大智度論 義疏通講 · 冊1Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Exposition Throughout · Vol. 1
報應品Recompense
全文五層 →Full five layers →報應品：從諸天歡喜奉鉢，到不見菩薩、不見般若
在問什麼
這一品名叫「報應」——也有本子作「奉鉢」。單看品名，像是在講一樁果報之事：菩薩行般若、能作功德，四天王便歡喜要奉上四個鉢，三十三天以至色界頂的諸天也各各歡喜，願給侍、願請轉法輪、願作眷屬。通篇前半，滿是諸天世人的歡喜與供養，讀來像一幅隆重的祥瑞圖。可是這一品讀到末尾，話鋒陡轉：舍利弗問「菩薩該怎樣行般若」，佛答的卻是「不見菩薩、不見菩薩字、不見般若」，一路說到「色即是空、空即是色」「名字只是因緣和合的假名」。於是問題就來了。其一，一個以「奉鉢／報應」為名、看似只講供養果報的品，怎麼會把落點放在最深的空義上？前半的歡喜奉鉢，跟後半的生法二空，中間的筋節在哪裡？其二，諸天為什麼歡喜？他們歡喜的到底是那個「鉢」，還是別的？其三，諸天願令菩薩「離婬欲、常作童真」，是不是說唯有斷欲出家才能成佛，在家便不能？其四，也是最重的一問——既說「不見菩薩、不見般若」，那菩薩還怎麼「行」？「不見」豈不成了什麼都不必修？這一品要回答的，正是「報應」二字如何從諸天的一念歡喜，一直通到『不著一切名字而不入涅槃』的般若正觀。
逐段解明
先看諸天為何歡喜。這一品開頭，佛先告訴舍利弗：菩薩行般若能作功德，四天王便歡喜要奉鉢。論主接著追問一句最樸素的話——諸天到底憑什麼歡喜？答案分幾層。先要知道，般若有兩種果：一種是成佛度眾生，一種是雖未成佛、已受用世間的果報，作轉輪聖王、作帝釋梵王主三千世界。諸天所以歡喜，正因為他們自己這份天福，本就是靠佛菩薩才有的——佛出世則諸天增、阿修羅減，佛不出世則反過來。論主在此又自設一問，把這道理推到上界：四天王天、三十三天固然有阿修羅相擾，尚可說盼佛出世除患；可是更上的色界諸天並無阿修羅之患，何以也歡喜？論答得別有一層——上界天雖無阿修羅患，然而「若佛不出世，生其天上者少」；縱有生者，所受五欲也不精妙，只因他們但修不清淨之福而已，色界諸天的宮殿、光明、壽命，也同是這般不圓滿。可見無論上界下界，那份天福的成與不成，根子都繫在佛菩薩出不出世上——這才是諸天普皆歡喜的實由。更深一層，諸天中有智慧的，明知禪味五欲都是無常，唯有佛能給人常樂的涅槃，所以歡喜。論在這裡放了一個本品自己的譬喻：一棵甘美的果樹長得茂盛，人人歡喜，因為有人得它的蔭、有人用它的花、有人吃它的果；菩薩也如此，用離惡之蔭遮三惡道的苦熱，開人天富樂之花，結賢聖三乘之果——這棵「果樹」就是諸天歡喜的實義。而歡喜之最極者，論舉了尸毘王割肉貿鴿的本生：釋提桓因將命終、求佛不得，聽說尸毘王苦行將成佛，卻半信半疑，說「魚子、菴羅樹華、發心菩薩」這三樣起頭雖多、成果卻極少，於是化鷹逼鴿、試他真假；尸毘王竟自割身肉、舉身上秤以代鴿命，大地震動，帝釋這才心大歡喜、散華讚歎「如是決定大心，成佛不久」。這一段譬喻要人看見：諸天的歡喜，不是為一個鉢，而是為一顆堅決不移的大心——見有人真能如此行，便知其成佛不久。
再看「奉鉢」本身。供養的事那麼多，為何獨說奉鉢？論答：四天王奉鉢，其餘諸天各有各的常法——從佛初生時天衣承身、梵王執蓋、四王護衛，到出家時捧馬足、立髮塔衣塔、樹下奉草、金剛衛護、梵王請轉法輪，一件件都是「各有常法」的定例，奉鉢不過是這一長串定例裡輪到四天王的一件。接著兩個追問都很有意思：佛只一身，怎麼受四個鉢？論答四王力量相等、不可偏受，佛便以神力把四鉢合而為一，讓四天王親見『所修供養功德不虛』——這一「合四鉢為一」，本身就是一則現成的說法。又問：四天王只活五百歲，菩薩還要無量劫後才成佛，如今的天王怎等得到？論答同一姓故，如貴姓血脈流傳百世、不因遠而為異；又細算四天王五百歲折人間九百萬年，菩薩近成佛時初生的天王正好趕得上。這些看似瑣碎的問答，其實都在鬆動一種執著：把供養看成一筆對得上帳的交易。論偏要顯示這裡頭處處是力等神變，供養之事真而不可執實。末後還有一問最堪玩味：大乘經中明說有佛「以喜為食，不食揣食」，像天王佛，衣容與在家人無異、不須鉢食，那又怎能說「四天王定應奉鉢」？論答得極有分寸：說「定」，只是就用鉢的佛而言，並非連不用鉢的也一概要奉；用鉢諸佛多、不用鉢者少，故以多數為定例——一句話點出，「定應奉鉢」是就常例說，不礙有以喜為食的例外，兩不相妨。
諸天願給侍、更願請佛轉法輪，這一節經文另分幾層，論也逐層剖過。先釋諸天供養之相：他們以華香瓔珞禮拜恭敬、聽法讚歎，心裡並作一念——「人修淨福，阿修羅種減，增益三十三天，我諸天亦得增益」；可見諸天之請，既為法故，也自知眾生修福則己所屬天眾隨之增盛，利人正所以自利。接著論設兩問，鬆開兩處疑。其一，上文已歷數一須彌山上的六種天，何以又別說「三千大千世界」乃至阿迦尼吒天歡喜供養？論答：先前說的是一須彌山的六天，此處說的是三千大千世界的諸天，範圍已廣；先前只及欲界，此處欲界色界並說，且說的是請轉法輪；上文淨居諸天不過種種供養勸助，此處請轉法輪，其事更重，故須別出。其二，三藏中向來只說「梵天請轉法輪」，此經何以廣說四天王乃至阿迦尼吒天都來請？論答有四：欲界天離得近，故前來；色界一概名梵，說了梵王便已把其餘諸天攝盡；「梵為色界初門」，說了開頭的，後面的也一併說了；再者眾生無論有佛無佛，向來都認得梵天，「以梵天為世間祖父」，故特為世人拈出梵天。這兩番問答看似在辨名數的寬窄，實則是把「請轉法輪」一事的分量，從一須彌一梵天，撐開到三千大千、色界之頂——顯得諸天之請，是舉法界之同心。
諸天請轉法輪之後，經又說善男子善女人歡喜，願為菩薩作父母妻子眷屬。這一大節經文，論分作幾處細辨。先有一問：前面已說菩薩「能作是功德」，此處何以又說「增益六波羅蜜」，豈非重複？論答：「先說總相，今說別相」——前是籠統讚其功德，此是別指六度；又前所說功德種種無量，聽者易生厭倦，如今只略舉六波羅蜜，便把一切功德都收攝盡了；再者「為天說故，能作諸功德；為人說故，增益六波羅蜜」，天人所對之機不同，說法也隨之分總別。接著論辨一個細節：為何天不別說「善天」、只在人中說「善男女」？因為諸天有天眼天耳他心智，本就知道該供養，不必特標其善；人是肉眼，其中能知供養的少，所以才特標出來。
又為何只取男女之善、不取二根無根者之善？論答得頗費一番分疏，不可草草滑過。無根之人，是說他無得道之相，故聲聞法中連出家也不許——正因他失了男女相；其心不定，一點小事便瞋，結使又多而貪著世事，多懷疑網、不樂正法，雖能稍修福事而智慧淺薄、不能深入，加以本性易變，所以不說。這是就聲聞法一路說。若就摩訶衍說，則更寬——「譬如大海，無所不容」，無根人有時也修善，只因其數最少，故不別說；正如一個白皮膚的人，縱使鬚髮黑痣是黑的，也「不名黑人」，不能以少數的黑就概稱其黑。至於二根之人，結使多而雜，兼行男事女事，心思邪曲、難可救拔，「譬如稠林曳木，曲者難出」；又像阿修羅「其心不端故，常疑於佛，謂佛助天」——佛為說五眾偏疑有六眾、佛說四諦偏疑有五諦，總不肯少信一分，二根人的邪曲也如此，擔不起得道。論這一串大海、白人、稠林、阿修羅四喻並下，不是輕慢誰，而是就『堪不堪行道』說得纖細分明：所以只說男女中善者。
那麼何謂「善相」？經與論在此列了一長串，最須逐目領會，不可只當一句好人帶過。善相者，先是有慈悲心、能忍惡罵，如法句經罵品所說「能忍惡罵人，是名人中上」，譬如一匹好良馬堪為王乘——能受辱而心不壞，才是人中之上品。再者，五種邪語以及鞭杖、打害、縛繫都不能毀壞其心，也名善相。更進而數其德目：三業無失，樂於善人；不毀他善，不顯己德；隨順眾人，不說他過；不著世樂，不求名譽，唯信樂於道德之樂；自業清淨，不惱眾生；心重實法，輕賤世事；唯好正直誠信，不隨他人欺誑；為令一切眾生得樂，寧自捨己樂；為令一切眾生得離苦，寧「以身代之」。這樣無量的德行，總名善人之相——這相多在男女，故經說「善男子、善女人」。可見經標一個「善」字，底下實藏著從能忍惡罵到以身代苦這一整幅人格。
至於善男女憑什麼發願結緣，論舉了幾層理由。一是自知福薄智淺，親近菩薩以求度脫，如「沈石雖重，依船得度」——石重而依船能渡，人劣而依菩薩能出。二是聽說菩薩成道非一世二世之功，乃是「無央數世往來生死」方得，於是動念「我當與為因緣」——正因見菩薩歷劫難行、道業深遠，才發願世世相隨，結一分久遠之緣。三是菩薩積德深厚，隨所生處眾生皆蒙其利而敬仰，若見菩薩捨壽，便願為之作父母妻子眷屬，因為深知「習近善人，增益功德」，如積香而香氣愈濃。
