大智度論 曇無竭品之卷九十九論段Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Dharmodgata, Part 2 of 3

Dharmodgata, Fascicle 99, Treatise Section: Why the Power of the Great Knowledge of Emptiness Is of No Use on Reaching the Place of the Buddha, How the Suchness of Dharmas Is Precisely the Buddha, Why the Saying That There Is a Buddha and the Saying That There Is No Buddha Are Both the Buddha-Dharma at Once, Why the Simile of the Five Fingers and the Fist Must Be Used Both Ways, Why Seeking the Buddha in Five Ways and Finding Him Unfindable Does Not Fall into Annihilation, Why Refuting the Notion of Clinging to the Buddha and Grasping a Notion of No Buddha Are Only a Hair's Breadth Apart, Why the Two Bodies, the Dharma Body and the Form Body, Must Be Divided Here, Why Not Falsely Eating Faithful Gifts Requires the Grades of Receiving Offerings to Be Listed Position by Position, Why the Two Similes of the Ocean's Jewels and the Konghou Must Each Be Explained Once More and a Simile of the Image in a Mirror Be Added, Why Jewels Are Produced Precisely Where They Are Hard to Obtain in the Great Ocean, Why the Reason for Śakra and the Flowers Must Be Asked, Why the Elder's Daughter in Giving Her Body Did Not Give It to Dharmodgata, the Greater Field of Merit, Why Dharmodgata's Accepting and Giving Back Is Called the Highest Kind of Accepting, Why Entering Concentration for Seven Years and Standing and Waiting for Seven Years Must Each Be Examined for Their Possibility, Why Piercing the Body to Draw Blood Is Not Taking Suffering as the Path, and Why the Happiness of the Third Dhyāna Alone Is Picked Out as a Simile

What Is Being Asked

The sūtra text of the previous unit is Dharmodgata disclosing directly, by the five similes of the mirage, the illusion, the dream, the ocean's jewels, and the konghou, that 「諸佛無所從來、去亦無所至」 tr. "the buddhas come from nowhere, and in going reach nowhere", followed by a long narrative passage of Sadāprarudita making offerings and seeking the Dharma. This unit is the treatise-author's explanation of that whole passage of sūtra text, and what it asks is really only two things: one lies in meaning, one lies in matters.

The one in meaning is why the four Chinese characters 「無來無去」 tr. "without coming and without going" can stand. The sūtra text only says that the Buddha is like a mirage, like a dream, and that the Dharma body is without coming and going, yet the treatise-author will not let it pass at that—he first raises the sharpest objection: if, as you say, the Buddha is empty, without coming and without going, then is the body of the Buddha formed by the coming together of these pure five aggregates—the thirty-two marks, the eighty minor marks, the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses—false? The five fingers coming together are named a fist; its name, shape, and power and function all differ from a single finger; who can say there is no fist? This objection is a real, solid objection of common sense, not a play on words. The treatise-author's way of answering is not to deny the fist, but first to set up 「二諦」 tr. "the two truths": by reason of worldly truth it is said that the Buddha teaches prajñā; by reason of the highest meaning it is said that the buddhas are empty, without coming and without going. With the two truths set up, only then does he examine and break through, one by one, with five ways of seeking—the five aggregates are not precisely the Buddha, apart from the five aggregates there is no Buddha either, the Buddha is not in the five aggregates, the five aggregates are not in the Buddha, the Buddha does not possess the five aggregates—sought in five ways he is not found, so it is said there is no Buddha; because the Buddha does not exist, there is no coming and no going. Immediately after, he at once blocks the annihilationist view that would slip out from here: the 「無佛」 tr. "no Buddha" spoken of here is to refute the notion of clinging to the Buddha, not to have people take up another notion of 「無佛」 tr. "no Buddha". When both sides, existence and non-existence, are left and one abides in the middle way, this is the real mark of all dharmas, and the real mark of all dharmas is precisely the Buddha. The skeleton of the meaning of the whole passage is set up just between this one refutation and this one blocking.

The one in matters is why that long narrative of making offerings and seeking the Dharma is not idle text. The treatise-author asks after the causes and conditions of matter after matter: why did Śakra conjure flowers and give them to him? Why did the elder's daughter not give her body to Dharmodgata, the greater field of merit, but give it to Sadāprarudita? Since Dharmodgata accepted in order to bring his dānapāramitā to accomplishment, why did he then give it back to him? Why did a great bodhisattva who teaches the Dharma have to enter the palace? Why, for the sake of the Dharma, should one not sit or lie down? The human body being weak, how could he not sit or lie down for seven years? Why did Dharmodgata's entry into concentration have to be as long as seven years? Since accomplished merit can bring about whatever one wishes, how could Māra still hide his water? If, piercing his body to draw blood, his body had died, who would come to hear the Dharma?—question by question, answer by answer, a story of seeking the Dharma that seems merely moving is restored into principles that can be examined one by one. At the end one more question is added: happiness is of four kinds; why is the happiness of the third dhyāna alone taken as a simile? Even the choice of a single simile must be asked for its reason.

So what this unit must answer is this: why the Buddha says there is no coming and no going, and why Sadāprarudita sought the Dharma in that way—these two matters are two faces of one matter: only when one sees that dharmas are without coming and without going can one let go of body and life; only when one lets go of body and life does one truly see that dharmas are without coming and without going.

Passage by Passage

1. General opening—why the power of the great knowledge of emptiness is of no use on reaching the place of the Buddha. In beginning his explanation, the treatise-author does not first explain the words and phrases of the sūtra text, but first speaks of the ground of Sadāprarudita's mind. He 「雖知諸法空無來去相」 tr. "though he knew that dharmas are empty and without the mark of coming and going", yet 「未能深入，亦不能解種種法門」 tr. "he could not yet enter deeply, nor could he understand the many gates of the Dharma"; more important is the next sentence—「於諸佛身恭敬深重故，不能觀空」 tr. "because his reverence for the bodies of the buddhas was deep and weighty, he could not contemplate emptiness". Deep and weighty reverence is good, yet it is precisely the obstruction to contemplating emptiness here. The treatise-author at once brings out a simile: 「如大海水波，其力雖大，到須彌山邊則退而無用」 tr. "as the waves of the great ocean, though their force is great, when they reach the side of Mount Sumeru retreat and are of no use"—the force of the waves cannot be called anything but great, yet meeting Sumeru they retreat; Sadāprarudita's knowledge of emptiness cannot be called anything but great, yet reaching the place of the Buddha it too is of no use. On reading the treatise up to here one should first take in one thing: what obstructs is not necessarily an evil dharma; a measure of deep and weighty reverence can also become the place where the contemplation of emptiness gains no strength. That Dharmodgata must here say 「諸佛無所從來、去亦無所至」 tr. "the buddhas come from nowhere, and in going reach nowhere" is said precisely facing this place.

2. The suchness of dharmas has the mark of not moving—what is the suchness of dharmas. The treatise-author first takes up the causes and conditions that Dharmodgata himself stated: 「諸法如不動相，諸法如即是佛。」 tr. "The suchness of dharmas has the mark of not moving; the suchness of dharmas is precisely the Buddha." He at once poses a question himself: what is the suchness of dharmas? The answer is extremely brief—「諸法實相，所謂性空、無所得、空等諸法門。」 tr. "The real mark of all dharmas, namely the many gates of the Dharma such as emptiness of nature, nothing to be attained, emptiness, and the like." This question must not be looked on as a small question. The character 「如」 tr. "suchness" is used everywhere in the sūtras; if its content is not first examined and settled, the sentence below, 「諸法如即是佛」 tr. "the suchness of dharmas is precisely the Buddha", becomes explaining an abstruse word with an abstruse word. The treatise-author sets 「如」 tr. "suchness" down directly upon the many gates of the Dharma such as emptiness of nature, nothing to be attained, emptiness, and the like, and does not let people seek, outside the gates of the Dharma, a separate 「如」 tr. "suchness".

3. The two truths—why the saying that there is a Buddha and the saying that there is no Buddha are both the Buddha-dharma at once. This question is the weightiest objection of the whole passage. The objector says: prajñā is the foremost dharma among the six perfections; without a Buddha there is no one to teach prajñā; and the form dharmas and formless dharmas—the thirty-two marks, the eighty minor marks, the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and the like—these pure five aggregates coming together are named the Buddha; just as the five fingers coming together are named a fist, 「名字既異，形亦異，力用亦異，不得言無拳」 tr. "since the name is different, the shape is different too, and the power and function are different too, one cannot say there is no fist", and from this one knows that there is a Buddha. The treatise-author answers decisively: 「不然！佛法中有二諦：世諦、第一義諦。」 tr. "It is not so! In the Buddha-dharma there are two truths: worldly truth and the truth of the highest meaning." By reason of worldly truth it is said 「佛說般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the Buddha teaches prajñāpāramitā"; by reason of the highest meaning it is said 「諸佛空，無來無去」 tr. "the buddhas are empty, without coming and without going". Once the two truths are set up, the two sayings no longer obstruct each other—the one who says there is a Buddha is not false, the one who says there is no Buddha is not annihilationist. Next, he refutes the clinging to coming together with sūtra proof: 「五眾非佛，離五眾亦無佛，五眾不在佛中，佛不在五眾中，佛非五眾有。」 tr. "The five aggregates are not the Buddha; apart from the five aggregates there is no Buddha either; the five aggregates are not in the Buddha; the Buddha is not in the five aggregates; the Buddha does not possess the five aggregates." The reader should here remember a rule: on meeting two sayings that both come from the Buddha's mouth and seem to contradict each other, first ask to which truth each belongs; do not hurry to judge which one is of definitive meaning.

4. The five aggregates are not precisely the Buddha—the objector twice retreats and the treatise-author refutes step by step. The treatise-author first gives the reason why they are not precisely the Buddha: 「五眾是五、佛是一，一不作五、五不作一」 tr. "the five aggregates are five, the Buddha is one; the one does not make the five, the five do not make the one"; again, because the five aggregates have no self-nature they are false, deceptive, and not real, while the Buddha himself said: 「一切無誑法中，我最第一。」 tr. "Among all dharmas without deception, I am the foremost." What is false and deceptive cannot be precisely the foremost of what is without deception; therefore the five aggregates are not precisely the Buddha. Further, one turn tightens it more: if the five aggregates were precisely the Buddha, then 「諸有五眾者皆應是佛」 tr. "all who have the five aggregates should be buddhas". The objector retreats a step, saying that what I said before was 「第一清淨五眾、三十二相等名為佛」 tr. "the foremost pure five aggregates, the thirty-two marks, and the rest are named the Buddha"; the treatise-author answers: the thirty-two marks and the rest are already present at the bodhisattva's position; why is he not named the Buddha at that time? The objector retreats again, saying that at that time, though he has the marks and minor signs, he does not have the omniscience of all kinds, and only if the omniscience of all kinds is within the foremost subtle form body is it named the Buddha; the treatise-author answers: 「一切種智」 tr. "the omniscience of all kinds" is said within prajñā to be the mark of quiescence, without idle discourse; obtaining this dharma is named nothing to be attained; because of nothing to be attained it is named the Buddha, and the Buddha is precisely emptiness. Twice the objector moves the definition of 「佛」 tr. "Buddha" back one notch, and the treatise-author follows him to that notch and refutes it there—what is refuted is not one particular definition, but this very matter of ‘a Buddha must be set down somewhere’.

