile of the hot ball of gold; the two causes and conditions of not abiding. The treatise-author restates the sūtra's words of teaching and transforming and adds a layer of explanation: he urges giving and warns 「莫恃是布施果報而自憍高」 tr. "do not rely on the retribution of this giving and exalt yourselves in pride", the reason being 「此中無有堅實，皆當破壞，與未布施時無異」 tr. "within this there is nothing solid; all of it will be broken and destroyed, and will be no different from the time before you gave"; morality and the rest, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, are likewise. And then he states the general rule: 「是諸法雖清淨、大有所益，皆是有為法，從因緣生，無有自性；汝等若著是法，能生苦惱。」 tr. "Although these dharmas are pure and of great benefit, they are all conditioned dharmas, born from causes and conditions, without self-nature; if you cling to these dharmas, they can give rise to suffering and vexation." And he sets up a simile: 「譬如熱金丸，雖是寶物，捉則燒手。」 tr. "It is like a hot ball of gold: although it is a treasure, if you grasp it, it burns the hand." Being a treasure and burning the hand do not obstruct each other; this is exactly how a wholesome dharma can be clung to and become a harm. Then the treatise-author explains the meaning of not abiding, bringing 「不住」 tr. "not abiding" down to the concrete practising marks of giving: 「布施時不取三種相，亦不著果報而自高生罪業，布施果報滅壞時亦不生惱。」 tr. "When giving he does not grasp at the three kinds of marks, nor does he cling to the retribution, exalt himself, and give rise to sinful deeds, and when the retribution of giving perishes he does not give rise to vexation." At the end he restates the sūtra's two causes and conditions once over: 「一者、菩薩深入空，不見諸法性，故不住；二者、不以小事為足，故不住。」 tr. "First, the bodhisattva enters deeply into emptiness and does not see the nature of dharmas, and so does not abide; second, he is not content with a small matter, and so does not abide."

20. Wholly turned one way, he can give rise to the path of awakening; the objection from non-arising; the Buddha assents to his meaning and sifts the occasion for which it is said. The treatise-author gathers up what precedes with one sentence—「是菩薩無有異心，但一向能生菩提道」 tr. "this bodhisattva has no other mind; only, wholly turned one way, he can give rise to the path of awakening"—and at once joins on Subhūti's objection: 「若一切法無生，云何菩薩能生菩提道？」 tr. "If all dharmas are non-arising, how can the bodhisattva give rise to the path of awakening?" The Buddha's assent the treatise-author writes as: 「一切法無生，我實處處說諸法無生，非為凡夫說，但為得無作解脫、不起三種業者說。」 tr. "All dharmas are non-arising; I have indeed said in place after place that dharmas are non-arising; it was not said for ordinary people, but only for those who obtain the liberation of non-action and do not raise up the three kinds of deeds." This sentence is the crux of this passage—the teaching of non-arising has the occasion it addresses; it is not a general meaning said to everyone; ordinary people, hearing of non-arising, cling to non-arising, and that is precisely why it must be sifted.

21. The renewed question about the constant abiding of the marks of dharmas; the path arises because beings do not know; the path and what is not the path being equal is precisely the path. The treatise-author writes Subhūti's renewed question: 「世尊！佛自說：『有佛、無佛，諸法法相常住。』如聖人法相空，凡夫亦如是！」 tr. "World-Honored One! The Buddha himself has said: ‘Whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, the marks of dharmas of all dharmas abide constantly.’ If the marks of dharmas of the sages are empty, those of ordinary people are likewise!" Since sages and ordinary people share one mark of dharmas, why raise a path at all? The Buddha's assent and explanation the treatise-author gathers into three sentences: 「諸法實相常住，以眾生不知不解故，起菩提道」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas abides constantly; because beings do not know and do not understand it, the path of awakening is raised up", 「但為除凡夫顛倒法，故名為道」 tr. "it is only in order to remove the inverted dharmas of ordinary people that it is named the path", 「若決定有道可著者，即復是顛倒」 tr. "if there were fixedly a path that could be clung to, that would again be inversion". At the end he gives an extremely weighty verdict: 「道、非道平等即是道，是故不應難！」 tr. "The path and what is not the path are equal: this is precisely the path; so one should not object in this way!" The path is the path only as a counteragent, not in any self-substance of its own; once its self-substance is clung to, the path itself becomes the thing to be broken.

22. The first three of the four alternatives—the path of arising, the path of non-arising, neither arising nor non-arising; the simile of the hot ball of gold used again. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's 「不也」 tr. "no" sentence by sentence. Why the path of arising will not do: 「生道者，菩薩觀是有為法生滅相謂是實，是故言不。」 tr. "What is called the path of arising is the bodhisattva's contemplating the mark of arising and ceasing of these conditioned dharmas and taking it to be real; so it is said: no." And he points back to the earlier simile—「如先說熱金丸喻」 tr. "like the simile of the hot ball of gold spoken of earlier". Why non-arising will not do: 「不生法即是無為，無作法故，亦不可以得菩提。」 tr. "The dharma of non-arising is precisely the unconditioned; because it is a dharma without making, it too cannot be used to obtain awakening." The two having been broken, the treatise-author settles ‘arising’ and ‘non-arising’ together with one sentence—「二俱有過故」 tr. "because both have faults". Then he restates the sūtra's third question as 「非生非不生得菩提耶」 tr. "is awakening obtained by neither arising nor non-arising", and the answer is still 「不也」 tr. "no".

23. Why neither arising nor non-arising also has a fault—the fault lies in discriminating good and ugly and grasping at marks. The treatise-author sets up a question himself, and asks it very reasonably—if ‘arising’ and ‘non-arising’ both have faults, then ‘neither arising nor non-arising’ 「復不應有過，何以言不得？」 tr. "should in turn have no fault; why is it said that it is not obtained?" The answer is only one sentence, and all its force lies within it: if one discriminates ‘neither arising nor non-arising’ as good or as ugly, then 「取相生著故，故言有過；若能不著，則是菩提道。」 tr. "because one grasps at marks and gives rise to clinging, it is said to have faults; if one is able not to cling, that is precisely the path of awakening." The same sentence: clinging, it has a fault; not clinging, it is the path. What is broken has never been the form of the sentence; it is grasping at marks. This passage is the pivot of this unit's section on the four alternatives; in reading the 「不也」 tr. "no" of the first three questions one must always come back here.