論隨後接連舉三則本生，坐實這「世世願為眷屬」之事，都不可只當人名滑過。第一則如意珠太子：菩薩前世為國王太子，憫閻浮提人貧窮，入大海龍宮求如意珠。他三入龍宮、三得寶珠——初宮住一月、為龍王讚歎多聞之德，龍王與能雨一由旬的珠，願「我當作多聞第一弟子」；次宮讚歎神通之力兩月，得能雨二由旬的珠，龍王願作神足第一弟子；三宮讚歎智慧三月，得能雨三由旬的珠，龍王願作智慧第一弟子。三龍各就太子所讚之德而發願，願來世作他座下多聞、神足、智慧三種第一的弟子——一願一德，絲絲相應：這正是「世世願為因緣」最生動的一幅圖，眷屬之緣原是循著法德而結。第二則須摩提買花：須摩提菩薩見燃燈佛，向須羅娑女買五莖花供佛，女子不肯輕與，索價五百金錢猶不與，卻要求「願我世世常為君妻」方肯付花；菩薩為供佛故便許之——一樁買花的小事，成了世世夫妻之願的因緣，而所以許，全為供佛，不為情染。第三則妙光菩薩與喜德女，是一段最長的本生：長者女見妙光菩薩身有二十八相，生愛敬心，解頸上琉璃珠著菩薩鉢中，發願世世為此人婦；此女歷二百五十劫集諸功德，後生喜見婬女園蓮花中，養為喜德女，年十四而女工世智皆備。那時閻浮提有王名財主、太子名德主，有大悲心，出遊散施如龍雨周遍；喜德女見太子，自造歌偈讚歎、愛眼不瞬，願以身奉事。太子問她所屬，喜見婬女代答：此女非我腹生，乃晨朝見蓮花中所生而養育者，六十四能無不具備、常懷慚愧、內心忠直、無嫉無邪。太子卻答得斬截：我已發菩提心、修菩薩道，國財妻子無所愛惜，縱有人求你之身、乃至我或捨你出家，你也莫生憂悔。喜德女答得更決：縱地獄火燒滅我身、終亦不悔，我非為婬欲戲樂而以相好，乃為勸助菩提而奉事正士。女又以夢見妙日身佛相告，二人遂共詣佛所——太子得無量陀羅尼門，女得調伏心志，父王亦隨之捨愛出家。這一長段本生，情節雖曲折，主意卻只在點出：喜德女之願為太子婦，從頭到尾不是情累，而是「為勸助菩提」的善根攀附；三則本生合看，眷屬因緣之為因緣，全在一個與菩薩結法緣以求度的心。
諸天進一步願令菩薩「離婬欲、常作童真」。論解釋：五欲中觸為第一，最繫人心，如墮深泥難拔；受餘欲猶不失智慧，唯婬欲會時身心昏迷、深著自沒，故諸天願其遠離。怎樣令離？論舉釋迦文菩薩在宮中，淨居天示現老病死、又於夜半示現宮女惡露不淨，使他厭離出家。這裡論引了一句極重的佛語：「寧以利刀割截身體，不與女人共會」——刀割雖苦，不墮惡趣，婬欲因緣卻要「於無量劫數受地獄苦」；一利一鈍、一短一長之間，把婬欲之為諸結根本說到了骨。緊接著論破一種似是而非的說法：有人說菩薩雖受五欲、心不著故不妨於道。論即據經反破：連受五欲尚且「不生梵世」——梵世是無始眾生皆可生的，受五欲者連這本該得的梵世都得不到，何況菩提這本所不得而欲得的？故知「心不著不妨道」一語靠不住，菩薩仍應作童真、修梵行方得菩提。這裡要緊的是分寸：論一面極言婬欲為諸結之本、出家戒中婬戒在初又為重，如膠漆難離；一面卻不把在家一概說死。緊接著舍利弗問「菩薩一定要有父母妻子嗎」，佛答有三種菩薩：一種如常人受五欲後捨離出家，一種初發心即斷欲修童真乃至成佛，一種是清淨法身菩薩得無生法忍、卻現受五欲同事攝化。論還補明第二種「或法身，或肉身；或離欲，或未離欲」，第三種則「或作轉輪聖王，或作閻浮提王、長者、剎利」，隨眾生所須而益之——可見「離欲」是就多數行人的險處說，不是一刀切地否定在家。
佛更為那難明的第三種菩薩單設一喻，論先問：三種菩薩何以獨為這一種作譬喻？論答：第一種如常人不斷婬欲、第二種常斷婬欲修淨行，這兩種易明；唯第三種「亦修淨行，現受婬欲」，世人最不了，故「以人不了故，為作譬喻」。又問：作喻何不用夢、用化，偏取幻？論分三層辨：夢「非五情所知，但內心憶想故生」，說服不了人；化雖五情可知而見者甚少；唯幻是眾人所信、五情共見而知其變滅無常，故取幻為喻。於是說幻師幻作五欲於中娛樂，其實何嘗實受？菩薩以方便化作五欲、受樂度生，也如此不染。論還就此點出菩薩幻師度生之方：眾生有在家出家二種，為度出家者則現作聲聞、辟支佛、佛及外道師，為度在家者或現出家得度、或現在家同受五欲而化之——化五欲正是入眾生之機而攝之。菩薩一面化受五欲，一面「毀訾五欲」，說欲有四種過患。這四患，論不止列名，還一一給出子喻，須逐項看清。「欲為熾然」者，未失欲時有三毒之火燒、失欲時有無常之火燒，「二火然故」名之熾然，全無真樂之時。「欲為穢惡」者，一切離欲的佛菩薩阿羅漢視之如穢賤，「譬如人見狗食糞」，既賤且憫——受欲之人正如那食糞之狗，不得內心離欲之樂，卻向不淨中強求樂。「欲為毀壞」者，天王人王諸富貴人著五欲故亡國危身，無不由之。「欲如怨」者，五欲外如親善、內懷加害，喪人善心、奪人慧命，論連下三喻——「如鉤賊魚、如摾害鹿、如燈焚蛾」，魚吞鉤、鹿投網、蛾赴火，皆以一時之貪招殺身之禍；而怨家之害不過一世，著五欲卻要墮三惡道、無量世受苦。這四患四喻，把「受五欲而不實受」的分際說得極清楚：受是方便，不受是實。
到這裡，話鋒才轉入全品最深的一問——舍利弗問「菩薩該怎樣行般若」，佛答「不見菩薩、不見菩薩字、不見般若，亦不見我行、不見我不行」。在剖「不見」之前，論先花了一番手腳，交代舍利弗這一問為何而發、為何重問，這幾番問答不可略過。先問：這事舍利弗上文已問，今何以重問？論答：先前是因佛說「欲以一切種知一切法，當學般若」才問的，是承佛語而問、「非自意問」，不是自出機杼；如今則是聽了上文種種讚般若功德、心生歡喜尊重而問云何應行，正「如病人聞歎良藥」便問云何應服——歎藥而問服法，正是信之切。又問：先前已問過住不住法行檀波羅蜜一段，今何以復問行？論答：「上總問諸波羅蜜，此但問般若」——前是總問諸度、且以廣讚為主，此是直問行般若；且般若功德無盡、佛智無盡，若舍利弗不發問，佛的讚歎便無由而止，故為眾人問。再問：般若功德尊重，佛只管廣讚有何不可？論答：讚歎令人增福，說法乃令人增智，成佛須智不徒福，故不可徒讚；人聞讚歎心已渴仰，此時正該授之以行，「如為渴人，廣讚歎美飲，不解於渴，即便應與之」——讚美之詞解不了渴，該遞上那杯飲料了。這三番問答層層逼出：讚般若到極處，必落到云何行一問上，這才引出下文的正觀。
這「不見」二字最易被讀死，論便層層剖開。先破一個常識的難：人要先看見路才能走，不見菩薩與般若，如何能行？論答得極準：「這裡不是說永遠不見，只是說入般若正觀時不見」；菩薩之名、般若之名，都是眾緣和合的假名，如火從眾緣假名為火——雖無一個實在的火體，卻能燒物；假名雖假，不礙其用。這一喻，正是本論中觀一路「因緣和合、假名而有」的骨。再問：入觀不見、出觀又見，哪個可信？論答：般若為顯實法故出，這可信；出觀所見不實，不可信；而所以說有行、有入，不過隨順世俗之名，實則戲論滅處無出無入——「當取說意，莫著語言」一句，是全品的眼目。又問：既貴一切法空，為何先破「我」？論答：初聞般若的人，驟聞一切法空難信，故先破那本無而妄計為有的「我」，再破我所，層層引入——這先破我、後破我所之法，便是後世所稱的生法二空；論並綴一句「般若波羅蜜，無一定法故」，點明這先我後法的次第也只是應機的方便，般若本無一成不變的定法。
至於「不見我行、不見我不行」，論一氣說出五重意思：凡夫不得般若名不行、菩薩但行空般若故不見不行；佛觀餘菩薩智少結雜、不名為行，「譬如國王雖得少物，不名為得」——如王者所得須稱其位，區區小物不足言得，佛觀菩薩少分之行也不遽名為行；行者易生憍慢、不行者易生憂悴，故雙離之；不見我行破「有」見、不見我不行破「無」見；不見我行止戲論、不見我不行止懈怠，如乘馬疾則制之、遲則鞭之。
收到最後，論點出幾處最容易讀反的地方。其一，佛自說「菩薩、菩薩字性空」，論提醒：「是中雖但說菩薩字空」，「而五眾亦空」——莫以為只空一個名字，五蘊也一體皆空。其二，「色即是空」一句，空非在色之外，正因「破色故有空」，所以空不離色。其三，論又就「但有名字」一句剖出一層：「般若波羅蜜分為二分」，「成就者名為菩提，未成就者名為空」——同一般若，就其果成處立菩提之名、就其未成處立空之名，都不過是隨義安名。其四，說「生相不可得故名無生」——生若先於法、法若先於生、生法若同時，即論所謂「先生後法」「先法後生」「生法一時」三推，求之皆不可得；無生則無滅，不生不滅如虛空，「萬歲雨亦不濕、大火燒不熱、烟亦不著」，雨、火、烟三者皆加不上，正顯其本自無生。菩薩以慧眼遍求，乃至一極細微之法亦不可見，故不著。末了留一問：既一切不著，何以不入涅槃？論答以五因緣：大悲心故、十方佛念故、本願未滿故、精進波羅蜜力故、般若與方便二事和合故——也就是「連不著也不著」。至此，前半諸天的一念歡喜，與後半的生法二空，終於接成一線：所歡喜者，正是這『行而不著、不著而不捨眾生』的般若大心。
不要讀錯
不要把「報應／奉鉢」讀成一樁求福報、對得上帳的交易。諸天歡喜的不是那個鉢，而是見有人能發堅決不移的大心；論處處顯供養之事的力等神變，正是要人受供而不執供。
不要把「離婬欲、常作童真」讀成佛只許出家、貶斥在家。佛明說三種菩薩並存，還特為那『現受五欲而不染』的法身菩薩設幻師之喻；離欲是就多數行人的險處說，不是一刀切。
不要把「不見菩薩、不見般若」讀成什麼都不見的斷滅，或讀成不必修行。論說得明白：「不是永遠不見，只是入觀時不見」；名字是因緣和合的假名，假名雖假而能起用，如火假名而能燒物——所以「不見」是不著其相，不是撥無其事。