5. The simile of the fist—apart from the five aggregates there is no Buddha either, and the simile of the fist is used both ways. Above he refuted 「即」 tr. "being precisely"; from here down he refutes 「離」 tr. "being apart from". The treatise-author says: 「離是五眾，更無餘法可說；如離五指更無拳法可說。」 tr. "Apart from these five aggregates there is no other dharma to speak of; just as, apart from the five fingers, there is no further dharma of a fist to speak of." The objector does not submit: since the shape is different and the power and function are different, if it were only fingers there should not be this difference; because the five fingers come together the dharma of a fist arises, and although this dharma of a fist is impermanent and has arising and ceasing, one simply cannot say it does not exist. The treatise-author's answer is only one sentence: 「是拳法若定有，除五指應更有拳可見，亦不須因五指。」 tr. "If this dharma of a fist definitely existed, then apart from the five fingers there should be a further fist that can be seen, and it would not need to rely on the five fingers."—the joint lies in the two Chinese characters 「定有」 tr. "definitely existing". What the objector speaks of is a fist arising from causes and conditions; what the treatise-author refutes is a definitely existing fist; what arises from causes and conditions need not be refuted, and what definitely exists falls as soon as it is refuted. Note that this simile is used both ways in this passage: earlier the objector used it to prove that there is a Buddha; here the treatise-author uses it to prove that apart from the five aggregates there is no Buddha. That one simile can be used on two sides shows precisely that a simile cannot by itself settle right and wrong; what settles right and wrong is the meaning it is paired with.

6. Seeking the Buddha in five ways he is unfindable—why this does not fall into annihilation. The treatise-author then pushes the last three gates through to the end. 「佛不在五眾中，五眾不在佛中。何以故？異不可得故」 tr. "The Buddha is not in the five aggregates, and the five aggregates are not in the Buddha. Why? Because difference is unfindable"—if the five aggregates and the Buddha were different from each other, the Buddha should be in the five aggregates, and this is not so. Again, 「佛亦不在五眾」 tr. "nor is the Buddha in the five aggregates", because apart from the five aggregates there is no Buddha, and apart from the Buddha there are no five aggregates either; it is not like a bhikṣu having three robes and a bowl, who can be said to have them; the Buddha and the five aggregates cannot be divided as different, so one cannot say that the Buddha possesses the five aggregates. Sought by five gates he is in every case unfindable, therefore it is said: 「當知無佛；佛無故無來無去」 tr. "know that there is no Buddha; because the Buddha does not exist, there is no coming and no going". Here one must see clearly the order the treatise-author sets up: only with the two truths first as the base does he dare to say 「無佛」 tr. "no Buddha"; without the two truths before it, this sentence would be an annihilationist view. When the reader meets a sheer, severe saying, he should first turn back and look for the floorboard it stands on, which is often not far back in the preceding text.

7. Refuting the notion of clinging to the Buddha, not grasping a notion of no Buddha—a hair's breadth apart. As soon as the severe saying is out, the objection follows at once: 「若無佛，即是邪見，云何菩薩發心求作佛？」 tr. "If there is no Buddha, that is wrong view; how does the bodhisattva arouse the mind to seek to become a Buddha?" The treatise-author's answer is the pivot of this passage: the 「無佛」 tr. "no Buddha" spoken of here is 「破著佛想」 tr. "to refute the notion of clinging to the Buddha", and is not meant to have people 「取無佛想」 tr. "grasp at the notion of no Buddha"—saying there is no Buddha is an act, not a conclusion. The next sentence shuts the door tight: 「若有佛尚不令取，何況取無佛邪見！」 tr. "If even where there is a Buddha one is not allowed to grasp, how much less to grasp the wrong view that there is no Buddha!" Even existence one is not allowed to grasp, how much less non-existence. Going one layer further: the Buddha has the mark of being always quiescent, without idle discourse; if someone discriminates and engages in idle discourse about this matter of permanent quiescent extinction, this person likewise falls into wrong view. So the way out is not to choose one side between the two, but in 「離是有、無二邊，處中道」 tr. "leaving these two extremes of existence and non-existence, abiding in the middle way"—abiding in the middle way is precisely the real mark of all dharmas, and 「諸法實相即是佛」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas is precisely the Buddha"; to obtain this real mark of all dharmas is named obtaining the Buddha. Earlier he said 「無佛」 tr. "no Buddha"; here he says 「得佛」 tr. "obtaining the Buddha"; the two sayings do not obstruct each other, because what is without existence is the Buddha that is clung to, and what is obtained is the Buddha of the real mark.

8. The mark of suchness of form and the other dharmas is precisely the Buddha—one suchness, without two and without three. The treatise-author, further, sets up the meaning directly: the mark of suchness of form and the other dharmas is precisely the Buddha; the emptiness of nature of form and the other dharmas is precisely the mark of suchness; the suchness of the buddhas too is emptiness of nature, and therefore they neither come nor go. Unarisen, unceasing, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, emptiness, the undefiled, quiescent extinction, the nature of space are likewise without coming and without going. The last sentence draws it in very tight: 「如，乃至虛空性如、佛如，是如一，無二、無三等別異。」 tr. "Suchness, and so on up to the suchness of the nature of space and the suchness of the Buddha—this suchness is one, without the differences of two, of three, and the like." This sentence is the direct answer to the earlier objection about 「無佛」 tr. "no Buddha"—the reason the Buddha is without coming and without going is not that the Buddha does not exist, but that the suchness of the Buddha and the suchness of all dharmas are one and the same suchness; being one and the same, there is no room for coming from anywhere or going to anywhere. The treatise-author at once takes up the causes and conditions that the sūtra text itself states: 「何以故？出諸數法，無所有故。」 tr. "Why? Because it passes beyond all dharmas of number, being without anything existent." Because it passes beyond all dharmas of number, it is not in the ranks of one, two, three; not being within number, naturally coming and going cannot be spoken of.

9. Within names there is number—empty, not real, because without anything existent. The treatise-author adds a small passage of gloss: 「如等法是實，是中無有憶想分別。取相故有名字，名字中有數。」 tr. "Suchness and the other dharmas are real; within them there is no recollection, imagining, and discrimination. Because of grasping at marks there are names; within names there is number."—number is not on the dharmas; it is on names; names do not come of themselves; they come from grasping at marks. So to refute 「數」 tr. "number" one need not go to the dharmas to refute it; one need only keep watch over grasping at marks. Next he brings out another sentence: 「空、非實，無所有故。」 tr. "Because it is empty, not real, without anything existent." The two occurrences here of 「此中自說因緣」 tr. "here it itself states the causes and conditions" are both the treatise-author pointing the reader to the fact that the reason is already within, with no need to seek elsewhere: the first, 「出諸數法，無所有故」 tr. "because it passes beyond all dharmas of number, being without anything existent", is an original sentence of the sūtra text, while the second, 「空、非實」 tr. "empty, not real", is the treatise-author's restating words, and the sūtra text has no such wording. When reading a sūtra one meets sentences such as 「何以故」 tr. "why?" and 「所謂」 tr. "namely", these are often the places where it explains itself, and they are least of all to be skipped.

10. If dharmas are without anything existent, how is there seeing, hearing, suffering, and joy—the root meaning of the similes of the mirage and the dream. The objector turns from principle to the seeing, hearing, suffering, and joy before his eyes: if this dharma is without anything existent, how can there still be seeing and hearing, still all kinds of distinctions such as suffering and joy, bondage and liberation? The treatise-author's answer does not set up a new teaching, but points back to the sūtra text—Dharmodgata himself has already spoken by all kinds of similes, 「所謂如春末月見焰，乃至是人不分別諸法若來若去」 tr. "namely, as the mirage seen in the last month of spring, and so on up to: this person does not discriminate dharmas as coming or going". He at once points out the crux of the simile of the mirage: 「如焰等中雖無實事，亦能誑人自生苦樂事」 tr. "as within the mirage and the like, though there is no real thing, they can still deceive people so that matters of suffering and joy arise of themselves"—without reality yet able to deceive, deceiving yet with suffering and joy: this is precisely the answer to ‘empty, yet there is seeing, hearing, suffering, and joy’. The dream and the other dharmas are likewise. One must see clearly that the treatise-author here neither admits that suffering and joy are real, nor denies that suffering and joy are felt; what he sets up is that 「無實事」 tr. "there is no real thing" and 「能誑人」 tr. "they can deceive people" stand side by side, and this standing side by side is the whole answer.

11. The two bodies, the Dharma body and the form body—the true Buddha and the Buddha of worldly truth. The treatise-author, further, opens out two bodies: 「佛有二種身：一者、法身，二者、色身。法身是真佛，色身為世諦故有。」 tr. "The Buddha has two kinds of body: first, the Dharma body; second, the form body. The Dharma body is the true Buddha; the form body exists for the sake of worldly truth." This division comes on from the two truths before. The treatise-author goes on to speak of the mark of the Buddha's Dharma body: the real mark of all dharmas spoken of above by all kinds of causes and conditions is precisely the mark of the Dharma body, and this real mark too is without coming and without going, so it is said 「諸佛無所從來，去亦無所至」 tr. "the buddhas come from nowhere, and in going reach nowhere". One who obtains the mark of the Dharma body is named near to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—why is it called only 「近」 tr. "near"? The treatise-author answers himself: because he has not yet obtained omniscience he is named near, by reason of resemblance. The one character 「近」 tr. "near" keeps its ground very firmly, and does not let people take resemblance for the ultimate. Next he defines the true disciples of the Buddha: obtaining the real mark of all dharmas is named the Buddha; because the obtaining of the real mark of all dharmas has distinctions, there are the srota-āpanna and so on up to the pratyekabuddha and the great bodhisattva, and these are all named true disciples of the Buddha. So the criterion of 「真佛弟子」 tr. "a true disciple of the Buddha" lies in obtaining the real mark, not in outward form, name, or rank.

12. Not falsely eating people's faithful gifts—why the grades of receiving offerings must be listed position by position. In explaining the sentence of the sūtra text 「不虛妄食人信施」 tr. "does not falsely eat people's faithful gifts", the treatise-author first sets up the opposite side: giving to animals, though one obtains a hundredfold retribution, 「此福有盡有量，不能度眾生生死故」 tr. "this merit is exhaustible and measurable, because it cannot carry beings across birth and death", and it is named 「虛食」 tr. "eating in vain"; when the worthies and sages receive people's faithful gifts, the retribution of this merit is, all the way to nirvāṇa, inexhaustible and immeasurable, and so it is named not falsely eating people's faithful gifts. The judgement of in vain or not in vain lies not in how thick or thin the giver's mind is, but in whether the field given to can reach through to leaving birth and death. Then he lists, position by position, the grades of those who should receive offerings—the srota-āpanna receives the offerings of all ordinary people; the sakṛdāgāmin receives the offerings of ordinary people and so on up to the srota-āpanna; the anāgāmin receives the offerings of ordinary people and of the srota-āpanna and the sakṛdāgāmin; the arhat receives the offerings of ordinary people and of the first three fruits; the pratyekabuddha receives the offerings of ordinary people and of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the arhat; the great bodhisattva near to becoming a Buddha receives the offerings of ordinary people and of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. Why must they be listed in full, grade by grade? Because if it were only said ‘the worthies and sages should receive offerings’, the reader would have no way of knowing for himself where he stands; listed position by position, both sides, receiving offerings and giving offerings, have their measure. At the end he explains the meaning of a field of merit by 「如植種良田，成收必多」 tr. "as when seed is planted in a good field, the harvest gathered is surely great", and points out plainly that morality, meditative concentration, and wisdom are precisely the field of merit—the field is not outside; it lies in the virtues one has accomplished.