24. If not by the four alternatives, how is the path obtained; the explanation of awakening being precisely the path; the simile of water entering the great ocean; cause and fruit are neither one nor different. The treatise-author writes Subhūti's question: 「若不以四句得者，云何得道？」 tr. "If it is not obtained by the four alternatives, how can the path be obtained?" The Buddha answers: 「不以道、不以非道，則得菩提。」 tr. "Not by the path and not by what is not the path is awakening obtained." Then the treatise-author himself explains why, first glossing awakening: 「菩提名諸法實相，是諸佛所得究竟實相，無有變異。」 tr. "Awakening is named the real mark of all dharmas; this is the ultimate real mark obtained by the buddhas, without change." Then he states the relation of all dharmas to awakening: 「一切法入菩提中，皆寂滅相；如一切水入大海，同為一味。」 tr. "All dharmas, entering into awakening, are all of the mark of quiescence; just as all waters entering the great ocean are alike of one taste." And then he pushes the Buddha's words into an equation of nature: 「菩提性即是道性。」 tr. "The nature of awakening is precisely the nature of the path." And he makes it firm by the contrary: 「若菩提性、道性異者，不名菩提為無戲論寂滅相」 tr. "if the nature of awakening and the nature of the path were different, awakening could not be named the mark of quiescence without idle discourse". At the end he adds one more layer, the principle of cause and fruit: 「是二法異者，行道不應到菩提——諸法因果，不一不異故。」 tr. "If these two dharmas were different, practising the path should not reach awakening—because the cause and fruit of dharmas are neither one nor different." If the path and awakening were truly two things, practising the path would have no way of reaching it; neither one nor different—this is precisely why it can be reached by practice and yet is not some other thing obtained.

25. The objection that the bodhisattva practising the path should then be a Buddha; Subhūti objects for the sake of those new to the training; the Buddha's answer by counter-question is an answer by way of the general mark. The treatise-author points out that this objection of Subhūti's runs in both directions: 「菩薩行道應便是佛」 tr. "the bodhisattva practising the path should then be a Buddha", because the path is awakening; 「又佛應是菩薩」 tr. "and the Buddha should be a bodhisattva", because awakening is the path. And he makes its motive clear: 「須菩提為新學菩薩故，分別難佛」 tr. "Subhūti, for the sake of bodhisattvas new to the training, made the distinction and objected to the Buddha". The Buddha's answer the treatise-author writes as 「以反問答」 tr. "answered with a counter-question"—「佛得菩提不？」 tr. "Does the Buddha obtain awakening?" Subhūti answers himself: 「不也！何以故？菩提不離佛、佛不離菩提；二法和合故，是佛、是菩提。」 tr. "No! Why? Awakening is not apart from the Buddha, the Buddha is not apart from awakening; it is because the two dharmas come together that there is the Buddha and there is awakening." The treatise-author at once points out that this self-answer already suffices to dissolve the objection, judging 「是故不應難言」 tr. "so one should not object, saying". And he judges its form: 「此總相答。」 tr. "This is an answer by way of the general mark." An answer by way of the general mark has not yet reached the specific marks, so below the question must be asked again.

26. The Buddha is a being, awakening is a dharma; how is it said that the Buddha is precisely awakening. The treatise-author sets up this question himself, and it is asked very finely—the Buddha belongs to persons, awakening belongs to dharmas; how can person and dharma, two matters, be one and the same? The answer goes in several steps: first he states the situation before becoming a Buddha—「先有三十二相莊嚴身、六波羅蜜等功德莊嚴心，而不名為佛」 tr. "first there are the thirty-two marks adorning his body, and the merits of the six perfections and the rest adorning his mind, and still he is not named Buddha"; next he states how one becomes a Buddha—「得菩提故，名之為佛」 tr. "it is because he obtains awakening that he is named Buddha". So 「佛與菩提不異」 tr. "the Buddha and awakening are not different". Then he takes apart the side of the person: 「微妙清淨五眾和合假名為佛，法即是五眾，五眾不離假名」 tr. "the subtle and pure five aggregates coming together are provisionally named Buddha; the dharma is precisely the five aggregates, the five aggregates are not apart from the provisional name". Then he joins up the side of the dharma: 「菩提即是五眾實相，一切法皆入菩提故。」 tr. "Awakening is precisely the real mark of the five aggregates, because all dharmas enter into awakening." The person is the provisional name of the five aggregates, awakening is the real mark of the five aggregates; the two sides are from the first not two things, and so it is said 「佛即是菩提、菩提即是佛」 tr. "the Buddha is precisely awakening, awakening is precisely the Buddha". At the end he traces where the view of difference comes from: 「但凡夫心中分別有異。」 tr. "It is only that ordinary people discriminate in their minds and take them to be different."

27. If neither one nor different, why does the sūtra say it is precisely so—of one and different, one is mostly used; because they stand over against each other, one too is unfindable; the vajra samādhi and the wisdom associated with a single thought. The treatise-author again sets up a question himself, and this question turns back to check his own words—earlier in the discussion it was said that awakening and the path are 「不一不異」 tr. "neither one nor different", yet the sūtra says 「道即是菩提，菩提即是道」 tr. "the path is precisely awakening, awakening is precisely the path" and 「佛即是菩提，菩提即是佛」 tr. "the Buddha is precisely awakening, awakening is precisely the Buddha"; why is this? The first layer of the answer is expedient: 「一、異雖俱不實而多用一」 tr. "although one and different are both not real, ‘one’ is mostly used". And he takes permanence and impermanence as an example—「常多生煩惱故不用，無常能破顛倒故多用；事既成辦，亦捨無常」 tr. "permanence mostly gives rise to afflictions and so is not used; impermanence can break inversions and so is mostly used; once the matter has been accomplished, impermanence too is given up"; one and different are likewise, 「若以觀種種別異法故多生著心；若觀諸法一相——若無常、苦、空等，是時煩惱不生」 tr. "if one contemplates all kinds of separate and different dharmas, a clinging mind arises in abundance; if one contemplates dharmas as of one mark—whether impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and so on—at that time afflictions do not arise", and so 「一」 tr. "one" is mostly used. But at once he takes the expedient back: 「於實義中，一亦不用；若著一，即復是患。」 tr. "Within the real meaning, ‘one’ too is not used; if one clings to ‘one’, that again is a fault." The second layer is principle: 「別異無故，一亦不可得，相待法故」 tr. "because separateness and difference do not exist, ‘one’ too is unfindable, because it is a dharma of standing over against each other"—one and different depend on each other; take away the one and the other does not stand; so only by using 「一」 tr. "one" without grasping at 「一相」 tr. "the one mark" is it 「說無咎」 tr. "said without fault". And from this he answers the objection of the earlier passage: 「一不實故，菩薩不得即是佛。」 tr. "Because ‘one’ is not real, the bodhisattva is not precisely the Buddha." For the third layer the treatise-author draws on the causes and conditions the sūtra itself gives, to conclude: the bodhisattva 「具足六波羅蜜等諸功德，住金剛三昧，以一念相應慧，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。爾時，於一切法中自在，得名為佛」 tr. "makes complete all the merits of the six perfections and the rest, abides in the vajra samādhi, and by the wisdom associated with a single thought obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. At that time he has mastery within all dharmas and obtains the name of Buddha", and he supplies the reasons why each side, the bodhisattva and the Buddha, does not take the other's name—「菩薩雖知道及菩提不異，未具足諸功德故，不名為佛」 tr. "although the bodhisattva knows that the path and awakening are not different, because he has not yet made all the merits complete, he is not named Buddha"; 「佛諸事畢竟，願、行滿足故，不名為菩薩」 tr. "the Buddha, all his affairs having been brought to their end, because his vows and practices are fulfilled, is not named bodhisattva". At the end three sentences assign the stations: 「得者是佛，法是菩提，求菩提者是菩薩。」 tr. "The one who obtains is the Buddha, the dharma is awakening, the one who seeks awakening is the bodhisattva."