不要把「色即是空」讀成色滅了才空、空在色外。論的原意恰恰相反：正因破色故有空，空不離色；若把空當成色外別有一物，反成新的執著。
不要把「不著一切法」讀成就此入了涅槃、撒手不管。論列大悲、佛念、本願、精進、方便五重因緣，說菩薩「連不著也不著」，所以雖不著諸法而不入涅槃——不著，恰是為了不捨眾生。
修行作用
見他人行善、近道，學諸天那一念歡喜——隨喜本身就是修行，尤其對「未成、仍在結使中」的發心人，更該護持而非輕看：正如尸毘王本生中，帝釋起初對『發心菩薩成果者少』半信半疑，直到見他割身代鴿，才心大歡喜、散華讚歎。
受用種種善緣時，想那「甘美果樹」的意思：此刻所享的蔭、花、果，追到底都是有人先行善、以法相教的結果，於是受用時當念報恩，也發心去作那利他之因。
對治欲染，記取五欲的四種過患與「受而不實受」的分寸：熾然是二火交煎、穢惡如狗食糞、毀壞則亡國危身、如怨則鉤魚罥鹿焚蛾。在家未必是障、出家未必即成，關鍵在染與不染；婬欲根深，故於自身當嚴、於他人當寬，不以一相論斷。
讀「不見我行、不見我不行」時，拿它照自己：行善時易生『我在修』的憍慢，懈怠時易生「我不行」的憂悴，兩頭都用得上「不見」這味藥，如乘馬之疾則制、遲則鞭。
最要緊的一味，是「當取說意，莫著語言」：一切名相都是因緣假名，聽法讀經、乃至自己說法時，都取其意而不死在字句上；而所以不著，又不是為了自了，是為那「不入涅槃」的大悲本願。
承衍
後來有古德為這一品逐文作疏，補出幾處本論沒有明說的關節。品名何以稱「奉鉢／報應」，古德說是因「諸天願奉鉢」而立；又把全品判為兩大分——前分明諸天歡喜讚嘆供養，後分自舍利弗再問而重開宗旨，並指出：這一品雖以奉鉢為名，真正「開宗正說行般若」卻在末段的生法二空，由此以下，品品才是正說修行般若之義。也有古德就本論的三種菩薩，補一層「三對」的讀法——以在家出家、生身法身、離欲未離欲三對交錯收攝，說三種菩薩各無不盡；又把如意珠本生中三龍所願的多聞、神足、智慧第一弟子，一一指實為後來的三位大弟子；還為「童真行」下一訓釋：如小兒雖根身具足而無欲心，才是真童真——並非徒指形貌。這些讀法各有來歷，此處只誌其取徑、不判其高下。把它們帶回本品，最值得留住的，不是一張更細的科判，而是這一品對「報應」二字的翻轉：諸天的歡喜、奉鉢的果報，說到盡處，不落在一份可執的福報上，而落在「行般若而不見、不著而不捨」的大心上。奉鉢之為報應，原來是為著指認這顆心——這才是全品把供養與空義接成一線的深意。
Recompense: From the Gods’ Joyful Offering of Bowls to Not Seeing the Bodhisattva, Not Seeing Prajñā
What Is Being Asked
This chapter is called “Recompense”—some editions have “Offering the Bowls.” Judged by its title alone, it seems to tell of a matter of reward: a bodhisattva practises prajñā and is able to perform merit, and so the Four Heavenly Kings rejoice and wish to offer him four bowls; the gods of the Heaven of the Thirty-three, and so on up to the summit of the form realm, likewise rejoice each in turn, wishing to attend on him, wishing to request him to turn the wheel of the Dharma, wishing to be his kin. The whole first half is filled with the joy and the offerings of gods and humans, and reads like a solemn tableau of auspicious signs. Yet read this chapter to its end and the discourse turns abruptly: Śāriputra asks how a bodhisattva ought to practise prajñā, and what the Buddha answers is 「不見菩薩、不見菩薩字、不見般若」 tr. "not seeing the bodhisattva, not seeing the word ‘bodhisattva’, not seeing prajñā", going on all the way to 「色即是空、空即是色」 tr. "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" and to “names are only provisional names arising from the coming together of causes and conditions.” And so the questions arise. First, how can a chapter named “Offering the Bowls” or “Recompense,” which seems to speak only of the reward of offerings, set its point of arrival on the deepest meaning of emptiness? Between the joyful offering of bowls in the first half and the twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas in the second, where is the sinew that joins them? Second, why do the gods rejoice? Is it really the bowl they rejoice in, or something else? Third, the gods wish the bodhisattva to “abandon sexual desire and always remain in the youthful state”—does this mean that only by cutting off desire and leaving home can one become a buddha, and that a householder cannot? Fourth, and the weightiest question of all: once it has been said “not seeing the bodhisattva, not seeing prajñā,” how is the bodhisattva still to “practise”? Would “not seeing” not amount to there being nothing at all to cultivate? What this chapter sets out to answer is precisely how the word “recompense” runs from the gods’ single thought of joy all the way through to the right contemplation of prajñā that is ‘attached to no name whatever, and yet does not enter nirvāṇa.’
Passage by Passage