13. Because he fears they will fall into annihilation, causes and conditions and similes are taught—the simile of the ocean's jewels and the simile of the skilled archer. The treatise-author points out where the next passage of sūtra text comes from: above it was said 「諸佛無來無去」 tr. "the buddhas are without coming and without going", and Sadāprarudita and the listeners thought in their minds 「諸佛尚無，諸法亦應皆滅」 tr. "if even the buddhas do not exist, dharmas too should all be extinguished"; this would be falling into annihilation, 「是故今說因緣法譬喻」 tr. "therefore now the dharma of causes and conditions is taught, together with similes". One can see that the similes from the ocean's jewels on down are not a rhetorical spreading-out, but are set up to guard against the annihilationist view. Dharmodgata disclosed to him: 「如汝所著，意謂實有者無；為度眾生故，從因緣和合則有像現。」 tr. "What you cling to, thinking that it really exists, does not exist; for the sake of delivering beings, from the coming together of causes and conditions an image appears."—what does not exist is the real existence you cling to; what exists is the image that causes and conditions make appear. He at once takes the great ocean producing jewels as a simile: the jewels do not come from the ten directions and when they perish they go nowhere, nor are they produced without causes and conditions; it is by the causes and conditions of the merit of the beings of the four continents that the ocean produces these jewels; when the kalpa is exhausted and destroyed they also have no place to go, 「譬如燈滅，焰無所至」 tr. "just as when a lamp goes out, its flame goes nowhere". The Buddha's body is likewise: the roots of goodness and merit planted since the first arousing of the mind are all causes and conditions of the marks and minor signs of the Buddha's body; the Buddha's body too is not sovereign of itself, but arises as belonging to the retribution of the original causes, conditions, and deeds; though its causes and conditions abide long, its nature is conditioned and must return to impermanence. The treatise-author further adds a simile of his own—a skilled archer shoots upward into space; though the arrow goes far it will surely fall to the ground; though the bodies of the buddhas are radiant with marks and minor signs, accomplished in merit, immeasurable in renown, and without limit in the people they deliver, they too return to wearing away. This simile is not there to refute the Buddha; it is there to refute the notion ‘the Buddha's body can last forever’; if this notion is not refuted, the earlier without coming and without going still cannot land on solid ground.

14. Why jewels are not produced where beings are near—asked in the most ordinary way and answered in the most correct way. Here the treatise-author inserts a question: if it is by the causes and conditions of beings' merit that the ocean produces jewels, why are they not produced near where beings are, but are produced instead where they are hard to obtain in the great ocean? This question seems off the topic, but in fact it is a crack in the simile—if a simile has a crack, the meaning it illustrates leaks. The treatise-author first gives the plainest answer: 「海中亦有眾生，龍、阿修羅等用是寶。」 tr. "In the ocean too there are beings; the nāgas, the asuras, and the like use these jewels." Where the jewels are, they have their own users; there is no need to take the human world as the centre of measure. In reading the treatise one should learn this move: do not hurry to paste over the crack in a simile with abstruse principle; first see whether in fact there is a ready explanation.

15. A turbid age and a good age, and the two causes and conditions of deliverance—the great ocean is the six destinies, the jewels are the buddhas. The treatise-author, further, answers at length. If the jewels were produced among humans in a turbid age, the greedy would hide them away and not let others obtain them; if in a good age, jewels are produced of themselves among humans and no one is stingy with them—「如彌勒佛時，珍寶如瓦礫」 tr. "as at the time of the Buddha Maitreya, jewels are like tiles and pebbles". Because lazy and indolent people cherish their bodies and make strained vows seeking pleasure, the jewels in the great ocean cannot be obtained; only those of great mind who do not cherish body and life and seek diligently can obtain them. At this point the treatise-author closes the simile: 「大海水喻十方六道國土，諸珍寶即是諸佛。」 tr. "The water of the great ocean is a simile for the lands of the six destinies in the ten directions; the many jewels are precisely the buddhas." The jewels are produced for the sake of all beings, yet the lazy cannot obtain them; the buddhas appear in the world for the sake of beings, yet 「懈怠、小心、貪身著我者不得度」 tr. "those who are lazy, of small mind, greedy for the body, and clinging to a self do not obtain deliverance". Why do they not obtain deliverance? The treatise-author gives the general rule: 「諸法皆從眾緣和合生，眾生有二因緣故得度：一者、內有正見，二者、外有善說法者。」 tr. "All dharmas arise from the coming together of many conditions; beings obtain deliverance because of two causes and conditions: first, right view within; second, one who teaches the Dharma well without." When the outer condition is already present but the inner cause is not complete, one still does not obtain deliverance. The most important sentence of this passage is the analogy at the end—though the jewels come forth for the sake of beings, there are still poor beings; though the buddhas come forth for the sake of beings, because beings' right view within is slight, they too do not obtain deliverance. Those for whom the outer condition is already complete and who still do not obtain deliverance lack one of the two causes and conditions.

16. The simile of the sound of the konghou—the Buddha's body arises at the edge where the many conditions come together. The treatise-author explains again the simile of the konghou in the sūtra. There is the body, the neck, the skin, the strings, the plectrum, and a person plays it with the hand; when the many conditions come together there is sound; 「如聲亦不在眾緣中，離眾緣亦無聲」 tr. "just as the sound is not within the many conditions, and apart from the many conditions there is no sound either". Applied to the Buddha: the bodies of the buddhas too are like this; they arise at the edge where the many causes and conditions—the six perfections and the power of skilful means—come together, and 「佛身不在六波羅蜜等法中，亦不離六波羅蜜等法」 tr. "the Buddha's body is not within the six perfections and the other dharmas, nor is it apart from the six perfections and the other dharmas". What this simile refutes is the same as the simile of the five fingers and the fist before, but what it discloses is different—the simile of the fist refutes a definitely existing Buddha; the simile of the sound discloses the place where the Buddha's body arises. The two Chinese characters 「邊生」 tr. "arising at the edge" are placed with great precision: not within them, not apart outside them, it arises right on the edge of the coming together. Wherever one meets the sentence pattern ‘not within such-and-such a dharma, nor apart from such-and-such a dharma’, one can read it with this simile.

17. The simile of the image in a mirror—not from no causes and conditions, nor from scant causes and conditions. The treatise-author continues: just as sound is not by one cause and condition, nor without causes and conditions, the Buddha's body too is like this: 「不從無因緣，亦不從少因緣，諸善法因緣具足故，生諸佛身」 tr. "it does not come from no causes and conditions, nor does it come from scant causes and conditions; because the causes and conditions of all wholesome dharmas are complete, the bodies of the buddhas are born". Here one more slot, 「少因緣」 tr. "scant causes and conditions", is added, which the earlier simile did not have—not only must there be causes and conditions, the causes and conditions must also be complete. Next he adds a simile of his own, the image in a mirror, to gather it up, a simile the sūtra text does not have: the image in a mirror exists because many causes and conditions come together, and does not exist because the many conditions part; the buddhas too are like this: because there are causes and conditions they appear; because the causes and conditions scatter they perish. With this the three similes are read through, each with its own share of work: the ocean's jewels make clear that coming and going have no whence; the konghou makes clear not within and not apart; the image in the mirror makes clear appearing and perishing according to conditions. If the reader only remembers the four Chinese characters ‘like an illusion, like a conjuration’ without distinguishing what each of the three similes governs, he has lost in his reading the care with which the treatise-author divides the similes to explain them.

18. The sūtra text taken up again and the concluding exhortation—because all dharmas are without obstruction. The treatise-author takes up two sentences of the sūtra text again as a conclusion: 「善男子！應如是觀諸佛來去相，一切諸法相亦應如是知。」 tr. "Good man! You should contemplate the mark of the buddhas' coming and going in this way; the marks of all dharmas too should be known in this way."—the way of contemplating the Buddha is precisely the way of contemplating all dharmas; this is extending the meaning of a whole chapter to every place. Next he takes up the words of Dharmodgata to Sadāprarudita: 「善男子！汝能知諸法相不來不去，必得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不退轉，亦必能行般若波羅蜜及方便力。何以故？一切法無障礙故。」 tr. "Good man! If you can know that the marks of dharmas neither come nor go, you will surely obtain non-retrogression from anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and will surely also be able to practise prajñāpāramitā and the power of skilful means. Why? Because all dharmas are without obstruction." The last sentence is the gathering-up of the meaning of the whole passage—the reason one can be non-retrogressing and can practise prajñā and skilful means is not how much one has cultivated, but that all dharmas are from the first without obstruction. The passage on meaning ends here; from here down it turns to the passage on matters.

19. Why Śakra conjured flowers and gave them to him—because he loves the Buddha path he always makes offerings to bodhisattvas. The treatise-author raises the first question on matters: why did Śakra Devānām Indra conjure māndārava flowers and give them to Sadāprarudita? The answer is very plain: 「釋提桓因愛樂佛道故，常供養諸菩薩。」 tr. "Because Śakra Devānām Indra loves and delights in the Buddha path, he always makes offerings to the bodhisattvas." At first sight the reader will feel this question could be asked or not—gods making offerings to bodhisattvas is a common matter, so why ask? But in asking this question the treatise-author is precisely setting up a rule for reading narrative: wherever there is a matter in the sūtra, it must have its causes and conditions; if one does not ask, one reads past and forgets; only by asking does one know that every matter has its place where it lands. The ten-odd questions below are all brought out by this one.

20. A further answer, and what someone says—the intent of guiding beings, and the teaching that the flowers do not change and spoil. The treatise-author, further, answers again: Śakra Devānām Indra, wishing to take in beings and cause them to enter the Buddha path, appeared in the body of a heavenly king and gave him the flowers; because Sadāprarudita sought the Buddha path with one mind the gods came to make offerings, and beings who saw it all aroused the mind as well—so Śakra's making offerings to Sadāprarudita was for the sake of guiding beings. Below this he records a different teaching—someone says: 「釋提桓因深愛敬薩陀波崙，上品來試已，令身體平復，今復以華與之。釋提桓因力能與一切人華，以眾生無福力故，設當與者，華即變壞；薩陀波崙福德成就故，得必不變，是故與；若一切菩薩供養師時不盡與。」 tr. "Śakra Devānām Indra deeply loved and revered Sadāprarudita; in the previous chapter he came and tested him, then made his body whole again, and now again gives him flowers. Śakra Devānām Indra has the power to give flowers to all people, but because beings lack the power of merit, if he were to give them, the flowers would at once change and spoil; because Sadāprarudita's merit is accomplished, what he obtains will surely not change, and therefore he gives them; when all bodhisattvas make offerings to their teachers, he does not give to all of them." This teaching puts the weight on the merit of the receiver—the same heavenly flowers, received by one whose merit is not accomplished, at once spoil. The treatise-author records without judging, and the two teachings stand side by side: one speaks from the intent of guiding of the one who can give, the other from the merit that draws a response in the one given to. When reading the treatise and meeting a place where things are recorded side by side, it is fitting to take both meanings together; there is no need to force a division into higher and lower.

21. He should protect him and make offerings to him—the causes and conditions stated before, and the causes and conditions Śakra himself states. The treatise-author takes up the phrase 「應守護供養」 tr. "he should protect him and make offerings to him" and explains it, pointing out that the causes and conditions have already been stated before, namely that because of the cutting of flesh and drawing of blood, and his testing him thereby, they became close friends, and so he protects him. Further, he points out that here Śakra himself states the causes and conditions: 「汝因緣力故，饒益百千等眾生。」 tr. "Because of the power of your causes and conditions, hundreds of thousands of beings and more are benefited." The one is a condition from a past event, the other is words fitting the occasion; in setting the two side by side, the treatise-author wants the reader to know that the two Chinese characters 「守護」 tr. "protection" are not loose words in the sūtra: before them there is a matter, after them there are words.