28. Why Subhūti at this point turns to ask about purifying buddha-lands; the arhats and pratyekabuddhas have no power to know this matter. This is the turning sentence of the whole unit, and the treatise-author writes it very briefly: 「須菩提從佛聞菩提相、道相，成就眾生已，今問淨佛國土事。」 tr. "Subhūti has heard from the Buddha the mark of awakening and the mark of the path, and the bringing of beings to accomplishment is finished; now he asks about the matter of purifying buddha-lands." And he adds a reason why it is Subhūti who must ask: 「諸阿羅漢、辟支佛無有力知淨佛國事，是故問。」 tr. "The arhats and pratyekabuddhas have no power to know the matter of purifying buddha-lands; so he asks." It is not that he knows and asks on others' behalf; it is precisely because the two vehicles have no power here that he must ask.

29. What a pure Buddha-land is—the measure of one Buddha-land; the Buddha-eye observing everywhere in the six periods and teaching according to what it sees; because nothing is lacking in the land, afflictions do not arise; a land whose trees put forth the sound of the Dharma. The treatise-author sets up the question 「何等是淨佛土」 tr. "what is a pure Buddha-land" himself, and the answer has three layers. The first layer states the measure: 「佛土者，百億日月、百億須彌山、百億四天王等諸天，是名三千大千世界。如是等無量無邊三千大千世界，名為一佛土。」 tr. "What is called a Buddha-land is a hundred koṭi of suns and moons, a hundred koṭi of Mount Sumerus, a hundred koṭi of the Four Heavenly Kings and the other heavens; this is named the three-thousand great-thousand world. Such immeasurable and boundless three-thousand great-thousand worlds are named one Buddha-land." The second layer states what the Buddha does within it: 「佛常晝三時、夜三時以佛眼遍觀眾生」 tr. "the Buddha constantly, in the three periods of the day and the three periods of the night, observes beings everywhere with the Buddha-eye", and what he observes is 「誰可種善根？誰善根成就應增長？誰善根成就應得度？」 tr. "Who can plant roots of goodness? Whose roots of goodness are accomplished and should increase? Who, with roots of goodness accomplished, should be delivered?" Having seen, he then 「以神通力隨所見教化」 tr. "teaches and transforms them by the power of the supernormal powers according to what he sees". The third layer states why the purity of the land helps deliverance: 「眾生心隨逐外緣，得隨意事，則不生瞋惱；得不淨、無常等因緣，則不生貪欲等煩惱；若得無所有、空因緣，則不生癡等諸煩惱。」 tr. "The minds of beings follow after outer conditions: when they obtain things as they wish, they do not give rise to anger and vexation; when they obtain the causes and conditions of the impure, the impermanent, and the like, they do not give rise to craving and the other afflictions; if they obtain the causes and conditions of being without anything existent and of emptiness, they do not give rise to delusion and the other afflictions." So 「諸菩薩莊嚴佛土，為令眾生易度故」 tr. "the bodhisattvas adorn the Buddha-land in order to make beings easily delivered"; and 「國土中無所乏少，無我心故，則不生慳貪、瞋恚等煩惱」 tr. "within the land nothing is lacking or short; because there is no mind of self, stinginess, anger, and the other afflictions do not arise". At the end he gives one mark of a pure land as an example: 「有佛國土，一切樹木常出諸法實相音聲，所謂無生無滅、無起無作等；眾生但聞是妙音，不聞異聲，眾生利根故，便得諸法實相。」 tr. "In some Buddha-lands all the trees constantly put forth the sound of the real mark of all dharmas, namely non-arising and non-ceasing, non-rising and without making, and so on; beings hear only this wondrous sound and hear no other sound, and because beings have keen faculties, they then obtain the real mark of all dharmas." And he points out where it comes from—「如《阿彌陀》等諸經中說」 tr. "as is said in the Amitābha and other sūtras". This passage glosses 「淨」 tr. "pure" in terms of function: a pure land is pure in that everywhere in it the conditions for the afflictions are being cut off.

30. Why the three kinds of deeds are purified from the first arousing of intent; the purity of the three kinds of deeds is not only for purifying buddha-lands; the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions. The treatise-author restates the Buddha's answer—「菩薩從初發意來，自淨麁身、口、意業，亦教他人淨麁身、口、意業」 tr. "the bodhisattva, from his first arousing of intent until now, himself purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind, and also teaches others to purify the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind"—and at once sets up an objection: 「若菩薩淨佛土，是菩薩得無生法忍、住神通波羅蜜，然後能淨佛土」 tr. "if the bodhisattva purifies buddha-lands, this bodhisattva obtains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and abides in the perfection of the supernormal powers, and only then can he purify buddha-lands"; since that is so, why does the sūtra say 「從初發意來，淨麁身、口、意業」 tr. "from his first arousing of intent until now, he purifies the coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind"? The answer has two layers. The first layer separates two matters: 「三業清淨，非但為淨佛土，一切菩薩道皆淨。此三業初淨身、口、意業，後為淨佛土。」 tr. "The purity of the three kinds of deeds is not only for the sake of purifying buddha-lands; the whole bodhisattva path is purified. These three kinds of deeds are at first a purifying of the deeds of body, speech, and mind, and later are for the sake of purifying buddha-lands." The same matter is, at the first mind, purifying one's own conduct, and only at a later station becomes the cause of a pure land; the two do not obstruct each other. The second layer states why purifying oneself can reach as far as the land: 「非但一人，生國土中者皆共作因緣。內法與外法作因緣，若善、若不善」 tr. "it is not one person alone; those born in the land all together make the causes and conditions. The inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions, whether wholesome or unwholesome". And he lists them item by item: 「多惡口業故，地生荊棘；諂誑曲心故，地則高下不平；慳貪多故，則水旱不調、地生沙礫。」 tr. "Because of many evil verbal deeds, the ground grows thorns; because of flattering, deceitful, crooked minds, the ground is high and low and uneven; because of much stinginess, water and drought are out of season and the ground grows sand and gravel." The reverse is likewise: 「不作上諸惡故，地則平正，多出珍寶」 tr. "because the evils above are not done, the ground is level and yields many precious things", and he gives an example as proof—「如彌勒佛出時，人皆行十善故，地多珍寶」 tr. "as when Maitreya Buddha appears, because everyone practises the ten wholesome paths, there are many precious things on the ground". This passage is the solid place of this chapter's meaning of the pure land: the marks of a land are not made separately; they are evoked in common by the deeds of beings.