First, why the gods rejoice. At the opening of the chapter the Buddha first tells Śāriputra that when a bodhisattva practises prajñā he is able to perform merit, and the Four Heavenly Kings then rejoice and wish to offer him bowls. The treatise-author follows at once with the plainest of questions: on what ground, after all, do the gods rejoice? The answer comes in several layers. It must first be understood that prajñā bears two kinds of fruit: one is becoming a buddha and liberating beings; the other is, though not yet a buddha, already enjoying the worldly fruit of reward—becoming a wheel-turning sage king, becoming Śakra or the Brahmā king, lord of a three-thousand great-thousand world. The gods rejoice precisely because their own heavenly fortune has come about only through buddhas and bodhisattvas in the first place: when a buddha appears in the world the gods increase and the asuras decrease, and when no buddha appears it is the reverse. Here the treatise-author raises a further question of his own, pressing this principle up into the higher heavens: the Heaven of the Four Kings and the Heaven of the Thirty-three are indeed harassed by the asuras, so it can still be said that they long for a buddha to appear and remove their trouble; but the gods of the form realm above have no trouble from asuras—why should they rejoice too? The answer adds a further layer: although the higher heavens have no trouble from asuras, 「若佛不出世，生其天上者少」 tr. "if a buddha does not appear in the world, few are born in those heavens"; and even those who are born there receive five desires that are not refined, simply because they have cultivated only impure merit—and the palaces, the radiance and the lifespans of the gods of the form realm are likewise incomplete in just this way. It is plain, then, that for higher and lower heavens alike, whether that heavenly fortune comes to fullness or not is rooted in whether buddhas and bodhisattvas appear in the world—this is the real reason why all the gods without exception rejoice. At a deeper layer still, the wise among the gods know clearly that the flavour of meditation and the five desires are all impermanent, and that only a buddha can give people the permanent bliss of nirvāṇa; therefore they rejoice. Here the treatise sets down a simile of this chapter’s own: a sweet fruit tree grows lush and everyone rejoices in it, because some find its shade, some use its flowers, and some eat its fruit; so too the bodhisattva, who with the shade of turning from evil screens off the scorching suffering of the three evil destinies, opens the flowers of the wealth and happiness of humans and gods, and bears the fruit of the three vehicles of the worthies and sages—this “fruit tree” is the real meaning of the gods’ joy. And for the utmost of such joy the treatise cites the jātaka of King Śibi, who cut his own flesh to ransom a dove: Śakra Devānām Indra was about to reach the end of his life and had sought a buddha without finding one; hearing that King Śibi’s austerities were about to ripen into buddhahood, he half believed and half doubted, saying that fish-roe, the blossoms of the āmra tree, and bodhisattvas who have first aroused the mind—these three are many at the start and very few at their fruition—and so he transformed himself into a hawk and pursued a dove to test whether the king was true; King Śibi went so far as to cut the flesh from his own body and to lift his whole body onto the scale to take the dove’s place, the great earth quaked, and only then did Śakra’s heart greatly rejoice, and he scattered flowers and praised him: 「如是決定大心，成佛不久」 tr. "a great mind so resolved as this will not be long in becoming a buddha." This simile is meant to make us see that the gods’ joy is not for the sake of a bowl but for the sake of a great mind that is resolute and unshakable—seeing that someone can truly practise in this way, they know that he will not be long in becoming a buddha.