22. Taking the flowers to make offerings and making an offering of his body—the elder's daughter and the others follow his example. The treatise-author relates that Sadāprarudita took the flowers and, in accordance with Śakra's intention, offered them to Dharmodgata; and he explains why he made an offering of his body—「初聞師名，後眼見聞法斷疑故」 tr. "because at first he heard the teacher's name, and later saw him with his own eyes, heard the Dharma, and severed his doubts". Hearing the name and seeing face to face with doubts severed are two degrees of depth; the thickness of the offering turns with this depth—this is the order of the mind's practice that the treatise-author points out for the reader. The elder's daughter and the others also followed Sadāprarudita's example and gave their bodies to Sadāprarudita—one sentence that brings out where the three questions below come from.

23. Why the women did not make an offering of their bodies to Dharmodgata—the field of merit was greater, yet they did not go to it. The treatise-author asks: Sadāprarudita made an offering of his body to Dharmodgata, and Dharmodgata is the greater field of merit; why did the women not make an offering of their bodies to Dharmodgata, but gave them to Sadāprarudita? The answer has two meanings: 「女人智短著多故，不用捨本師而供養他」 tr. "because women's wisdom is short and their clinging is great, they should not abandon their own teacher to make offerings to another"; and, because a woman's body is sinful and impure, 「心雖清白，為外有譏謗故」 tr. "though their minds are pure and clean, because outwardly there would be slander and reproach". The first meaning speaks from teacher and disciple—having received the Dharma from this person, it is not fitting to abandon one's own teacher and run to a greater field elsewhere; the second meaning speaks from the reproach of the world—the ground of the mind is pure and clean, yet outward appearance must still avoid suspicion. In reading the treatise one should keep watch over the four Chinese characters 「心雖清白」 tr. "though their minds are pure and clean": the treatise-author does not say the women had any fault; what is avoided is the mouths of others, not their own minds.

24. Why the elder's daughter, already belonging to Sadāprarudita, gave her body again—because of a mind that is its own master. The treatise-author asks again: since she had already left her parents and belonged to Sadāprarudita, why does she now give her body again? The answer: when she first left her parents, it was to go with Sadāprarudita to Dharmodgata and make offerings for the sake of the Dharma; it was not that she had herself given her body, nor had her parents given them to Sadāprarudita; now, seeing Sadāprarudita ask about the most profound meaning, Dharmodgata explain it for him, and Śakra Devānām Indra joyfully make offerings, they gave rise to a joyful mind and made an offering of their bodies, 「以自在心故」 tr. "because of a mind that was its own master". This answer divides very finely: before, it was going along; now, it is giving by oneself; before, there was no giving of one's own accord; now, there is a mind that is its own master. Only by being able to distinguish such layers in reading narrative will one not read two similar actions in two places as repetition.

25. If a woman's body has nowhere it belongs, it receives a bad name—worldly propriety and the vowing mind side by side. The treatise-author adds a layer of worldly principle: 「一切女身無所繫屬，則受惡名。女人之禮，幼則從父母，少則從夫，老則從子。」 tr. "Every woman's body, if it has nowhere it belongs, receives a bad name. By the propriety of women, when young they follow their parents, when grown they follow their husbands, when old they follow their sons." Though the women had come together along the road, they could not long be without anywhere they belonged, so they gave their bodies themselves. And the vow they made was: 「如師所得，我等亦當得之。」 tr. "As the teacher has obtained it, we too shall obtain it."—though the body has somewhere it belongs, the vow is not lessened because of that belonging. The treatise-author places worldly propriety and the world-transcending vowing mind side by side without their obstructing each other; this is the key to reading this passage: giving the body here is not submission; it is setting a place for seeking the Dharma within worldly propriety.

26. The question of a sincere mind and the intent of giving everything—wishing to remove the ordinary doubt of worldly people and to show that he himself has no attachment. Sadāprarudita wished to offer these women to Dharmodgata, and, concerned that they might feel resentment, first asked: 「汝等實以誠心供養，我當受汝。」 tr. "If you truly make this offering with a sincere mind, I shall accept you." The treatise-author at once glosses the two Chinese characters 「誠心」 tr. "sincere mind": 「誠心者，不自用心，隨所處分，如無心物。」 tr. "A sincere mind is not acting on one's own decision, but following as one is disposed of, like a thing without a mind." The women answered: 「實以誠心。」 tr. "Truly with a sincere mind." Thereupon he presented the elder's daughter together with the attendant maidens and the five hundred carriages to Dharmodgata. The treatise-author points out two layers of intent in this: the first is wishing to remove the ordinary doubt of worldly people—who would think he had deceived the elder and brought the women along—so he gave all of them away, showing that he himself had no attachment; the second is the further meaning—Sadāprarudita, as with what he heard from the voice in the sky, understood and rejoiced, and offered up all the inner and outer things that worldly people value, 「欲深入檀波羅蜜門故」 tr. "because he wished to enter deeply into the gate of dānapāramitā". The first intent turns outward to clear suspicion, the second turns inward to accomplish practice; only by looking at the two intents together does one know that this giving was not a momentary emotion.

27. Śakra praises him as excellent—taking the buddhas of the past as a comparison. The treatise-author explains Śakra's praise: Śakra knew that Sadāprarudita's craving, greed, and other afflictions were not yet exhausted, yet he could give away all his inner and outer things without anything left over, and so he praised him, saying: 「善哉！」 tr. "Excellent!" And he took the buddhas of the past as a comparison—because they did things hard to do they obtained a retribution hard to obtain, namely 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Note that the treatise-author first points out 「愛貪等煩惱未盡」 tr. "craving, greed, and the other afflictions were not yet exhausted"—precisely because they were not exhausted and yet he could give away everything, this giving counts as hard to practise. If one whose afflictions were already exhausted gave it away, that would be nothing remarkable. That the praise holds depends on the practitioner's afflictions not being exhausted while he can give away everything, not on the outward surface of the act.

28. Why Dharmodgata accepted and gave back—this is called the highest kind of accepting. The treatise-author asks: if Dharmodgata accepted in order to make Sadāprarudita's roots of goodness complete—roots of goodness meaning the completion of dānapāramitā—why then did he give them back to him? The answer has four meanings: first, Dharmodgata, by great wisdom and skilful means, 「令薩陀波崙大得福德而無所失，是謂上受」 tr. "caused Sadāprarudita to obtain great merit while losing nothing; this is called the highest kind of accepting"; second, Sadāprarudita gave with a mind of utmost sincerity, severed all greed and clinging, and did not expect to get anything back, and his merit was already complete; third, Dharmodgata considered that he had come from far away and that his mind was not stained or attached to the five desires, 「舊人供養為善」 tr. "it is better for the people he already has to make offerings to him", and so he gave them back; fourth, he also heard that the women had earlier presented their bodies to Sadāprarudita, 「人非財物」 tr. "people are not goods and property", and he wished to fulfil their original intention. At the end he adds one more meaning: these women had been Sadāprarudita's disciples life after life. The two Chinese characters 「上受」 tr. "the highest kind of accepting" are the eye of this passage—accepting and giving back, the giver's merit is not lessened and the thing given is not lost; only this is the highest way of receiving offerings.

29. Why a great bodhisattva entered the palace—because of following the ways of worldly people. The treatise-author asks: the great bodhisattvas should not become utterly weary in teaching the Dharma; why did he enter the palace? The answer is 「隨世人法故」 tr. "because of following the ways of worldly people", which he at once explains at length: the beings in the City of Many Fragrances do not always seek the path; at times they weary and rest and enjoy the pleasures of the five desires; the gods, because they always enjoy the five desires, obstruct and neglect the seeking of the path; there are also lands where bodhisattvas dwell in which they always apply vigour diligently and do not enjoy the five desires. But the original vow of the beings of the City of Many Fragrances was to enjoy both together, and Dharmodgata, following their aspiration and wishing to guide them, was therefore born in that land. So when the beings were weary of hearing the Dharma he rose and entered the palace. Again, for those who have not yet obtained the path, though the Dharma is subtle, hearing it constantly also gives rise to weariness, and in the assembly there were precisely such people. Again, Dharmodgata enjoyed wealth and pleasure there, 「人法故，日沒應息」 tr. "because of the ways of people, when the sun has set one should rest". This answer does not plead on the bodhisattva's behalf that ‘in fact he was not weary’; it says he was following along. If the reader reads all bodhisattvas as people who have no need to follow along with worldly ways, this passage cannot be read through.

30. Why for the sake of the Dharma one should not sit or lie down—there is no such definite rule. Sadāprarudita thought: 「我為法來，不應坐臥。」 tr. "I have come for the sake of the Dharma; I should not sit or lie down." The treatise-author makes a point of asking: for the sake of the Dharma, why should one therefore not sit or lie down? The first sentence of the answer is very important—「無是定法」 tr. "there is no such definite rule". There is no rule laying down that one who is for the Dharma may not sit or lie down; it is that this person, because of great desire, great vigour, and reverence for the Dharma, himself had this thought: 「我若坐臥，則是懶惰。我初求法時，身尚不惜，何況疲惓！」 tr. "If I sit or lie down, that is laziness. When I first sought the Dharma I did not spare even my body; how much less weariness!" Next he gives the reason: great desire and great vigour are contrary to sitting and lying down; again, in sitting and lying one does not apply effort diligently, while in walking and standing one applies effort diligently and is vigorous, so he always abode in the two deportments of walking and standing to wait for the teacher to come out. The treatise-author first refutes 「定法」 tr. "a definite rule" and then speaks of 「此人」 tr. "this person", separating an individual's practice from a universal rule—not sitting or lying down is where this person's strength of mind reached, not a regulation that can be handed to everyone.

31. Did he know beforehand that the teacher would not come out for seven years—when he first came he did not know. The treatise-author asks: did Sadāprarudita know beforehand whether the teacher would not come out for seven years? The answer: 「初來不知故。」 tr. "Because when he first came he did not know." He adds three more meanings: Dharmodgata too always did not come out for seven years, and because of a cause and condition he himself took an oath to enter concentration for seven years, while Sadāprarudita himself took an oath, 「師未出，終不坐臥」 tr. "until the teacher comes out, I shall never sit or lie down"—what he swore was a condition, not a fixed term, so knowing or not knowing does not obstruct his oath; again, a great person does not go against himself even in worldly matters, how much less for the Dharma of the path; again, when he first sought the Dharma he did not cherish even his body; now, standing for seven years, what difficulty is that? The reason this question must be asked is that if he had known beforehand of the seven years and taken this oath, his mind would differ in depth from one who took the oath without knowing; the treatise-author's answer 「初來不知」 tr. "when he first came he did not know" brings out precisely the weight of this oath.

32. The human body being weak, how could he not sit or lie down for seven years—four meanings brought out together. The treatise-author asks about the bodily possibility. The answer has four parts: first, 「是時人壽命長，雖復七歲，如今七日」 tr. "at that time people's lifespans were long; though it was seven years, it was like seven days now"; second, the power of merit of people's bodies in a good age is great, so though he stood for seven years he did not find it hard, and he cites the bhikṣu Diligent as proof—he left home only at sixty and himself made a vow: 「我脇不著席，要盡得聲聞所應得事，乃至得六神通阿羅漢。」 tr. "My side shall not touch the mat until I have obtained all that a śrāvaka should obtain, up to obtaining arhatship with the six supernormal powers." Later he composed the upadeśa on the four Āgamas, which flourishes greatly in the world today; this person was like this even in an evil age, how much more Sadāprarudita, born in a good age. Third, though his bodily strength was weak, because his mind was strong he could accomplish his task. Fourth, further—one who seeks the Buddha path with one mind is kept in mind by the buddhas of the ten directions, and the great bodhisattvas and the gods who seek the Buddha path increase his strength, surround and guard him, so though he stood for seven years he did not become utterly weary. The four meanings go from outer conditions to the inner mind and then to being protected and kept in mind, supplementing one another layer by layer; the treatise-author will not dismiss a real difficulty with only one meaning, and this too is something to learn from in reading the treatise.