31. Why only the purifying of the three kinds of deeds is spoken of—construction is greatest; as in sewing a garment the needle leads the way; because the face is pure, the image in the mirror is pure. The treatise-author sets up another question: 「若布施等諸善法得淨佛土果報，何以但說淨三業？」 tr. "If giving and the other wholesome dharmas obtain the retribution of a pure Buddha-land, why is only the purifying of the three kinds of deeds spoken of?" The way of the answer is to find the chief among dharmas. First he sets up three that are 「為大」 tr. "greatest": 「得道時智慧為大；攝心中定為大；作業時思為大」 tr. "at the time of obtaining the path wisdom is greatest; in gathering the mind concentration is greatest; at the time of making deeds construction is greatest". Then he states the sequence: 「得是思業已，起身、口、意業。布施、禪定等，以思為首」 tr. "having obtained this deed of construction, one raises bodily, verbal, and mental deeds. Giving, meditative concentration, and the rest have construction at their head". And he sets up a simile: 「譬如縫衣，以針為導。」 tr. "As in sewing a garment the needle leads the way." And he adds one sentence said with regard to retribution: 「受後世果報時，業力為大。」 tr. "At the time of receiving retribution in later lives, the power of deeds is greatest." Since construction and deeds are the chiefs, to speak of the three kinds of deeds already gathers in everything: 「意業中盡攝一切心、心數法，身、口則攝一切色法。」 tr. "Within mental deeds all mind and mental-factor dharmas are entirely gathered, and body and speech gather in all dharmas of form." At the end he comes back to the meaning of the pure land, giving an extremely simple cause and effect and an extremely apt simile: 「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」 tr. "because the inner dharmas are pure, the outer dharmas too are pure; just as, because the face is pure, the image in the mirror too is pure", and he gives the sūtra it comes from—「如《毘摩羅詰經》中說」 tr. "as is said in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra"—together with one actual instance: 「不殺生故人皆長壽」 tr. "because of not killing living beings, everyone is long-lived"

32. The coarse deeds are easily known, so why does Subhūti ask—coarse and subtle are not fixed. The treatise-author sets up the question: 「身、口、意麁業，是事易知，須菩提何以故問？」 tr. "The coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind are a matter easily known; why does Subhūti ask?" The answer establishes its thesis in one sentence: 「麁、細不定故。」 tr. "Because coarse and subtle are not fixed." Then it proves it with three pairs of contrasting examples: 「如求道人中布施是麁善，於白衣為細」 tr. "for instance, among people who seek the path, giving is a coarse wholesome act, while for the white-robed it is subtle"—the same giving is coarse and subtle in opposite ways for two kinds of people; 「如小乘中不善業為麁，善業為細」 tr. "as in the Small Vehicle unwholesome deeds are coarse and wholesome deeds are subtle"; 「摩訶衍中取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」 tr. "in the Mahāyāna, grasping at the mark of a wholesome dharma, and so on up to nirvāṇa, is all named coarse". The three examples grow stricter step by step, and by the third even nirvāṇa falls on the coarse side. The coarse is not a fixed list; it is a station that shifts with the vehicle one is in and the occasion addressed; so although it is a matter 「易知」 tr. "easily known", it still must be asked.

33. The Buddha in sequence tells the marks of the coarse deeds—the ten unwholesome paths; the six minds that break the six perfections. The treatise-author follows the sūtra's sequence in explaining the items of the coarse deeds. The first item is the ten unwholesome paths: 「所謂奪命，乃至邪見。是三種身業、四種口業、三種意業，皆名為麁。」 tr. "Namely taking life, and so on up to wrong views. These are the three kinds of bodily deeds, the four kinds of verbal deeds, and the three kinds of mental deeds, all named coarse." The division into three of body, four of speech, and three of mind is opened out by the treatise-author; the sūtra gives only the head and the tail, 「殺生乃至邪見」 tr. "killing living beings and so on up to wrong views". The second item: 「破菩薩六波羅蜜法——慳貪等，皆名為麁。」 tr. "What breaks the dharmas of the bodhisattva's six perfections—stinginess and the rest—are all named coarse." The six minds the sūtra lists are one by one the opposites of the six perfections, and the treatise-author, with the one phrase 「破菩薩六波羅蜜法」 tr. "what breaks the dharmas of the bodhisattva's six perfections", points out why this is so.

34. The ten unwholesome paths already include stinginess and craving, so why are six dharmas spoken of separately again—the division between vexing beings and not vexing beings; a path of deeds is formed in being able to raise deeds. The treatise-author sets up this question himself, and the answer first establishes the overall division: 「是六法不入十不善道，十不善道皆是惱眾生法；是六法不但為惱眾生。」 tr. "These six dharmas do not enter the ten unwholesome paths; the ten unwholesome paths are all dharmas that vex and harm beings, while these six dharmas are not only for vexing and harming beings." Then he distinguishes them item by item. Stinginess: 「但自惜財，不惱眾生。」 tr. "Only begrudging one's own wealth, it does not vex or harm beings." Craving is divided into two: 「一者、但貪他財，未惱眾生；二者、貪心轉盛，求而不得，則欲毀害，是名業道，以能起業故。」 tr. "First, only craving the wealth of others, not yet vexing or harming beings; second, the mind of craving growing more intense, seeking and not obtaining, then wishing to destroy and harm—this is named a path of deeds, because it can raise deeds." Anger follows the same pattern: 「小者不名業道，以其能趣惡處故為道。」 tr. "The small kind is not named a path of deeds; it is because it can tend toward evil places that it is a path." Here the treatise-author glosses the two characters 「業道」 tr. "path of deeds" very precisely—a path means that which can tend toward; the light kind, though it is an affliction, has not yet become a path that can tend toward, while the heavy kind, because it can raise deeds, is named a path. The distinction being clear, he therefore concludes: 「別說六法無咎」 tr. "to speak separately of the six dharmas is no fault".