Next, the “offering of the bowl” itself. There are so many kinds of offering—why speak only of offering the bowl? The treatise answers: the Four Heavenly Kings offer the bowl, and the other gods each have their own standing custom—from the moment of the Buddha’s birth, when heavenly garments receive his body, the Brahmā king holds the canopy and the Four Kings stand guard, to his leaving home, when they bear up his horse’s hooves, raise stūpas for his hair and his robe, offer grass beneath the tree, and the vajra-bearers stand guard, and the Brahmā king requests him to turn the wheel of the Dharma—each of these is a fixed precedent in which “each has its standing custom,” and offering the bowl is no more than the one item in this long series of precedents that falls to the Four Heavenly Kings. The two follow-up questions that come next are both of great interest. The Buddha has but one body—how can he receive four bowls? The treatise answers that the four kings are equal in power and he cannot receive from one to the neglect of the others, so the Buddha by his spiritual power joins the four bowls into one, letting the Four Heavenly Kings see for themselves that ‘the merit of the offering they made is not in vain’—this “joining of four bowls into one” is itself a ready-made teaching of the Dharma. It is asked again: the Four Heavenly Kings live only five hundred years, while the bodhisattva will become a buddha only after immeasurable kalpas—how can the present kings of heaven wait that long? The treatise answers that it is because they are of one lineage, as the blood of a noble clan flows on through a hundred generations and is not held to be different because it is distant; and further, reckoning closely, the five hundred years of the Four Heavenly Kings amount to nine million years in the human world, so that the kings of heaven born when the bodhisattva is close to buddhahood will be just in time. These questions and answers, trifling as they appear, are in fact all loosening one kind of attachment: seeing the offering as a transaction whose accounts must balance. The treatise insists on showing that at every point here there is equality of power and spiritual transformation—the matter of offering is real, yet not to be clung to as real. Last comes a question most worth savouring: the Mahāyāna sūtras say plainly that there are buddhas who “take joy as their food and do not eat morsel food”—such as the Buddha Heavenly King, whose robes and appearance are no different from a householder’s and who needs no bowl or food—so how can it be said that “the Four Heavenly Kings must certainly offer the bowl”? The treatise answers with the finest sense of proportion: “certainly” is said only with respect to buddhas who use a bowl, not that a bowl must be offered even to those who use none; buddhas who use a bowl are many and those who do not are few, so the majority is taken as the standing rule. In a single sentence it makes clear that “must certainly offer the bowl” is said of the ordinary rule and does not obstruct the exception of taking joy as food—the two do not hinder each other.
The gods wish to attend on him and further wish to request the Buddha to turn the wheel of the Dharma. This section of the sūtra divides into several layers, and the treatise dissects them layer by layer. First it explains the character of the gods’ offerings: they pay homage and reverence with flowers, incense and necklaces, listen to the Dharma and give praise, and in their hearts they share one thought: 「人修淨福，阿修羅種減，增益三十三天，我諸天亦得增益」 tr. "when humans cultivate pure merit, the asura kind decreases and the Heaven of the Thirty-three is increased; we gods too are increased." Thus the gods’ request is made for the sake of the Dharma, and they also know for themselves that when beings cultivate merit, the host of gods to which they belong grows accordingly—benefiting others is precisely how they benefit themselves. The treatise then raises two questions and loosens two doubts. First: the passage above has already enumerated the six kinds of gods on a single Mount Sumeru—why speak separately of the gods of “the three-thousand great-thousand world,” up to the Akaniṣṭha Heaven, rejoicing and making offerings? The treatise answers: what was spoken of before were the six heavens of a single Mount Sumeru, whereas what is spoken of here are the gods of the three-thousand great-thousand world, a range already far wider; before, only the desire realm was reached, whereas here the desire realm and the form realm are spoken of together, and what is spoken of is the request to turn the wheel of the Dharma; above, the gods of the Pure Abodes did no more than make various offerings and encourage and assist, whereas here the request to turn the wheel of the Dharma is a weightier matter, and so it must be set out separately. Second: the Tripiṭaka has always said only that “the Brahmā god requested the turning of the wheel of the Dharma”—why does this sūtra say at length that the Four Heavenly Kings and so on up to the gods of the Akaniṣṭha Heaven all come to request it? The treatise answers in four ways: the gods of the desire realm are near, so they come forward; all of the form realm alike is called Brahmā, so to name the Brahmā king already gathers in all the other gods; 「梵為色界初門」 tr. "Brahmā is the first gate of the form realm," so to name the beginning is to name what follows as well; and further, beings, whether or not a buddha is in the world, have always known the Brahmā god, 「以梵天為世間祖父」 tr. "taking the Brahmā god as the grandfather of the world," and so the Brahmā god is singled out especially for the world’s sake. These two exchanges appear to be debating the width of a name and a number, but in fact they stretch the weight of this one matter, the request to turn the wheel of the Dharma, from one Sumeru and one Brahmā god out to the three-thousand great-thousand world and the summit of the form realm—showing that the gods’ request is the shared mind of the whole dharma-realm.
After the gods request the turning of the wheel of the Dharma, the sūtra goes on to say that good men and good women rejoice and wish to be the bodhisattva’s father and mother, wife and children, and kin. This long section of the sūtra the treatise divides into several places for fine distinction. First there is a question: it has already been said that the bodhisattva “is able to perform this merit”—why say here again that he “increases the six perfections”? Is that not repetition? The treatise answers: 「先說總相，今說別相」 tr. "first the general mark was stated; now the particular mark is stated"—before, his merit was praised in general terms; here the six perfections are pointed to specifically; again, the merits spoken of before were of every kind and immeasurable, and listeners easily grow weary, whereas now, by briefly naming only the six perfections, all merits whatever are gathered in; and further, 「為天說故，能作諸功德；為人說故，增益六波羅蜜」 tr. "because it is spoken for gods, ‘able to perform all merits’; because it is spoken for humans, ‘increases the six perfections’"—the capacities that gods and humans present are different, and the teaching accordingly divides into general and particular. Next the treatise distinguishes a detail: why is “good gods” not said separately of the gods, and “good men and women” said only among humans? Because the gods have the divine eye, the divine ear and the knowledge of others’ minds, and so know already that they should make offerings, with no need to mark out their goodness specially; humans have eyes of flesh, and few among them know to make offerings, so these are specially marked out.
And why take only the goodness of men and women, and not the goodness of those with two organs or with none? The treatise’s answer takes a good deal of careful distinction and must not be skimmed. Of the person without an organ it is said that he lacks the marks of attaining the path, and so in the śrāvaka Dharma he is not even permitted to leave home—precisely because he has lost the mark of male or female; his mind is unassured, the slightest thing makes him angry, his fetters are many and he is greedily attached to worldly affairs, he harbours a net of doubts and takes no delight in the true Dharma; though he may cultivate a little in works of merit, his wisdom is shallow and cannot go deep, and moreover his nature is changeable—therefore he is not spoken of. This is said along the line of the śrāvaka Dharma. If one speaks by the Mahāyāna, it is broader still—「譬如大海，無所不容」 tr. "like the great ocean, there is nothing it does not hold"—the person without an organ sometimes also cultivates good, but only because their number is the fewest is he not spoken of separately; just as a person of fair skin, even if his beard and hair and moles are black, is still “not called a dark person,” and one cannot call him dark on account of the little that is dark. As for the person with two organs, his fetters are many and mixed, he engages in both a man’s affairs and a woman’s, his mind is crooked and hard to rescue—「譬如稠林曳木，曲者難出」 tr. "as when dragging timber through a dense forest, the crooked pieces are hard to get out"; and again he is like the asuras, 「其心不端故，常疑於佛，謂佛助天」 tr. "because their minds are not upright, they always suspect the Buddha, saying the Buddha helps the gods"—when the Buddha teaches five aggregates they suspect there are six, when the Buddha teaches four truths they suspect there are five, never willing to grant even a little faith; the crookedness of the person with two organs is like this too, and cannot bear the attainment of the path. In setting down this string of four similes together—the great ocean, the fair-skinned man, the dense forest, the asuras—the treatise is not belittling anyone, but speaking finely and distinctly in terms of ‘whether one can bear to practise the path’: and so only the good among men and women are spoken of.