33. Why Dharmodgata entered concentration for seven years—to remove the doubts of the assembly and give rise to a mind of honour and reverence. The treatise-author asks: when Dharmodgata entered samādhi, why did it go as far as seven years? First he points to the earlier answer: people of a good age have long lifespans, so even seven years is not long. Next he brings out the main meaning: Dharmodgata's palaces, court maidens, and subtle five desires resembled those of the heavens; Sadāprarudita and the others, who had newly aroused the mind and whose minds were not yet soft and pliant, doubted that, 「雖說空法、讚歎離欲」 tr. "though he teaches the dharma of emptiness and praises leaving desire", his mind could not yet let go. So the samādhi of seven years was to remove the doubts of the assembly and give rise to a mind of honour and reverence—hearing that he had entered concentration for seven years, they would know that 「心、口相應能說、能行」 tr. "mind and mouth are in accord: he can teach and he can practise", and so they would believe and accept his words and be easily delivered. At the end he takes an abscess as a simile: 「譬如癰瘡未熟，醫則不破，但以藥塗令熟，熟則易破。」 tr. "Just as when an abscess is not yet ripe the physician does not open it, but only applies medicine to ripen it; when ripe it is easily opened." What this simile compares is timing—a concentration of seven years was not concentration for the sake of concentration, but waiting until beings' doubts had ripened to the time when they could be opened. The reader may note here: in teaching and transforming, waiting too is a kind of action.

34. Teaching the Dharma by mouth and showing the Dharma by the body—now it is for the sake of showing the Dharma by the body. The treatise-author, further, brings out two more meanings: first, 「欲受心生實樂故，入無量三昧」 tr. "because he wished to experience the real joy that arises in the mind, he entered immeasurable samādhis"; second, teaching the Dharma is of two kinds—「一者、口說法，二者、身現法」 tr. "first, teaching the Dharma by mouth; second, showing the Dharma by the body"—and now, wishing to show the Dharma by the body, he entered immeasurable samādhis, causing beings to know how to gather the mind and enter wisdom and obtain knowledge as it really is. At the end he points to two earlier explanations: the bodhisattva's samādhis are as explained in the meaning of bodhisattva, and practising prajñā and the power of skilful means is as explained in the chapter "Skilful Means". The three Chinese characters 「身現法」 tr. "showing the Dharma by the body" are the sentence most worth carrying away from this passage: the body that did not rise for seven years is itself a passage of Dharma.

35. During the seven years the three evil kinds of initial and sustained thought did not arise—subdued but not yet broken. The treatise-author relates that during the seven years in Sadāprarudita 「三惡覺觀不生，不味於味」 tr. "the three evil kinds of initial and sustained thought did not arise, and he did not crave the flavour of flavours", and adds a very important sentence of judgement: 「是人雖未破煩惱，而集諸善法故，制諸煩惱，不令得生」 tr. "though this person had not yet broken the afflictions, because he had accumulated all kinds of wholesome dharmas, he subdued the afflictions and did not let them arise"—it is subduing, not breaking. What he recollected was only one thing: 「曇無竭何時當出？我當從聞般若。」 tr. "When will Dharmodgata come out? I shall hear prajñā from him." The treatise-author will neither raise him up into one who has already severed the afflictions, nor lessen the reality of his vigour because he has not yet severed them; only when the position he is at is stated precisely can the reader learn it into his own hand—subduing the afflictions at the position of an ordinary person relies on the accumulation of wholesome dharmas and the focus of a single thought, not on first severing them all.

36. How did he know that after seven years Dharmodgata would come out—two different teachings recorded side by side. After the seven years had passed, Sadāprarudita thought: 「我當為曇無竭敷坐處，掃灑莊嚴。」 tr. "I shall spread a seat for Dharmodgata, and sweep, sprinkle, and adorn the place." The treatise-author asks: how did he know that once seven years had passed Dharmodgata would come out of concentration? He records two teachings: 「有人言：先曾七歲展轉聞知。」 tr. "Someone says: he knew it by hearing, passed on from one to another, of that earlier occasion of seven years." 「有人言：曇無竭初入三昧時，自說七歲為限。」 tr. "Someone says: when Dharmodgata first entered samādhi, he himself said that seven years was the limit." The latter teaching also cites an example as proof—as Śākyamuni Buddha told Ānanda: 「我欲一月、二月入禪定。」 tr. "I wish to enter dhyāna for one month, two months." Ānanda told it to the fourfold assembly. Of the two teachings, one speaks from what was passed on by hearing, the other from announcing beforehand, and the treatise-author records them side by side without judging. The matter cited of Śākyamuni telling Ānanda takes an established usage of the Buddha's time to prove that the latter teaching is possible; it does not judge the former teaching to be wrong.

37. Adorning the place of the teaching of the Dharma—the two kinds of adornment of those who have left home and those at home. The treatise-author explains why he adorned the place of the Dharma: because Sadāprarudita deeply loved the Buddha-dharma and revered Dharmodgata, he made offerings and adorned the place of the teaching of the Dharma. He at once distinguishes two kinds: 「出家菩薩但莊嚴其心，詣師受法；在家菩薩則莊嚴說法處，華香供養。」 tr. "The bodhisattva who has left home only adorns his mind and goes to the teacher to receive the Dharma; the householder bodhisattva adorns the place of the teaching of the Dharma and makes offerings with flowers and incense." Further, he brings out another meaning: making this adornment was wishing to make Dharmodgata know the mark of his love of the Dharma and desire for the Dharma and his deep-minded faith and delight, and so he displayed this matter; and so, together with the five hundred women and the others, he joined his strength in sweeping and sprinkling, and himself spread the seat with gold, silver, and jewels. The division of the two kinds of adornment must not be read as higher and lower—the reason the one who has left home only adorns his mind is that his body has no outer matters left to manage; the reason the householder adorns the place is precisely that he makes offerings with what he has. Each according to his share, nothing more.

38. Spreading the seat with the upper garments they wore; seeking water while Māra hid it. The treatise-author relates: though Sadāprarudita and the others had fine and beautiful cushions and mattresses of their own, 「為愛法情至故」 tr. "because their love of the Dharma had reached its utmost", they spread the seat with the upper garments they were wearing—what is valued lies not in whether the thing is fine or poor, but in whether the feeling has reached its utmost. Next he relates that he sought water to sprinkle the ground, and because Māra hid it he could not find it, and he takes up the causes and conditions the sūtra text itself states: what Māra reckoned in his mind was to make him seek water without finding it so that his mind would become timid and feeble and his aspiration unfulfilled, and also to make him look down on his own body—thinking that because his merit is thin he sought water for the sake of offering to the Dharma and could not find it—so that, belittling himself and sorrowful, sorrow would cover his mind. One must see clearly that what Māra aims at is not to block one matter, but to plant in his mind a thought of 「我薄福德」 tr. "my merit is thin". Of the dharmas that obstruct the path, the most dangerous often lie not in circumstances, but in the self-interpretation that circumstances call up.

39. When sorrow covers the mind, merit and wisdom do not shine—Māra knew his mind was great and so obstructed it only a little. The treatise-author takes up the phrase 「福德不增、智慧不照不明」 tr. "his merit does not grow; his wisdom does not shine and is not bright" and explains it: because all kinds of sorrow and affliction cover the mind, the many kinds of merit and wisdom cannot shine and be bright; 「譬如日障蔽故，其照不明」 tr. "just as when the sun is blocked and covered, its light is not bright". The sun is never lessened; what is lessened is the shining. Next he points out Māra's sense of measure: 「魔知其心大，不可沮壞，但小沮壞，令其稽留。」 tr. "Māra knew that his mind was great and could not be destroyed; he only obstructed it a little, causing him to be held up and delayed." Māra too knows how far his power reaches—a great mind cannot be destroyed; all he can do is hold up and delay. For the practitioner this sentence is a very great comfort and also a very precise warning: a truly great mind will not be destroyed, but it really can be dragged out.

40. Piercing his body to draw blood and sprinkling the ground—why he did not spare body and life. The treatise-author relates that Sadāprarudita pierced his own body and sprinkled the ground with the blood that came out to settle the dust, and explains his mind: 「人血肉雖臭，以其至心求水不得，意不分別香臭好惡」 tr. "though human blood and flesh are foul, because he sought water with his whole mind and could not obtain it, his mind did not discriminate fragrant or foul, fine or vile"; wishing to settle the dust, he did not spare body or life. Another meaning: because he loved prajñāpāramitā with a deep mind, there was nothing he cherished. The most important thing here is the sentence 「意不分別香臭好惡」 tr. "his mind did not discriminate fragrant or foul, fine or vile"—the reason he could use blood in place of water is not that he did not know blood is foul, but that in that moment he raised no discrimination about fragrant and foul. If one reads this passage as making oneself suffer to seek merit, it is the opposite of the treatise-author's meaning.

41. The blood changing into fragrant water and whatever he wished being brought about—two meanings recorded side by side. The treatise-author records one teaching—someone says: 「多有諸天龍、鬼神等常隨逐薩陀波崙，佐助守護，是故所出之血變為香水。如羼提仙人被割截時，血化為乳。」 tr. "Many gods, nāgas, ghosts and spirits, and the like constantly followed Sadāprarudita, assisting and protecting him; therefore the blood that came out changed into fragrant water. Just as when the sage Kṣānti was cut and severed, his blood transformed into milk." This speaks from outer protection. He also brings out a separate meaning: 「又以無量福德成就故，隨願即成」 tr. "Again, because immeasurable merit was accomplished, whatever he wished was at once brought about"—this speaks from his own merit. One outer, one inner, recorded side by side without judging. The cited matter of the sage Kṣānti's blood transforming into milk takes a matter of the same kind as proof; what it proves is that ‘there are matters of this kind’, not a judgement that this matter must be as that one was.

42. If merit was accomplished, how could Māra hide the water—one who has newly aroused the mind can bring about small wishes. The treatise-author asks himself: if merit is accomplished and whatever one wishes is obtained, Māra should not be able to hide his water. The answer: 「是菩薩新發意能成小願，未能却魔。」 tr. "This bodhisattva had newly aroused the mind; he could bring about small wishes, but could not yet drive back Māra." One sentence divides two kinds of ability—being able to bring about wishes and being able to drive back Māra are not one matter. Only in the previous passage did he say 「隨願即成」 tr. "whatever he wished was at once brought about", and here he raises an objection against it himself and limits it himself; one can see how careful the treatise-author is in setting up meaning: whenever he speaks of a power, he at once examines the limit of how far it reaches, and does not let the reader push a sentence of praise into a general rule.

43. He himself states the causes and conditions of drawing blood—again and again he lost his body, never once for the Dharma. The treatise-author points out that in the sūtra Sadāprarudita himself states the causes and conditions of drawing blood: 「我從無始生死已來數數喪身，未曾為法。」 tr. "From beginningless birth and death until now I have lost my body again and again, and never once for the Dharma." This sentence is the heart-marrow of the whole passage on matters—losing the body is not hard; losing the body for the Dharma is hard. The questions asked before, ‘why not sit or lie down’ and ‘why pierce the body’, only at this sentence obtain their final reason: it is not that he suddenly became brave and fierce, but that he saw clearly the past of countless times he had lost his body in vain.