35. Morality has already been spoken of within the six perfections, so why is impure morality spoken of again—subtle sins do not vex beings; the four marks of morality that is impure without breaking the precepts received. The treatise-author sets up the question, and the answer has two layers. The first layer concerns the marks of sin: 「破戒法是殺生等麁罪。戒不淨是微細罪，不惱眾生；如飲酒等，不入十不善道。」 tr. "The dharma of breaking morality is a coarse sin such as killing living beings and the like. Impure morality is a subtle sin, which does not vex or harm beings; such as drinking wine and the like, which do not enter the ten unwholesome paths." The second layer is more important, and states the situation in which the marks of morality are intact and yet morality is still impure: 「破五眾戒，名為破戒」 tr. "breaking the precepts of the five classes is named breaking morality" is the one side; the other side is 「不破所受戒」 tr. "not breaking the precepts one has received" and yet having four kinds of sickness—「常為三毒覆心」 tr. "constantly having one's mind covered by the three poisons", 「不憶念戒」 tr. "not keeping the precepts in mind", 「迴向天福」 tr. "dedicating them to the merit of the heavens", 「邪見持戒」 tr. "keeping the precepts with wrong views". None of the four violates a precept-rule, and yet the treatise-author judges them all impure morality. Whether keeping morality is pure or impure is judged by where the mind is heading, not only by whether the outward marks have suffered damage.

36. Why being far from the thirty-seven limbs of the path, the four foundations of mindfulness and the rest, and from the three gates of liberation is coarse; the simile of the snake entering a bamboo tube. The treatise-author explains the fourth item of coarse deeds, first stating why the limbs of the path are what the mind relies on: 「此中心皆觀實法，隨涅槃、不隨世間；若出四念處等法，心則散亂。」 tr. "Within these the mind is always contemplating real dharmas, in accord with nirvāṇa and not in accord with the world; if it goes out from the four foundations of mindfulness and the other dharmas, the mind becomes scattered." Then he sets up a simile: 「譬如蛇行本性好曲，若入竹筒則直，出筒還曲。」 tr. "It is like a snake moving: by its nature it likes to bend; if it enters a bamboo tube it becomes straight, and when it comes out of the tube it bends again." Three things in the simile must be kept distinct: the snake's nature is the mind's old habit, the bamboo tube is the norm of the limbs of the path, and straightness is the temporary look it has while within the norm. So being far from the limbs of the path is coarse not in the act of leaving them, but in that the mind, as soon as it leaves the norm, returns to its old habit.

37. Why craving the realisation of the fruit of the srota-āpanna is coarse—the simile of the water of a pond fifty yojana across; the simile of inviting guests and not giving. This is the last level of the items of coarse deeds, and also the level least like an evil deed. The treatise-author first describes how that mind of craving arises: a person hears the Buddha say 「須陀洹果，不墮三惡道，盡無量苦，如五十由旬池水；餘在者，如一渧、二渧」 tr. "the fruit of the srota-āpanna does not fall into the three evil destinies; the suffering exhausted is immeasurable, like the water of a pond fifty yojana across; what remains is like one drop or two drops", and 「則生貪心」 tr. "then gives rise to a mind of craving". The Buddha's words were originally praising the virtue of the fruit, yet the hearer gives rise to craving because of them; one can see that craving need not take an evil object. Then the treatise-author points out the root of the sickness and where its weight lies: 「以其心不牢固，本求作佛、為眾生，今為自身而欲取證，是為欺佛，亦負眾生」 tr. "because his mind is not firm—originally he sought to become a Buddha for the sake of beings, and now for his own sake he wishes to take realisation—this is to deceive the Buddha and also to betray beings". And he sets up a simile: 「譬如人請客，欲設飲食而竟不與，是則妄語負客。」 tr. "It is like a person who invites guests and means to set out food and drink, yet in the end does not give it; this is false speech and a betrayal of the guests." The treatise-author states the correspondence of the simile plainly: the bodhisattva at the first arousing of the mind made the vow 「我當作佛，度一切眾生」 tr. "I shall become a Buddha and deliver all beings", and yet takes realisation midway; 「是則負一切眾生」 tr. "this is to betray all beings". At the end he extends it with one sentence: 「如貪須陀洹果，乃至貪辟支佛道亦如是。」 tr. "As with craving the fruit of the srota-āpanna, so too with craving and so on up to the pratyekabuddha path." The First Part unit stops here; fascicle ninety-two ends.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva" as the bodhisattva path having no boundaries. The treatise-author plainly divides the items the Buddha listed into two layers: the three classes—the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and the eighteen emptinesses with the Buddha's ten powers—「皆是生身菩薩所行」 tr. "are all practised by the bodhisattva in a fleshly body", the reason being 「分別諸法故」 tr. "because he discriminates dharmas"; while 「一切法皆是菩薩道，是法性生身菩薩所行，不見諸法有好惡」 tr. "that all dharmas are the bodhisattva path is practised by the bodhisattva whose body is born of the Dharma-nature, who does not see dharmas as good or bad". Read them as one pot boiled together, and the sequence of the first three classes and the 「所以者何」 tr. "why" all fall empty; read it as counting only for those whose body is born of the Dharma-nature, and the Buddha's sentence 「無有法菩薩所不應學者」 tr. "there is no dharma that the bodhisattva should not train in" again has nothing to rest on. The two layers stand together; neither one replaces the other.

Do not read 「不住」 tr. "not abiding" as not obtaining. The second cause and condition in the Buddha's answer in the sūtra says it extremely clearly: 「我不應不得須陀洹果，我必應當得須陀洹果，我但不應是中住」 tr. "I should not fail to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; I surely should obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna; only I should not abide in it". He surely obtains and does not abide; it is not that he does not obtain. When the treatise-author explains not abiding he too brings it down to the practising marks—「布施時不取三種相，亦不著果報而自高生罪業，布施果報滅壞時亦不生惱」 tr. "when giving he does not grasp at the three kinds of marks, nor does he cling to the retribution, exalt himself, and give rise to sinful deeds, and when the retribution of giving perishes he does not give rise to vexation"—what is spoken of is obtaining and yet not grasping at its marks. To read not abiding as not taking the fruit, not cultivating realisation, is exactly contrary to the sūtra.