What, then, are “the marks of goodness”? Here sūtra and treatise set out a long series, which most of all must be taken in item by item and not passed over as a single phrase about a good person. The marks of goodness are, first, to have a mind of kindness and compassion and to be able to endure abusive words—as the Chapter on Abuse of the Dharmapada says, 「能忍惡罵人，是名人中上」 tr. "one who can endure abusive men—this is called the highest among men," like a fine, good horse fit to be ridden by a king: only one who can suffer insult with an unbroken mind is of the highest grade among people. Again, one whose mind cannot be destroyed by the five kinds of wrong speech, or by whips and staves, beating and harm, binding and fetters, is also said to have the marks of goodness. Going further, the virtues are counted out: no fault in the three kinds of action, and delight in good people; not disparaging others’ goodness and not displaying one’s own virtue; going along with the many and not speaking of others’ faults; not attached to worldly pleasure and not seeking fame, delighting in faith only in the joy of the path and its virtue; one’s own action pure, not troubling beings; the mind valuing the real Dharma and making light of worldly affairs; loving only uprightness and good faith, and not following others in deceit; to let all beings obtain happiness, preferring to give up one’s own happiness; to let all beings be free of suffering, preferring to “take their place with one’s own body.” Such immeasurable virtues are all together called the marks of a good person—and these marks are found mostly in men and women, so the sūtra says “good men and good women.” It is plain that beneath the single word “good” that the sūtra sets up there lies hidden a whole portrait of character, from being able to endure abusive words to taking another’s suffering with one’s own body.
As for why good men and women make vows and form bonds, the treatise gives several layers of reason. One is that, knowing their own merit to be thin and their wisdom shallow, they draw near to the bodhisattva to seek liberation, as 「沈石雖重，依船得度」 tr. "a sinking stone, though heavy, is carried across by relying on a boat"—the stone is heavy yet relying on the boat it can cross; the person is inferior yet relying on the bodhisattva he can get out. Another is that, having heard that the bodhisattva’s attainment of the path is not the work of one life or two, but is won only by 「無央數世往來生死」 tr. "going and coming in birth and death for countless lifetimes," they are moved to think, “I shall be a cause and condition for him”—it is precisely because they see the bodhisattva’s practice, hard to accomplish through kalpa after kalpa, and the depth and reach of his work on the path, that they vow to follow him life after life and to form a bond of long duration. A third is that the bodhisattva’s accumulated virtue is deep and thick, and wherever he is born the beings there all receive his benefit and revere him; if they see the bodhisattva give up his life, they wish to become his father and mother, wife and children, and kin, because they know deeply that 「習近善人，增益功德」 tr. "keeping close to good people increases merit," as incense heaped up gives an ever richer fragrance.
The treatise then cites three jātaka in succession to establish this matter of “wishing to be his kin life after life,” and none of them may be passed over as mere names. The first is the prince of the wish-fulfilling jewel. In a former life the bodhisattva was a king’s son; pitying the poverty of the people of Jambudvīpa, he went into the great ocean to the dragon palaces to seek a wish-fulfilling jewel. Three times he entered a dragon palace and three times obtained a precious jewel. In the first palace he stayed a month and praised the dragon king’s virtue of great learning; the dragon king gave him a jewel able to rain over one yojana, with the vow, 「我當作多聞第一弟子」 tr. "I shall become your disciple foremost in great learning." In the second palace he praised the power of spiritual penetration for two months and obtained a jewel able to rain over two yojanas; that dragon king vowed to become his disciple foremost in supernormal power. In the third palace he praised wisdom for three months and obtained a jewel able to rain over three yojanas; that dragon king vowed to become his disciple foremost in wisdom. The three dragons each made their vow according to the virtue the prince had praised, vowing in a future life to be three kinds of foremost disciple at his seat—foremost in great learning, in supernormal power, in wisdom—one vow to one virtue, answering thread for thread: this is the most vivid of pictures of “wishing life after life to be a cause and condition,” the bond of kinship being formed, from the start, along the line of the virtues of the Dharma. The second is Sumati buying flowers. The bodhisattva Sumati, seeing the Buddha Dīpaṃkara, sought to buy five stalks of flowers from the girl Xuluosuo to offer to the Buddha; the girl would not part with them lightly, and even at a price of five hundred gold coins she still would not give them, but required instead, 「願我世世常為君妻」 tr. "may I always be your wife, life after life," before she would hand over the flowers; for the sake of offering to the Buddha, the bodhisattva agreed—a small matter of buying flowers became the cause and condition of a vow to be husband and wife life after life, and the reason he agreed was wholly for the offering to the Buddha, not out of the taint of passion. The third, the bodhisattva Wondrous Light and the girl Joyful Virtue, is the longest of the jātaka: the daughter of an elder, seeing that the bodhisattva Wondrous Light’s body bore twenty-eight marks, felt love and reverence, took the beryl bead from her neck and placed it in the bodhisattva’s bowl, and vowed to be this man’s wife life after life; this girl gathered merits for two hundred and fifty kalpas, and was later born in a lotus flower in the garden of the courtesan Joyful-to-See, and raised as the girl Joyful Virtue; at fourteen she was fully accomplished in women’s arts and worldly knowledge. At that time in Jambudvīpa there was a king named Lord of Wealth, whose prince, named Lord of Virtue, had a mind of great compassion; he went out on progress and scattered gifts everywhere like the rain of a dragon. Joyful Virtue, seeing the prince, composed verses of her own in his praise, gazing at him with love and never blinking, and wished to offer herself to serve him. The prince asked to whom she belonged, and the courtesan Joyful-to-See answered for her: this girl was not born of my womb; she is one I saw born in a lotus flower one morning and raised; she is fully possessed of the sixty-four arts, always holds to shame and conscience, is loyal and upright at heart, without jealousy and without deviousness. The prince, however, answered decisively: I have already brought forth the mind of awakening and cultivate the bodhisattva path; my country, my wealth, my wife and children I do not hold dear; even if someone should ask for your person, or even if I should leave you to go forth from home, you must not grieve or regret it. Joyful Virtue answered still more decisively: even if the fires of hell should burn up my body, I would never regret it; it is not for the pleasures of sexual desire that I am taken with your marks and features, but to encourage and assist awakening that I serve a true man. The girl further told him that she had dreamt of the Buddha Wondrous Sun-Body, and the two then went together to where the Buddha was—the prince obtained immeasurable dhāraṇī gates, the girl obtained a tamed and settled mind, and the king his father also followed them in giving up his attachments and leaving home. This long jātaka, winding as its plot is, has only one point: Joyful Virtue’s wish to be the prince’s wife was from beginning to end no entanglement of passion, but the clinging of a root of goodness “to encourage and assist awakening”; taken together, the three jātaka show that what makes the cause and condition of kinship a cause and condition lies wholly in a mind that forms a Dharma-bond with the bodhisattva in order to seek liberation.