44. If his body had died, who would then hear the Dharma—pointing to the earlier answer and bringing out two more meanings. The treatise-author asks: if, out of love for the Dharma, he pierced his body to draw blood and his body died, who would then hear the Dharma? First he points to the earlier answer—「是事如破骨出髓中答」 tr. "this matter is as answered in the passage on breaking the bone and drawing out the marrow"—and does not repeat it. He brings out, further, that the gods and great bodhisattvas protected him so that he did not die; and further, that the evil Māra knew his mind could not be destroyed, and 「水則還出」 tr. "the water then came out again". At the end he explains the phrase of the sūtra text 「皆無異心」 tr. "all had no changed mind", setting up the opposite case: as a person who first trains in a mind of kindness, wishing for the sake of beings and for the sake of prajñāpāramitā not to spare body and life, 「既得利刀割身，以痛自逼故，心生悔恨，是名異」 tr. "once his body is cut by a sharp knife, because he is pressed by pain, regret arises in his mind; this is called being changed". The single character 「異」 tr. "changed" has a definition here—it is not having some other second mind; it is the first mind retreating when one undergoes suffering. Only by speaking of 「異」 tr. "changed" from the opposite side does the weight of the positive 「無異心」 tr. "no changed mind" show.

45. Great power of faith and taking no account of suffering—why Māra found no opening. The treatise-author goes on to explain why he did not regret: first, because his power of faith was great and he wished to obtain the retribution of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he took no account of this suffering; second, because with a deep compassion he loved and cherished beings, though he underwent all kinds of suffering and vexation he did not find it hard, 「譬如慈母愛子，雖為子長受勤苦不淨，不以為惡」 tr. "just as a kind mother loves her child, and though for the child's sake she long undergoes toil and impure tasks, she does not find it loathsome"; third, because he saw that the real mark of all dharmas is ultimate emptiness, he knew that this body is only a false and deceptive coming together, and because he had broken through this falseness, when his body was cut and severed it did not obstruct anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Next he explains 「魔不得其便」 tr. "Māra did not find his opening": 「如人有瘡則受毒」 tr. "as a person who has a sore receives poison"—if the bodhisattva has the sores of greed and sorrow, Māra finds his opening; because he drew blood to sprinkle the ground and his mind was not sorrowful, Māra did not find his opening. It reaches also the minds of the five hundred women, which were likewise—seeing him pierce his body they would by rights have been sorrowful, but because his wish was fulfilled they did not take it as sorrow. At the end he relates that Śakra, seeing this, exclaimed that such a thing had never been, and explains why it had never been: 「是人未得無生忍，諸煩惱未斷，為供養法故，不惜身命，如諸離欲人無異；割截其身，如斷草木。初心既爾，後心轉增。」 tr. "This person had not yet obtained the acceptance of non-arising, and his afflictions were not yet severed, yet for the sake of offering to the Dharma he did not spare body or life, no different from those who have left desire; he cut and severed his body as if cutting grass and trees. Since his first mind was like this, his later mind would increase still more." The three meanings go from faith, from compassion, from knowledge, in order and ever deeper; and the condition for ‘Māra finds his opening’ is put most usefully—it is not that Māra is strong, but that there was first a sore on the mind.

46. The causes and conditions of never having been that Śakra himself states, and his praise of him as excellent. The treatise-author, further, points out: as to what is called never having been, here Śakra Devānām Indra himself states the causes and conditions—「薩陀波崙愛法乃爾，以刀自刺等。」 tr. "Sadāprarudita loves the Dharma to such a degree that he pierces himself with a knife, and so on." Next he relates that after Śakra had given rise to joy in his mind, he praised him, saying: 「善哉！」 tr. "Excellent!" What he praised was 「愛法、樂法，勤心精進」 tr. "loving the Dharma, delighting in the Dharma, diligent of mind and vigorous". And he took the buddhas of the past as a comparison: 「非但汝今辛苦，過去諸佛求般若亦爾。」 tr. "It is not only you who toil now; the buddhas of the past also sought prajñā in this way." The use of this comparison lies not in commending but in steadying—letting the practitioner know that what he is doing is not a solitary case; the earlier buddhas were all so. Whenever, in a place of utmost suffering, one hears someone say ‘those before were also like this’, its power often surpasses praise.

47. Like a fire that obtains ghee—after being comforted he blazes all the more. The treatise-author relates that after Sadāprarudita had heard Śakra comfort his mind, 「如火得酥，轉更熾盛」 tr. "like a fire that obtains ghee, he blazed all the more fiercely", and had this thought: 「我既敷座灑地，當於何處得好名華莊嚴法處？」 tr. "I have spread the seat and sprinkled the ground; where shall I obtain fine flowers of renown to adorn the place of the Dharma?" A fire obtaining ghee and blazing more says that comfort does not make a person slacken but makes him go further. The reader may note the order here: first the austere practice of piercing the body and sprinkling the ground, next Śakra's comfort, and next again the thought of seeking flowers—each stage finer than the last, and the strength of mind in each stage stronger than the last.

48. When he did not see water, why did he not think of obtaining water—he knew it was done by Māra. The treatise-author asks: when at first he did not see water, why did he not have this thought—「當於何處得水灑地？」 tr. "Where shall I obtain water to sprinkle the ground?" The answer: because the places where there had been water before had all at once disappeared, Sadāprarudita 「知魔所作」 tr. "knew it was done by Māra", and so he did not seek further outside, but himself pierced the water element from his share of the four great elements to sprinkle the ground. The question is asked very finely, and the answer is very precise: the difference between seeking outside and taking from within is judged on whether one recognises the thought ‘is this done by Māra or not’. Knowing it is done by Māra, seeking outside is of no benefit; not knowing, one runs about in vain. This is one of the gates of practice most worth carrying away from this passage.

49. Though the seeds of water in the body are many, he pierced for blood alone—blood is where life resides. The treatise-author adds an explanation of why he did not take the water element from elsewhere but drew blood alone: 「身中水種雖多，血是命之所在，是故刺以灑地。」 tr. "Though the seeds of water in the body are many, blood is where life resides; therefore he pierced for it to sprinkle the ground." Among the shares of the four great elements the water element is not of one kind, and what he took had to be the thing bound up with life—what is offered to is prajñā, so what is given up cannot be something that may be had or not had. This one sentence pulls the earlier matter of piercing the body out of the reading of it as ‘austere practice’: the weight lies not in the pain but in the fact that what is given up is life.

50. The flowers were not his own—a thought arising when pressed by the force of circumstances. The treatise-author explains why the thought of seeking flowers arose: the flowers were not something he originally had of himself, and the time for Dharmodgata to come out of concentration was drawing near, 「不容遠求」 tr. "there was no time to seek far"; and the quantity needed was very great, to cover the whole ground, so the thought of wishing to obtain flowers arose. The treatise-author accounts for the force of circumstances in even such a small detail because he wants the reader to know that Śakra's giving the flowers below did not descend without cause—first there is a thought pressed by the force of circumstances, then the heavenly flowers arrive in response to the thought; the principle of stimulus and response lies here.

51. Śakra gives three thousand dan of māndārava flowers—wishing to make him give rise to a mind of rare wonder. The treatise-author relates that Śakra knew his thought and at once gave him three thousand dan of the subtlest of the heavenly flowers, named māndārava, 「足以周事」 tr. "enough to complete the matter". He also explains why Śakra did not give flowers of the human world: 「欲令發希有心故。」 tr. "Because he wished to make him give rise to a mind of rare wonder." Earlier the seeking of flowers was to adorn the place of the Dharma; here the giving of flowers adds another layer of intent—not only to accomplish his matter, but also to open his mind by means of it. The matter of offering has by this point become two-way: the person moves the gods by utmost sincerity; the gods open the person by rare wonder.

52. Receiving the flowers and dividing them into two portions—the fine ones kept to scatter, the rest covering the ground. The treatise-author relates that after Sadāprarudita received the flowers he divided them into two portions: the fine ones he kept to scatter at the time of the teaching of the Dharma, and the rest covered the ground; and he explains the custom of that country—「以華覆地，令行其上，以為供養。」 tr. "To cover the ground with flowers and let people walk on them is taken as an offering." One portion kept to wait for the time of teaching the Dharma, one portion used first in the present; the treatise-author records even this division in order to show how fine his care was—the one who adorns the place of the Dharma does not pour out all the flowers at one time, but knows which thing should be used at which time.

53. Dharmodgata, as he had agreed beforehand, rose from samādhi when the full seven years were complete. The treatise-author relates: Dharmodgata, according to his earlier appointed term, after the full seven years rose from samādhi and, reverently surrounded by immeasurable hundreds of thousands of people, went straight to the Dharma seat, 「為說般若故」 tr. "for the sake of teaching prajñā". Only here does the waiting of seven years have its response. The four Chinese characters 「如其先要」 tr. "as he had agreed beforehand" are the treatise-author's narrative words; at this point the sūtra text only says that the seven years had passed; these words correspond to the teaching recorded earlier, 「自說七歲為限」 tr. "he himself said that seven years was the limit", yet the treatise-author still records the two teachings side by side without judging.

54. Within subtle samādhi who can make him rise—setting one's own time limit, and the warning of the jianchui. The treatise-author asks: when the bodhisattvas enter subtle samādhi, who can make them rise? The answer: 「行者初入時，自作限齊，然後入定；時至，其心自在從三昧起，悲心故而生覺觀。」 tr. "When the practitioner first enters, he himself sets a time limit and only then enters concentration; when the time comes, his mind rises freely from samādhi, and because of a compassionate mind initial and sustained thought arise." Rising from concentration does not wait for an outer force; it is the time limit one set oneself on entering concentration that does its work. Next he cites a cautionary example: a bhikṣu, on entering the samādhi of the absorption of the cessation of feeling, set it for himself that he would rise on hearing the jianchui; after he had entered, the monastery caught fire, and the bhikṣus, panic-stricken, left without striking the jianchui; after twelve years had passed, when the donors brought the Saṅgha together to build the monastery, only then was the jianchui struck; he heard the sound and rose, and 「即身散而死」 tr. "at once his body scattered and he died". What this example warns against is not that concentration must not be entered, but that the condition relied upon must be one over which one is one's own master—taking a jianchui struck by others as one's time limit, when the condition is cut off, the body goes with it.

55. The great bodhisattvas whose bodies are born of the Dharma-nature—because of worldly ways there is the mark of coming out of and entering samādhi. The treatise-author, further, records a teaching: 「有人言：法性生身大菩薩，如諸佛常入三昧，無散亂麁心」 tr. "Someone says: the great bodhisattvas whose bodies are born of the Dharma-nature, like the buddhas, are always in samādhi, without a scattered and coarse mind", and because of the power of supernormal abilities they can teach the Dharma and fly about delivering beings; 「世俗法故，有出入三昧相」 tr. "because of worldly ways, there is the mark of coming out of and entering samādhi", so though he had entered subtle samādhi he could come out again, because he was drawn by the mind of great compassion, 「譬如呪術出龍」 tr. "just as a nāga is drawn out by spell-craft". Next he explains the phrases of the sūtra text: the great assembly surrounding him was his inner retinue, reverently scattering flowers, burning incense, and following him out, for the sake of teaching prajñāpāramitā; and what is called teaching prajñāpāramitā is 「因世諦名字語言，欲示眾生第一義不動相故」 tr. "relying on the names and words of worldly truth, wishing to show beings the unmoving mark of the highest meaning". At the end he relates that as soon as Sadāprarudita saw Dharmodgata he obtained a pure joy, and happiness filled his body, like a bhikṣu entering the third dhyāna, and explains why it is so: beings of many desires, though what they obtain is not pure and subtle, are still glad and happy, 「何況得見真功德莊嚴身者」 tr. "how much more one who sees a body adorned with true merit". This passage sets the marks of coming out of and entering concentration upon worldly truth, in one continuous line with the meaning of 「無來無去」 tr. "without coming and without going" of the whole chapter—even coming out and entering are marks of worldly truth, how much more coming and going.