Do not read the breaking of the four alternatives as the sentence 「非生非不生」 tr. "neither arising nor non-arising" itself having a defect. The treatise-author's answer has only one point: if one discriminates it as good or as ugly, then 「取相生著故，故言有過；若能不著，則是菩提道。」 tr. "because one grasps at marks and gives rise to clinging, it is said to have faults; if one is able not to cling, that is precisely the path of awakening." The same sentence: clinging, it has a fault; not clinging, it is the path. What is broken is grasping at marks, not the sentence-form. If one thinks that switching to a more complete sentence-form will escape the fault, that is precisely the kind of mind the treatise-author means to break.

Do not read 「菩提即是道，道即是菩提」 tr. "awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening" as there being no distinction between the bodhisattva and the Buddha. That is precisely how Subhūti objected, and it is precisely to this objection that the Buddha answered: non-duality is said with regard to the substance of the dharma, while becoming a Buddha requires 「具足六波羅蜜、三十七助道法，具足佛十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法，具足住如金剛三昧，用一念相應慧」 tr. "being complete with the six perfections and the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, being complete with the Buddha's ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, and the eighteen unshared dharmas, being complete with them abiding in the like-vajra samādhi, and using the wisdom associated with a single thought". The treatise-author also supplies the reasons on each side—the bodhisattva, 「未具足諸功德故，不名為佛」 tr. "because he has not yet made all the merits complete, is not named Buddha"; the Buddha, 「願、行滿足故，不名為菩薩」 tr. "because his vows and practices are fulfilled, is not named bodhisattva". To take non-duality and discard the stages is to take the answer by way of the general mark for the whole.

Do not read 「多用一」 tr. "‘one’ is mostly used" as 「一」 tr. "one" being ultimate. The treatise-author says it very warily: 「於實義中，一亦不用；若著一，即復是患。」 tr. "Within the real meaning, ‘one’ too is not used; if one clings to ‘one’, that again is a fault." And he supplies why it is so—「別異無故，一亦不可得，相待法故」 tr. "because separateness and difference do not exist, ‘one’ too is unfindable, because it is a dharma of standing over against each other". The reason 「一」 tr. "one" is mostly used is that when one contemplates the one mark afflictions do not arise, just as the reason impermanence is mostly used is that it can break inversions; once the matter is accomplished, impermanence too is given up. For anyone who takes a counteracting dharma as the place of final return, this passage is a ready-made warning.

Do not read purifying buddha-lands as first adorning the outer realm. The first sentence of the Buddha's answer is 「從初發意已來，自除身麁業、除口麁業、除意麁業」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent until now, himself removes the coarse deeds of body, removes the coarse deeds of speech, removes the coarse deeds of mind"; the treatise-author's explanation is 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions", and item by item he gives evil speech evoking thorns, crookedness evoking high and low, stinginess evoking flood and drought, sand and gravel. If the order is turned round, first seeking the marks of the land and not first tending the three kinds of deeds, the cause and effect this passage speaks of is cut off entirely. The treatise-author's final sentence, 「內法淨故，外法亦淨；譬如面淨故，鏡中像亦淨」 tr. "because the inner dharmas are pure, the outer dharmas too are pure; just as, because the face is pure, the image in the mirror too is pure", states precisely this before and after.

Do not read 「眾生易度耳」 tr. "beings are easily delivered, that is all" as slighting beings. The reason the bodhisattva says they are easily delivered, as the treatise-author gives it, is that the things clung to are false, not that beings' capacities are superior; and he also set up a proof by the contrary—「若小兒所著實是真物，雖復年至百歲，著之轉深，不可得捨」 tr. "if what the little child clung to were really real things, then even when he reached a hundred years of age his clinging would grow deeper, and he could not give them up". The 「易」 tr. "easy" of easily delivered lies wholly on the side of the object, not on the side of the person; read it as looking down on beings, and the gladness on that side turns into pride.

Do not read 「戒不淨」 tr. "impure morality" as violating the precepts. The treatise-author specially lists four situations of 「不破所受戒」 tr. "not breaking the precepts one has received" and yet still being impure: constantly having one's mind covered by the three poisons, not keeping the precepts in mind, dedicating them to the merit of the heavens, keeping the precepts with wrong views. None of the four damages a precept-rule. If one rests content because no precept-rule has been violated, it is precisely this kind of person this passage points to.

Do not take 「麁」 tr. "coarse" for a fixed list. The treatise-author establishes his thesis in one sentence: 「麁、細不定故。」 tr. "Because coarse and subtle are not fixed." The same giving is coarse for those who seek the path and subtle for the white-robed; the Small Vehicle takes wholesome deeds as subtle, while the Mahāyāna says 「取善法相，乃至涅槃皆名為麁」 tr. "grasping at the mark of a wholesome dharma, and so on up to nirvāṇa, is all named coarse". That is why the items of coarse deeds open all the way to 「貪須陀洹果證」 tr. "craving the realisation of the fruit of the srota-āpanna". To judge others' coarse and subtle by one's own station, or to excuse oneself by the criterion of another vehicle, is in both cases to read what is not fixed as a fixed dharma.

Do not read 「貪須陀洹果」 tr. "craving the fruit of the srota-āpanna" as meaning one should not seek liberation. What is rebuked is 「本求作佛、為眾生，今為自身而欲取證」 tr. "originally he sought to become a Buddha for the sake of beings, and now for his own sake he wishes to take realisation"—a vow already set up changing direction midway. The treatise-author's two phrases are said most heavily: 「欺佛」 tr. "deceive the Buddha" and 「負眾生」 tr. "betray beings", and he takes inviting guests and not giving as the simile. If there was from the first no such vow, one is not among those this passage discusses; only having set up this vow and taking for oneself midway is the coarse spoken of here.

Bearing on Practice

Check one's own effort by 「莫念有是法」 tr. "do not keep in mind that these dharmas exist". The sūtra's three sentences of teaching beings share one structure: urging the practice of giving and yet 「莫恃布施果報而自高」 tr. "do not rely on the retribution of giving and exalt yourselves", urging morality, meditative concentration, and wisdom likewise, urging the obtaining of the fruits of the path and yet 「莫念有是法」 tr. "do not keep in mind that these dharmas exist". This gives a very handy self-examination: whenever one has done a wholesome thing or gained a little benefit from it, the ‘I have it now’ that then floats up in the mind is what is warned against here. Do the thing just the same; the thought need not be set up.