The gods further wish the bodhisattva to “abandon sexual desire and always remain in the youthful state.” The treatise explains: among the five desires, touch is foremost; it binds the mind most of all, like falling into deep mud from which it is hard to pull free; in receiving the other desires one does not yet lose one’s wisdom, but only in the union of sexual desire are body and mind dazed and confused, deeply attached and self-drowned; therefore the gods wish him to keep far from it. How do they bring him to leave it? The treatise cites the bodhisattva Śākyamuni in the palace, to whom the gods of the Pure Abodes manifested old age, sickness and death, and then in the middle of the night manifested the foul impurities of the palace women, making him turn away in disgust and leave home. Here the treatise quotes a word of the Buddha of the greatest weight: 「寧以利刀割截身體，不與女人共會」 tr. "better to cut and sever one’s body with a sharp knife than to unite with a woman"—the cut of the knife, though painful, does not make one fall into the evil destinies, whereas the cause and condition of sexual desire makes one 「於無量劫數受地獄苦」 tr. "undergo the sufferings of hell for immeasurable numbers of kalpas"; between the sharp and the dull, the short and the long, sexual desire as the root of all the fetters is spoken of to the bone. Immediately after, the treatise refutes a view that seems right but is not: someone says that although a bodhisattva receives the five desires, because his mind is not attached they do not hinder the path. The treatise at once refutes this on the basis of the sūtra: one who receives the five desires will even so 「不生梵世」 tr. "not be born in the Brahmā world"—the Brahmā world is something all beings from beginningless time can be born into, yet one who receives the five desires cannot obtain even this Brahmā world that should have been within his reach; how much less awakening, which he has never had and wishes to attain? Hence we know that the saying “the mind not attached, it does not hinder the path” cannot be relied on, and the bodhisattva should still remain in the youthful state and cultivate pure conduct in order to attain awakening. What matters here is proportion: on one side the treatise speaks in the strongest terms of sexual desire as the root of all fetters, and of the precept against sexual conduct as first among the precepts for those who have left home and the gravest, as hard to be parted from as glue and lacquer; on the other side it does not pronounce a final judgement on the householder across the board. Immediately after, Śāriputra asks, “must a bodhisattva have father and mother, wife and children?” and the Buddha answers that there are three kinds of bodhisattva: one kind, like an ordinary person, receives the five desires and afterwards abandons them and leaves home; one kind cuts off desire from the first arousing of the mind and cultivates the youthful state all the way to becoming a buddha; one kind is the bodhisattva of the pure dharma-body who has attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, yet manifests the receiving of the five desires, sharing people’s affairs in order to gather them in and transform them. The treatise also adds, of the second kind, 「或法身，或肉身；或離欲，或未離欲」 tr. "either of the dharma-body or of the body of flesh; either free of desire or not yet free of desire," and of the third kind, 「或作轉輪聖王，或作閻浮提王、長者、剎利」 tr. "either becoming a wheel-turning sage king, or becoming a king of Jambudvīpa, an elder, a kṣatriya," benefiting beings according to what they need—so it can be seen that “abandoning desire” is said with respect to the danger-point of most practitioners, not as a blanket negation of the household life.
For that hard-to-grasp third kind of bodhisattva the Buddha further sets up a simile of its own, and the treatise first asks: of the three kinds of bodhisattva, why is a simile made for this kind alone? The treatise answers: the first kind, like ordinary people, does not cut off sexual desire, and the second kind always cuts off sexual desire and cultivates pure practice—these two are easy to understand; only the third, 「亦修淨行，現受婬欲」 tr. "who also cultivates pure practice yet manifestly receives sexual desire," is least understood by the world, and so 「以人不了故，為作譬喻」 tr. "because people do not understand it, a simile is made for it." It is asked again: in making a simile, why not use a dream or a magical creation, and choose illusion instead? The treatise distinguishes this in three layers: a dream 「非五情所知，但內心憶想故生」 tr. "is not known by the five senses, but arises only from the recollection and imagining of the inner mind," and cannot persuade people; a magical creation, though knowable by the five senses, is seen by very few; only illusion is something the many believe in, which the five senses see in common while knowing it to change, perish and be impermanent—therefore illusion is taken as the simile. So it is said that a conjurer conjures up the five desires and amuses himself among them—but when has he ever really received them? The bodhisattva, by skilful means, conjures up the five desires and receives their pleasure to liberate beings, and is likewise untainted. On this point the treatise also brings out the method by which the bodhisattva-conjurer liberates beings: beings are of two kinds, householders and those who have left home; to liberate those who have left home he appears as a śrāvaka, a pratyekabuddha, a buddha, or a teacher of other paths; to liberate householders he either appears as one who has left home and been liberated, or appears as a householder who receives the five desires together with them and so transforms them—the conjured five desires are exactly the way to enter beings’ capacities and gather them in. On the one hand the bodhisattva receives the five desires by conjuration; on the other he “disparages the five desires,” teaching that desire has four kinds of fault. These four faults the treatise does not merely list by name, but gives a sub-simile for each, and each must be seen clearly. “Desire is a blaze”: before one has lost the object of desire, the fire of the three poisons burns, and when one loses it, the fire of impermanence burns; “because two fires burn” it is called a blaze, and there is no moment of true happiness at all. “Desire is foul”: all the buddhas, bodhisattvas and arhats who are free of desire regard it as filthy and base, 「譬如人見狗食糞」 tr. "as when a person sees a dog eating dung," at once contemptible and pitiable—the one who receives desire is just like that dung-eating dog, not obtaining the happiness of inner freedom from desire, but forcing himself to seek happiness in the impure. “Desire is ruin”: the kings of heaven, the kings of men, and all the rich and noble lose their countries and endanger their persons through attachment to the five desires, none of it from any other cause. “Desire is like an enemy”: outwardly the five desires seem friendly and kind, inwardly they harbour harm; they destroy a person’s good mind and rob him of the life of wisdom, and the treatise sets down three similes in a row—「如鉤賊魚、如摾害鹿、如燈焚蛾」 tr. "like the hook that ruins the fish, like the snare that harms the deer, like the lamp that burns the moth"—the fish swallows the hook, the deer runs into the net, the moth flies into the flame, each bringing on the disaster of its own death by a moment’s greed; and whereas the harm an enemy does lasts no more than one life, attachment to the five desires makes one fall into the three evil destinies and suffer for immeasurable lives. These four faults and four similes make the boundary of “receiving the five desires without really receiving them” perfectly clear: the receiving is skilful means; the not receiving is what is real.
Only here does the discourse turn to the deepest question of the whole chapter—Śāriputra asks how a bodhisattva ought to practise prajñā, and the Buddha answers, 「不見菩薩、不見菩薩字、不見般若，亦不見我行、不見我不行」 tr. "not seeing the bodhisattva, not seeing the word ‘bodhisattva’, not seeing prajñā, and also not seeing that I practise, not seeing that I do not practise." Before dissecting this “not seeing,” the treatise first takes some pains to explain why Śāriputra asks this question and why he asks it again, and these several exchanges must not be passed over. First it is asked: Śāriputra already asked about this above—why does he ask again now? The treatise answers: before, he asked because the Buddha had said 「欲以一切種知一切法，當學般若」 tr. "one who wishes to know all dharmas in all their kinds should train in prajñā"; he asked following the Buddha’s words, “not asking of his own accord,” not out of a design of his own; now, having heard all the praise of the merits of prajñā above, joy and reverence arise in his mind and he asks how one ought to practise it, just “as a sick man, hearing a good medicine praised,” then asks how he should take it—to hear the medicine praised and ask how to take it is the very urgency of faith. It is asked again: he has already asked above about practising the perfection of giving while abiding or not abiding in dharmas—why does he ask about practice again now? The treatise answers: 「上總問諸波羅蜜，此但問般若」 tr. "above he asked about all the perfections together; here he asks only about prajñā"—before, he asked about all the perfections together, with extensive praise as the main theme; here he asks directly about practising prajñā; and moreover the merits of prajñā are inexhaustible and the Buddha’s wisdom is inexhaustible, so that if Śāriputra did not raise a question, the Buddha’s praise would have no occasion to come to rest—therefore he asks for the sake of the assembly. It is asked a third time: the merits of prajñā are to be revered—what would be wrong with the Buddha simply praising it at length? The treatise answers: praise makes people increase in merit, but teaching the Dharma makes them increase in wisdom; becoming a buddha requires wisdom and not merit alone, so there must not be praise only; when people hear praise their minds already thirst and yearn for it, and this is exactly when they should be given the practice—「如為渴人，廣讚歎美飲，不解於渴，即便應與之」 tr. "as for a thirsty man, praising a fine drink at length does not relieve his thirst; one should give it to him at once"—words praising the drink cannot relieve thirst; it is time to hand over the cup. These three exchanges press forward layer by layer: praise of prajñā, carried to its limit, must land on the one question of how it is to be practised, and this is what draws out the right contemplation that follows.