56. Long thirsty longing and gladness—ever since hearing his name from the Buddha in the sky. The treatise-author traces back where Sadāprarudita's gladness came from: from the time he heard Dharmodgata's name from the Buddha in the sky, he at once gave rise to a great desire, obtained all kinds of samādhis, saw the buddhas of the ten directions, and further heard the buddhas of the ten directions speak of the causes and conditions of a former life—「唯有曇無竭能度汝耳。」 tr. "Only Dharmodgata can deliver you." Having heard this, his mind was increased and he longed thirstily to see him, so halfway along the road he wished to sell himself to make offerings, and now again in the City of Many Fragrances for seven years he did not sit or lie down, wishing to see him. The sentence 「如是渴仰，欲樂來久」 tr. "such thirsty longing, such wishing and delight, had been there a long time" is the summary. Next he brings out a simile: like a person pressed by heat and thirst who, obtaining muddy, warm rainwater, is still glad, how much more on obtaining clear, cool, sweet water. So his gladness has two causes: his thirsty longing was long, and Dharmodgata's merits were great. The treatise-author restores a passage of emotion into causes and conditions, and so the reader knows that joy in the Dharma is not a chance feeling, but a long-accumulated mind meeting a surpassing circumstance.

57. Happiness is of four kinds; why speak only of the happiness of the third dhyāna—it is spoken from what beings of the desire realm crave. The treatise-author asks: happiness is of four kinds; why does it speak only of the happiness of the third dhyāna, and not of the happiness of the concentrations of the higher grounds and the happiness of liberation? The answer: because the beings of the desire realm, among the three feelings, mostly crave pleasant feeling; hearing that the happiness of nirvāṇa is without anything existent, their minds do not delight in it; from the fourth dhyāna upward suffering and joy are severed, so their minds do not delight in that either; 「第三禪中樂，樂之極」 tr. "the happiness within the third dhyāna is the utmost of happiness". The standpoint of this answer is the hearer and not the substance of the Dharma—it is not that the happiness of the third dhyāna is the most surpassing, but that, speaking to beings of the desire realm, only this happiness can serve as a comparison. Whenever one meets a simile in reading the sūtras, one can ask oneself by this way of questioning: is this simile spoken from the Dharma, or spoken from the hearer?

58. Again, someone says—one who has newly aroused the mind relinquishes joy and obtains the pure nature of dharmas. At the end the treatise-author records a teaching as the conclusion: 「復有人言：薩陀波崙新發意未入細深妙定故，見曇無竭發大歡喜，似如三禪樂。」 tr. "Again, someone says: because Sadāprarudita had newly aroused the mind and had not yet entered fine, deep, and subtle concentration, on seeing Dharmodgata he gave rise to great joy, like the happiness of the third dhyāna." And the reason it resembles the third dhyāna has a separate layer—「薩陀波崙自覺我大歡喜故，即時捨喜，得清淨法性，遍身安樂」 tr. "because Sadāprarudita was himself aware that he had great joy, at once he relinquished the joy and obtained the pure nature of dharmas, peace and happiness filling his body", and so the happiness of the third dhyāna is taken as the simile. The former teaching sets up the simile from the hearer's craving for pleasant feeling; this teaching sets up the simile from the practitioner's real state: the mark of the third dhyāna is precisely leaving joy and obtaining a happiness that fills the body; Sadāprarudita, aware of his own joy, at once relinquished the joy, and what he obtained was also peace and happiness filling the body; because the two resemble each other it is taken as the simile. The treatise segment of Fascicle 99 stops here, yet the meaning of the whole chapter is not exhausted—what the marks of prajñāpāramitā are still waits for the next fascicle.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「無佛」 tr. "no Buddha" as the Buddha not existing. The treatise-author says it very clearly: the 「無佛」 tr. "no Buddha" spoken of here is 「破著佛想」 tr. "to refute the notion of clinging to the Buddha", and 「不言」 tr. "it is not saying" that people should 「取無佛想」 tr. "grasp at the notion of no Buddha". This is a sentence that refutes clinging, not an assertion that the Buddha is definitely non-existent. Moreover it has a premise—before it the two truths were first set up: by reason of worldly truth it is said that the Buddha teaches prajñā; by reason of the highest meaning it is said that the buddhas are empty, without coming and without going; if, leaving this premise, one takes the two Chinese characters 「無佛」 tr. "no Buddha" alone, it becomes the very wrong view the treatise-author is refuting right there. The place where readers of the prajñā treatises most easily overturn is just here: taking words that refute clinging as words that establish a thesis.

Do not read seeking the Buddha in five ways and finding him unfindable as a debating technique. The five gates—the five aggregates are not precisely the Buddha, apart from the five aggregates there is no Buddha either, the Buddha is not in the five aggregates, the five aggregates are not in the Buddha, the Buddha does not possess the five aggregates—what they seek out is the matter of ‘there is definitely a Buddha to be found’. If one treats it as a formula that can be fitted onto any matter, running through it casually and then saying that something is unfindable, that is only idle discourse, and the treatise-author says plainly: 「若人分別、戲論常寂滅事，是人亦墮邪見」 tr. "if someone discriminates and engages in idle discourse about the matter of permanent quiescent extinction, this person too falls into wrong view". The seeking is in order to let go of what is clung to, not in order to gain a new conclusion that ‘everything is unfindable’.

Do not read the three similes of the ocean's jewels, the konghou, and the image in a mirror as three ways of saying one meaning. Each of the three similes has what it governs: the ocean's jewels make clear that what arises from causes and conditions does not come from the ten directions and when it perishes goes nowhere; the konghou makes clear 「聲亦不在眾緣中，離眾緣亦無聲」 tr. "the sound is not within the many conditions, and apart from the many conditions there is no sound either", and what it discloses is not within and not apart; the image in the mirror makes clear 「眾因緣和合故有，眾緣離故無」 tr. "it exists because many causes and conditions come together, and does not exist because the many conditions part", and what it discloses is appearing and perishing according to conditions. The two similes of the ocean's jewels and the konghou are the treatise-author explaining the sūtra text again; the one simile of the image in the mirror is added by the treatise-author himself; the reason he divides the similes to explain them is precisely that the similes are not repetitions of the same meaning. Reading the three similes as one ‘like an illusion’ wipes out entirely the labour the treatise-author spent in explaining them separately.

Do not read piercing the body to draw blood as taking suffering as the path. When the treatise-author explains this matter, the weight has never been on pain: in one place he says 「意不分別香臭好惡」 tr. "his mind did not discriminate fragrant or foul, fine or vile", in one place 「血是命之所在」 tr. "blood is where life resides", in one place 「見諸法實相畢竟空故，知是身但是虛誑和合」 tr. "because he saw that the real mark of all dharmas is ultimate emptiness, he knew that this body is only a false and deceptive coming together". What is given up is life, what is relied on is the knowledge of emptiness, and suffering only comes along with it. Moreover the treatise-author made a point of recording the opposite side—one who first trains in a mind of kindness, 「既得利刀割身，以痛自逼故，心生悔恨，是名異」 tr. "once his body is cut by a sharp knife, because he is pressed by pain, regret arises in his mind; this is called being changed": the same cutting of the body becomes two different things as soon as the mind regrets. The judgement lies in the mind, not in the blood.

Do not read standing and waiting for seven years and entering concentration for seven years as a ritual rule that can be imitated. In answering 「為法故何以不應坐臥」 tr. "for the sake of the Dharma, why should one not sit or lie down", the treatise-author's very first sentence is 「無是定法」 tr. "there is no such definite rule"—there is no such regulation. Not sitting and not lying down came from this person's great desire and great vigour, and was further supported by all kinds of conditions such as the long lifespans of a good age, the great power of merit, and the gods increasing his strength; Dharmodgata's entering concentration for seven years too was a skilful means set up to remove the doubts of those who had newly aroused the mind. Reading it as a rule that everyone should practise goes against the words 「無是定法」 tr. "there is no such definite rule".

Do not read the worry 「諸佛尚無，諸法亦應皆滅」 tr. "if even the buddhas do not exist, dharmas too should all be extinguished" as superfluous. The treatise-author says plainly that the similes below are set up precisely to guard against this thought—「是故今說因緣法譬喻」 tr. "therefore now the dharma of causes and conditions is taught, together with similes". Hearing of ultimate emptiness and having the mind give rise to the fear of annihilation is a pass that really occurs on the road of cultivation and training, not a sign of inferior capacity. The treatise-author neither scolds this thought nor lets it pass vaguely, but receives it plainly and honestly with the meaning of an image appearing from causes and conditions. If the reader gives rise to fear at this point, there is ready medicine in precisely this passage.

Bearing on Practice

Take the phrase ‘the knowledge of great emptiness, on reaching the place of the Buddha, cannot be used after all’ to shine on yourself at the dividing line between reverence and contemplating emptiness. The place one reveres most is often the place one is least willing to contemplate as empty—toward a teacher, toward the Dharma, toward some experience of one's own that one treasures greatly, it is so in every case. There is no need on this account to withdraw the reverent mind, but one should recognise that this is precisely where the contemplation of emptiness gains no strength. The treatise-author points out the place of the sickness without telling people to lessen reverence, so the remedy is not slighting, but being willing to shine on even the place one reveres most.

Use the two truths to settle the two languages of one's own teaching of the Dharma and contemplation of the mind. When speaking of the Buddha-dharma with others one says 「佛說般若」 tr. "the Buddha teaches prajñā"; when sitting alone contemplating the mind one says 「諸佛空，無來無去」 tr. "the buddhas are empty, without coming and without going"; both sayings are right; they only belong to different places. The most common perplexity of daily life—since all dharmas are empty, why still bow to the Buddha, why still seek the Dharma—mostly comes from stirring the two truths together in one place. First sort out whether this sentence is spoken on worldly truth or on the highest meaning, and many self-contradictory entanglements will loosen on the spot.

When you worry that cultivation will come to nothing, take the sentence 「如汝所著，意謂實有者無；為度眾生故，從因緣和合則有像現」 tr. "what you cling to, thinking that it really exists, does not exist; for the sake of delivering beings, from the coming together of causes and conditions an image appears" as your carpenter's line. What is empty is the real existence that is clung to; what remains is the image that causes and conditions make appear. Daily practice, making vows, taking responsibility for others—all are on the side of 「像現」 tr. "an image appears", and are not lost because of the meaning of emptiness; while the grasping at them should from the first be emptied. Checking oneself by this one sentence, one can avoid the slide of ‘since it is empty, why take it seriously’.

Use the two causes and conditions to examine the conditions of your own deliverance. 「內有正見」 tr. "Right view within" and 「外有善說法者」 tr. "one who teaches the Dharma well without"—when the outer condition is not complete, seek a teacher and visit friends; when the inner cause is not complete, cultivate right view. The easiest mistake is to push all the responsibility onto one side: either complaining that there is no good friend, or only reading books and not drawing near to people. The treatise-author says plainly that if one of the two causes and conditions is lacking one does not obtain deliverance, so the checking too must check both sides.