Regard the wholesome dharmas one has obtained by the 「熱金丸」 tr. "hot ball of gold". The treatise-author's simile is very blunt: 「雖是寶物，捉則燒手。」 tr. "Although it is a treasure, if you grasp it, it burns the hand." What it points to is not evil dharmas, but precisely wholesome dharmas that are pure and of great benefit. In daily life, the more effective a portion of one's cultivation is—power of concentration, eloquence, conduct in morality, learning—the more one should check it once against this simile: am I using it, or am I grasping it?

Regard the place one lives in by 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions". The treatise-author ties evil speech, crookedness, and stinginess one by one to thorns, high and low, flood and drought; this is not a metaphor but cause and effect. Rather than complain that the place one is in is not to one's liking, first ask how these three kinds of deeds have been of late. The most practical sentence of this passage is 「非但一人，生國土中者皆共作因緣」 tr. "it is not one person alone; those born in the land all together make the causes and conditions"—the environment is evoked in common, so one's own share is not of no account.

Arrange where to put the force of one's effort by 「思為大」 tr. "construction is greatest". The treatise-author points out the chief among the mental-factor dharmas very clearly: at the time of obtaining the path wisdom is greatest, in gathering the mind concentration is greatest, at the time of making deeds construction is greatest; and he takes 「譬如縫衣，以針為導」 tr. "as in sewing a garment the needle leads the way" as the simile. To correct the intention that sets things moving before doing something is far more effective than repairing afterwards; this too is why the Buddha speaks only of the three kinds of deeds and not item by item of giving and the rest.

Examine one's own keeping of morality by the four marks of 「戒不淨」 tr. "impure morality". The four marks are: constantly having one's mind covered by the three poisons, not keeping the precepts in mind, dedicating them to the merit of the heavens, keeping the precepts with wrong views. They can be used item by item as questions—while keeping morality lately, has the mind been in the three poisons all along; have I truly kept in mind the precepts I received; is the retribution I seek the merit of humans and gods; is the view I rely on lopsided. All four can come about without any violation of the precepts, so they are especially worth checking regularly.

Understand the function and the limit of norms by ‘the snake entering a bamboo tube’. The bamboo tube makes the snake straight, but out of the tube it bends again; this is the function of the limbs of the path for the mind—within them the mind is not scattered, apart from them it returns to the old. So on the one hand there is no need to lose heart because ‘once away from the norm I go back to the old way’—that is simply the ordinary state of things; on the other hand, do not think that the straight stretch within the norm means one's nature has already been changed. There is only one thing to do: do not leave the tube.

Check every stage-by-stage attainment against the ‘original vow’. The treatise-author judges craving the realisation of a fruit to be coarse, and the criterion is 「本求作佛、為眾生，今為自身而欲取證」 tr. "originally he sought to become a Buddha for the sake of beings, and now for his own sake he wishes to take realisation". This can be enlarged to daily life: whatever was begun for others and for the long term, and midway, having tasted its flavour, was turned to one's own benefit and ease, falls into this category. Regularly taking out the words of one's first arousing of the mind and reading them through once is the least effortful correction.

Turn one's own mind when facing the clinging of others by ‘what beings cling to is all false and deceptive, without reality’. The treatise-author writes that the bodhisattva, having observed, is 「大歡喜」 tr. "greatly glad", the reason for the gladness being that the things clung to are from the first not real. In daily life, when one meets a clinging of others that is hard to talk them out of, if one first decides that this person cannot be reasoned with, the matter ends there; if, following this passage, one first looks at whether the thing clung to is real or false, the mind can loosen and the words can be spoken. And remember that proof by the contrary—ease and difficulty lie wholly on the side of the object, not on the side of the person.

Further Resonances

The First Part unit, one sūtra and one treatise, establishes the way into this chapter. The sūtra, starting from Subhūti's asking about the path in thought, passes through 「一切法亦是菩薩摩訶薩道」 tr. "all dharmas too are the path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva", training in all dharmas without clinging, practising the bodhisattva path with nowhere to abide, all dharmas being non-arising and yet the path of awakening being given rise to, the constant abiding of the marks of dharmas, and awakening not being obtained by any of the four alternatives, and comes home to 「菩提即是道，道即是菩提」 tr. "awakening is precisely the path, the path is precisely awakening"; at this point the mark of the path has been fully spoken, and only then does it turn to ask about purifying buddha-lands; the Buddha answers with removing one's own and purifying others' coarse deeds of body, speech, and mind, and lists five items of coarse deeds. The treatise-author explains passage by passage why it is so: by the doubts of the assembly at that time and those who had entered deeply into meditative concentration he explains not asking but thinking; by the fleshly body and the body born of the Dharma-nature he divides the path of the three classes from all dharmas being the path; by the two similes of the little child heaping earth and the hot ball of gold he explains beings being easily delivered and wholesome dharmas being capable of harm; by grasping at marks and giving rise to clinging he explains why none of the four alternatives obtains; by the provisional name of the five aggregates and the real mark of the five aggregates he explains the Buddha being precisely awakening; by 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions" he explains the cause of the pure land; by 「思為大」 tr. "construction is greatest" he explains why only the three kinds of deeds are spoken of; by 「麁、細不定」 tr. "coarse and subtle are not fixed" he explains why the items of coarse deeds open all the way to craving the realisation of a fruit. The centre of gravity of the whole passage can be gathered into one sentence: what is asked about is the path, what is answered is not abiding; and at the farthest point of not abiding lies precisely the purity of the land.

The title of this chapter is not the same in all editions. The base text's treatise title is "Purifying the Buddha-land", while the sūtra being explained gives this chapter's heading as 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land", and Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, explaining this chapter, also entitles it 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land"; among the variant readings of the treatise title, the Ishiyama-dera manuscript further reads 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land", and the Song edition and the Palace edition lack the two characters 「佛國」 tr. "Buddha-land" in the title, belonging to one line with the short name of the sūtra text and of Jizang, while the base text and the remaining editions keep the full name. The names on both sides each have their basis; here they are recorded side by side without judgement; the collation entries one by one belong to the work of textual evidence, and are not set out in full here.

Jizang, at the opening of this chapter, explains what the chapter's name is tied to: 「此下後文明淨佛土，故云淨土。」 tr. "The later text from here on makes clear the pure Buddha-land; so it is called Pure Land." And he sets up a fourfold division for the whole chapter: 「就文為四：第一明菩薩自住勝道，二者化眾生令因菩薩住勝道，三者令眾生傳化，四眾生令悟共證菩提。」 tr. "Taking the text, it is in four: first, making clear the bodhisattva himself abiding in the surpassing path; second, transforming beings so that, by means of the bodhisattva, they abide in the surpassing path; third, causing beings to pass on the transforming; fourth, causing beings to awaken and together realise awakening." Of the four divisions, the First Part unit covers the full span of the first four—from 「菩薩自住勝道」 tr. "the bodhisattva himself abiding in the surpassing path" to 「一心得菩提下，第四、明菩薩及眾生了悟皆住菩提也」 tr. "from ‘with one mind obtains awakening’ below, the fourth, making clear that the bodhisattva and beings, having awakened, all abide in awakening". On Subhūti not speaking but thinking in his mind, what he explains follows the same line as the treatise-author: 「不好語言而欲得法利，故須菩提不發言默念問也」 tr. "they did not like words and yet wished to obtain the benefit of the Dharma, so Subhūti did not speak but asked by silent thought"; on why the Buddha answers with words, he likewise takes the sense of 「佛身覩之無厭」 tr. "the Buddha's body one sees without weariness" and 「只不妨禪定，故異須菩提也」 tr. "it simply does not hinder meditative concentration, so he differs from Subhūti"—running parallel in meaning with the treatise-author's two sentences in this unit, 「佛身色，視無厭足」 tr. "the Buddha's bodily form one looks at without ever being satisfied" and 「雖語而不妨細禪定行」 tr. "though he speaks, it does not hinder the subtle practice of meditative concentration", while the wording is not taken over from one to the other; the two are seen side by side, recorded without judgement.

On the section of the four alternatives, Jizang judges that what is broken is Subhūti's two views of cause and fruit: 「正破須菩提因果二見。如汝必言因果二故行因得果，故作四句問也。今因果不二即果是因，豈可言行因得果耶？」 tr. "It directly breaks Subhūti's view of cause and fruit as two. Since you must say that because cause and fruit are two one practises the cause and obtains the fruit, you therefore ask with the four alternatives. Now cause and fruit are not two, the fruit is precisely the cause; how can one say that one practises the cause and obtains the fruit?" And by this he explains the objection below, 「菩提應是佛」 tr. "awakening should be the Buddha": 「先因果二見，今聞不二作一見，故作一句也。」 tr. "Before, there was the view of cause and fruit as two; now, hearing of non-duality, he makes it a view of one; so he poses one alternative." And he gathers it up with 「因果既非二」 tr. "since cause and fruit are not two". The treatise-author here takes 「取相生著」 tr. "grasping at marks and giving rise to clinging" as where the fault lies, and explains with 「一、異雖俱不實而多用一」 tr. "although one and different are both not real, ‘one’ is mostly used" and 「相待法故」 tr. "because it is a dharma of standing over against each other"; the one sets up its breaking by the two views of cause and fruit, the other sets up its explanation by the expedient and the real of one and different; full and brief complement each other, and both are kept without judgement.

On the pure-land passage, Jizang sets up a separate twofold division: 「第二、明淨佛土。文為二：初、明淨土因；二、明淨土果。因中有二：初、明無惡因；二、明有善因。」 tr. "Second, making clear the pure Buddha-land. The text is in two: first, making clear the cause of the pure land; second, making clear the fruit of the pure land. Within the cause there are two: first, making clear the cause of being without evil; second, making clear the cause of having good." The content of what he explains as 「無惡因」 tr. "the cause of being without evil" corresponds to what the treatise-author gives in this unit—the high and low of the ground being tied to deceit and crookedness, much stinginess making water and drought out of season and the land full of sand and gravel, 「不作上諸惡故，地平多珍寶」 tr. "because the evils above are not done, the ground is level with many precious things"—coming from the same source as the treatise-author's passage on 「內法與外法作因緣」 tr. "the inner dharmas and the outer dharmas make causes and conditions". On speaking separately of the six obscurations, he sets up the same question as the treatise-author: 「同十惡已有慳貪，何故更說六蔽？」 tr. "The ten evils already likewise include stinginess and craving; why are the six obscurations spoken of further?" and his answer likewise takes the division of 「是六法不入十惡」 tr. "these six dharmas do not enter the ten evils" and 「重瞋能業，故名業道」 tr. "heavy anger can make deeds, so it is named a path of deeds", returning to 「故別說六弊也」 tr. "so the six obscurations are spoken of separately". On the section on impure morality, he too sets up the question 「六度中已說戒不淨」 tr. "impure morality has already been spoken of within the six perfections", and answers 「破戒是煞等麤罪，戒不淨即是細」 tr. "breaking morality is a coarse sin such as killing; impure morality is precisely the subtle"—the order of the three questions and answers agrees wholly with the treatise-author in this unit, from which it can be known that what he divides is the text of this chapter. Only, the Man'ji-zokuzō text of this commentary has many errors and lacunae; wherever words and phrases do not make sense, they are here neither collated nor supplemented on its behalf, nor taken up to establish meaning.

Huiying's Commentary lacks an explanation of this chapter. The extant text of his book stops partway through its sequence of fascicles, and the part that survives does not reach the fascicle where this chapter lies; though the name 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land" is seen several times in his book, what it refers to is the fifty-seventh chapter he explains, not this chapter. Huiying himself noted elsewhere 「此經兩處明淨土品」 tr. "this sūtra makes clear a Pure Land chapter in two places", from which it can be known that the same name appearing twice was something he himself knew; if readers of his book directly connect the three characters 「淨土品」 tr. "Pure Land" with this chapter, they will surely fall into the error of one name for different chapters. Here the lack is recorded according to the facts, and is not filled with text from elsewhere. Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises has no text bearing on this chapter; its lack too is recorded.

The two places, the Amitābha and other sūtras and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, are cited by the treatise-author himself to make clear the marks of the pure land and the principle of inner and outer evoking each other, not attached by later people; the meaning they are cited for has already entered the passage-by-passage explanation above and is not repeated here. The First Part having stopped at the mark of the path and the items of coarse deeds, the sūtra below turns to the practice of grasping at marks, the signless, and making vows to adorn the land, and the treatise-author, following it, explains the trees of the seven jewels putting forth the sound of the Dharma, the various explanations of the hundred flavours, hearing the Buddha's name and being assured of becoming a Buddha, and other matters—the Last Part of this chapter unfolds these in continuation, and they are not anticipated here.