Use the one thought 「知魔所作」 tr. "knowing it is done by Māra" to turn toward seeking within. When one is blocked everywhere in matters and cannot find a usable condition, do not first hurry to keep running about outside, but learn this move of Sadāprarudita's—recognise that this is the work of obstructing conditions, and then find in oneself the share that can be brought out. What he took was the water element among the four great elements; what we take may be time, or bodily strength, or some thing we have always been unwilling to give up; the point is the same: when outer conditions are blocked, take from within the share of oneself one is least willing to bring out.

Take 「魔知其心大，不可沮壞，但小沮壞，令其稽留」 tr. "Māra knew that his mind was great and could not be destroyed; he only obstructed it a little, causing him to be held up and delayed" to steady and to warn yourself. A great mind will not be destroyed—this is steadying; but it really will be held back—this is warning. So on meeting obstruction one need not doubt whether one's aroused mind is still there, yet one must watch the dissipation of days and time. Recognising that this is 「稽留」 tr. "being held up and delayed" and not 「壞」 tr. "being destroyed", one will not, because of a momentary stagnation, judge oneself to have retrogressed.

Take 「是謂上受」 tr. "this is called the highest kind of accepting" as the way of receiving offerings and receiving gifts. When someone presents something, to accept it while causing the giver's merit not to be lost and his greed and clinging to be severed—this is the highest way of receiving; to keep declining instead leaves the giver's mind with nowhere to land. Dharmodgata first accepted and then gave back: accepting was to accomplish the other's giving; giving back was to fulfil their wish. When receiving people's goodwill in daily life one can take this as a rule—first receive it, then see how to let the intent the other seeks be fulfilled.

Further Resonances

This unit is a single whole explanation by the treatise, and what it explains is precisely the whole passage of sūtra text of the previous unit. The first half explains meaning: beginning from Sadāprarudita, though knowing emptiness, not yet being able to enter deeply, and Dharmodgata therefore teaching that the buddhas come from nowhere and in going reach nowhere, it sets up the two truths to answer the objection that the five aggregates coming together are named the Buddha, seeks the Buddha by five gates and finds him unfindable, at once blocks the annihilationist view with 'refuting the notion of clinging to the Buddha, not grasping a notion of no Buddha', and returns to leaving the two extremes of existence and non-existence, abiding in the middle way, the real mark of all dharmas being precisely the Buddha; next it makes clear that the mark of suchness of form and the other dharmas is precisely the Buddha, one suchness without two and without three, and takes up the causes and conditions the sūtra itself states; next it answers how, if there is nothing existent, there is seeing, hearing, suffering, and joy, and explains it by the mirage and the dream being without reality yet able to deceive; next it opens out the two bodies, the Dharma body and the form body, making clear that the Dharma body is the true Buddha, that obtaining the real mark is named being near to awakening, that because the obtaining of the real mark has distinctions there are the true disciples of the Buddha from the srota-āpanna up to the great bodhisattva, and explains the meaning of not falsely eating people's faithful gifts, of receiving offerings position by position, and of a field of merit for the world. The second half explains matters: first, giving the fear of falling into annihilation as the reason, it explains again, one by one, the similes of the ocean's jewels, the skilled archer, the konghou, and the image in a mirror, and answers why jewels are produced in the great ocean, bringing out the two causes and conditions of right view within and one who teaches the Dharma well without; next, with ten-odd rounds of question and answer, it examines the whole course of Sadāprarudita's seeking of the Dharma—the causes and conditions of Śakra giving the flowers, the three questions about the elder's daughter giving her body, the gloss on a sincere mind and the intent of giving everything, the highest kind of accepting in Dharmodgata's accepting and giving back, entering the palace following worldly ways, the possibility of walking and standing for seven years, the reason for entering concentration for seven years, teaching the Dharma by mouth and showing the Dharma by the body, subduing the afflictions without yet breaking them during the seven years, the two kinds of adorning the place of the Dharma, Māra hiding the water and sorrow covering the mind, not sparing body and life in piercing the body to draw blood, the side-by-side record of the blood changing into fragrant water and whatever he wished being brought about, the answer to who would hear the Dharma if his body died, Śakra exclaiming that such a thing had never been, the seeking of flowers and the three thousand dan of māndārava, Dharmodgata coming out of concentration at the full term, setting one's own time limit for samādhi and the warning of the jianchui, and the mark of coming out of and entering samādhi of those whose bodies are born of the Dharma-nature—and at the end, with the one question why, happiness being of four kinds, only the happiness of the third dhyāna is spoken of, it records two teachings side by side and stops.

The position of this unit within the whole chapter is to carry on from what comes before without yet reaching what comes after. What it carries on from is precisely the sūtra text of the previous unit, from which the treatise-author selects the key places to explain: in the passage on meaning he explains again the similes of the mirage, the ocean's jewels, and the konghou, passes over the simile of the dream with only one sentence, does not separately explain the simile of the illusion, and adds of his own the two similes of the skilled archer and the image in a mirror; in the passage on matters he sets up many questions to examine their causes and conditions; what is not yet reached is the marks of prajñāpāramitā taught in the sūtra text of the next fascicle and the treatise-author's item-by-item explanation of them, so the end of this unit only reaches Sadāprarudita seeing Dharmodgata and being glad, and the teaching of the Dharma has not yet opened its mouth. If the reader looks at the three units before and after together, he can see that the order of this chapter is: first refuting the clinging to coming and going, next seeing that person and that Dharma, and last hearing the marks of prajñā—only one who sees that dharmas are without coming and without going is qualified to hear that passage on the marks set forth in response.

Of the ancient masters' treatment of the meaning explained in this unit, what can be recorded is most detailed in Jizang. Jizang, in his Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, sets up a separate commentary for this chapter; his chapter heading follows the line of the sūtra text and reads 「法尚」 tr. "Dharma-Esteeming", which is a meaning-translation of Dharmodgata, so at the opening of his commentary he explains this name, saying: 「若曇無竭，此云法尚，以其弘於大法而物宜欽。」 tr. "As for Dharmodgata, here it is called Dharma-Esteeming, because he spreads the great Dharma and beings ought to revere him." His division of this chapter is twofold—first severing doubts, then teaching prajñā directly—and what this unit explains belongs precisely to the first section. On the single meaning of the two truths, Jizang points out plainly that it comes from the treatise text: 「論文中有二諦語，世諦則有佛，第一義諦佛空。」 tr. "In the treatise text there are words about the two truths: in worldly truth there is the Buddha; in the truth of the highest meaning the Buddha is empty." And he goes further, pairing the two truths with the two bodies: 「今論文中明二諦則是二身，故言世諦中隨眾生故，以色身為佛，第一義佛即是法身也。」 tr. "Now the two truths made clear in the treatise text are the two bodies; therefore it says that in worldly truth, because of following beings, the form body is taken as the Buddha, and the Buddha of the highest meaning is precisely the Dharma body."—this treatise first sets up the two truths and afterwards opens out the two bodies, the Dharma body and the form body; Jizang joins the two into one meaning, which corresponds to the order of this treatise. On the section on eating faithful gifts in vain, Jizang poses a question and answers it himself, and his judgement reads: 「又食此食能令施主度生死為不虗食」 tr. "Again, eating this food and being able to make the donor cross birth and death is not eating in vain"—taking as his criterion whether the donor's birth and death can be crossed, which is close in sense to this treatise's taking as its criterion whether the merit is measurable or immeasurable, yet the side on which it is taken differs; recorded side by side without judgement. On the single meaning of leaving the two extremes of existence and non-existence, Jizang cites the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra and decides: 「識中道即識佛」 tr. "to recognise the middle way is precisely to recognise the Buddha"; on the simile of the ocean's jewels, his application to the Dharma reads: 「大海譬十方六道國土」 tr. "the great ocean is a simile for the lands of the six destinies in the ten directions", and further: 「此寶雖生大海而有不得者，佛雖為物出而有見不見。」 tr. "Though these jewels are produced in the great ocean, there are those who do not obtain them; though the Buddha comes forth for the sake of beings, there are those who see and those who do not see."—this is entirely the same as this treatise's application, 「大海水喻十方六道國土，諸珍寶即是諸佛」 tr. "the water of the great ocean is a simile for the lands of the six destinies in the ten directions; the many jewels are precisely the buddhas". On the simile of the sound of the konghou, Jizang's explanation also fits closely with this treatise: 「佛身亦爾，不從無因緣生，謂無六度萬行，亦不從不具足萬行生也。」 tr. "The Buddha's body is likewise: it does not arise from no causes and conditions, meaning without the six perfections and the myriad practices; nor does it arise from the myriad practices not being complete." But below this he first records the teaching of the northern masters, who take being without coming and going as the Dharma body and the simile of the ocean's jewels as the response body and the reward body, and continues, 「然三佛不無此義也」 tr. "yet the three buddhas are not without this meaning", and so brings out the names of the three buddhas: 「正法為身名為法佛，行因所得名為報佛，應化眾生名為應佛。」 tr. "The true Dharma as body is named the Dharma Buddha; what is obtained by the practice of causes is named the Reward Buddha; responding to and transforming beings is named the Response Buddha."—this treatise here sets up only the two bodies, the Dharma body and the form body, while Jizang's commentary brings out separately the names of three buddhas; recorded side by side without judgement. On the questions about the narrative, Jizang's answers too often illuminate this treatise: explaining why the elder's daughter did not give herself to Dharmodgata, he says: 「長者女應以身施法尚而施常啼者，女人智恒不棄本師。」 tr. "As for the elder's daughter, who ought to have given her body to Dharma-Esteeming but gave it to Ever Weeping: a woman's wisdom always does not abandon her own teacher." Explaining accepting and giving back, he says: 「受以還施常啼者，前為說法生其慧也，今受其施生其福也。」 tr. "As for accepting and giving back to Ever Weeping: before, he taught him the Dharma to give rise to his wisdom; now, he accepts his giving to give rise to his merit." Explaining the possibility of not sitting or lying down for seven years, he says: 「此時好世七年如今七日。」 tr. "At this time, in a good age, seven years were like seven days now." Explaining sorrow covering the mind, he says: 「以憂愁覆心故智慧不照，如霞覆日其明不照也。」 tr. "Because sorrow covers the mind, wisdom does not shine, as when clouds of mist cover the sun its brightness does not shine."—this treatise reads 「譬如日障蔽故，其照不明」 tr. "just as when the sun is blocked and covered, its light is not bright"; Jizang replaces it with clouds of mist covering the sun; the material of the simile differs slightly but the meaning is one. Further, explaining how it was known that he would come out after seven years, he says: 「又法尚初入定時，自誓云七年方於也。」 tr. "Again, when Dharma-Esteeming first entered concentration, he himself took an oath, saying seven years and only then." This agrees with the latter of the two teachings recorded in this treatise. As for Huiying's Commentary, its extant part stops at the earlier section of this treatise and does not reach this chapter; only his division of the text once looked ahead and named this chapter's title to mark the range of his subsequent divisions, which is not a commentarial explanation of this chapter; it is marked as lacking according to the facts. In Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises, no citation of this chapter is seen in the whole book, nor any trace of restating its meaning; this is recorded as it is. Zhanran, in the Supporting Practice and Broad Resolution of Calming and Contemplation, repeatedly cites the matter of Sadāprarudita and Dharmodgata seeking the Dharma as an example, all of which are brief citations borrowing the matter to explain a principle; in one place among them he cites the question posed by the treatise as to whether Dharmodgata is a fleshly body or a Dharma body, but that text comes from the treatise of the preceding chapter and is not text of this unit, so it is recorded and not cited. The variant names of this chapter's title across the editions, and the meaning-translation variant name by which the line of the sūtra text takes 「法尚品」 tr. "the Dharma-Esteeming chapter" as its heading, are examined in detail in the apparatus layer.