These words “not seeing” are the most easily read to death, and so the treatise opens them up layer by layer. First it breaks a common-sense objection: a person must first see the road before he can walk it—if one does not see the bodhisattva or prajñā, how can one practise? The treatise answers with great precision: “this does not say one never sees; it says only that one does not see when entering the right contemplation of prajñā”; the name “bodhisattva” and the name “prajñā” are both provisional names from the coming together of many conditions, as fire, arising from many conditions, is provisionally named fire—though there is no really existing fire-substance, it can still burn things; a provisional name, though provisional, does not obstruct its function. This simile is the very backbone of this treatise’s Middle Way line, “the coming together of causes and conditions, existing as a provisional name.” It is asked again: not seeing when one enters contemplation, seeing again when one emerges—which is to be trusted? The treatise answers: prajñā comes forth in order to reveal real dharmas, and this is to be trusted; what is seen on emerging from contemplation is not real and not to be trusted; and the reason one speaks of practising and of entering is merely to accord with worldly names, while in reality, where idle discourse ceases, there is neither emerging nor entering—the sentence 「當取說意，莫著語言」 tr. "take the meaning of what is said; do not cling to the words" is the eye of the whole chapter. It is asked again: since what is prized is the emptiness of all dharmas, why is the “self” refuted first? The treatise answers: for people who first hear prajñā, to hear suddenly that all dharmas are empty is hard to believe, so first the “self,” which does not exist at all yet is falsely reckoned to exist, is refuted, and then what belongs to self, leading them in layer by layer—this method of first refuting the self and then refuting what belongs to self is what later generations called the twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas; and the treatise adds the phrase 「般若波羅蜜，無一定法故」 tr. "because prajñāpāramitā has no single fixed dharma," making plain that this order of first self and then dharmas is also only a skilful means suited to capacity, and that prajñā at root has no fixed, unchanging dharma.
As for “not seeing that I practise, not seeing that I do not practise,” the treatise sets out five senses in one breath: ordinary beings, not having attained prajñā, are called “not practising”, while the bodhisattva practises only the empty prajñā and so does not see not practising; the Buddha regards the other bodhisattvas, whose wisdom is slight and whose fetters are mixed in, as not to be called practising—「譬如國王雖得少物，不名為得」 tr. "just as a king, though he obtains some small thing, is not said to have obtained anything"—as what a king obtains must befit his station, and a trifle is not worth calling an acquisition, so the Buddha, regarding the partial practice of bodhisattvas, does not hastily call it practice; the one who practises easily gives rise to arrogance, and the one who does not practise easily gives rise to dejection, so both are left behind together; not seeing that I practise refutes the view of “existence,” and not seeing that I do not practise refutes the view of “non-existence”; not seeing that I practise stops idle discourse, and not seeing that I do not practise stops laziness, as in riding a horse, one reins it in when it is too fast and whips it when it is too slow.
Drawing to a close, the treatise points out several places most easily read backwards. First, the Buddha himself says 「菩薩、菩薩字性空」 tr. "the bodhisattva and the word ‘bodhisattva’ are empty in nature," and the treatise reminds us: 「是中雖但說菩薩字空」 tr. "although here only the word ‘bodhisattva’ is said to be empty," 「而五眾亦空」 tr. "the five aggregates too are empty"—do not suppose that only a name is emptied; the five aggregates are all empty as one. Second, in the sentence “form is emptiness,” emptiness is not outside form; precisely because 「破色故有空」 tr. "it is by breaking form that there is emptiness," emptiness is not apart from form. Third, the treatise also brings out a further layer in the sentence “there are only names”: 「般若波羅蜜分為二分」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is divided into two parts," 「成就者名為菩提，未成就者名為空」 tr. "the accomplished is called awakening; the unaccomplished is called emptiness"—one and the same prajñā, where its fruit is accomplished, is given the name awakening, and where it is not yet accomplished, the name emptiness; both are no more than names assigned according to meaning. Fourth, it says, “because the mark of arising cannot be found, it is called non-arising”—whether arising precedes the dharma, or the dharma precedes arising, or arising and the dharma are simultaneous, that is, the three lines of reasoning the treatise calls “first arising, then the dharma,” “first the dharma, then arising,” and “arising and the dharma at one time,” when sought, none can be found; without arising there is no ceasing, and neither arising nor ceasing is like empty space: 「萬歲雨亦不濕、大火燒不熱、烟亦不著」 tr. "ten thousand years of rain do not wet it, a great fire does not make it hot, smoke does not cling to it"—rain, fire and smoke, none of the three can be laid upon it, which shows plainly that it is by nature without arising. The bodhisattva, searching everywhere with the wisdom-eye, cannot see even a single most subtle dharma, and so is not attached. At the end one question is left: since he is attached to nothing at all, why does he not enter nirvāṇa? The treatise answers with five causes and conditions: because of the mind of great compassion; because the buddhas of the ten directions keep him in mind; because his original vow is not yet fulfilled; because of the power of the perfection of vigour; because the two, prajñā and skilful means, are joined together—that is to say, “not attached even to non-attachment.” Here at last the gods’ single thought of joy in the first half and the twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas in the second are joined into one line: what they rejoice in is exactly this great mind of prajñā that ‘practises without attachment, and in not being attached does not abandon beings.’
Do Not Misread
Do not read “recompense” or “offering the bowl” as a transaction for seeking reward whose accounts must balance. What the gods rejoice in is not the bowl, but the sight of someone able to bring forth a great mind that is resolute and unshakable; the treatise shows at every point the equality of power and the spiritual transformation in the matter of offering precisely so that one may receive offerings without clinging to them.
Do not read “abandon sexual desire and always remain in the youthful state” as the Buddha permitting only those who leave home and disparaging householders. The Buddha plainly says that three kinds of bodhisattva exist side by side, and even sets up the simile of the conjurer especially for the dharma-body bodhisattva who ‘manifestly receives the five desires yet is untainted’; abandoning desire is said with respect to the danger-point of most practitioners, and is not a blanket rule.
Do not read “not seeing the bodhisattva, not seeing prajñā” as an annihilation in which nothing whatever is seen, or as meaning that one need not practise. The treatise says it clearly: “it is not that one never sees; it is only that one does not see when entering contemplation”; names are provisional names from the coming together of causes and conditions, and a provisional name, though provisional, can still function, as fire is a provisional name yet can burn things—so “not seeing” means not being attached to its marks, not sweeping away the thing itself.
Do not read “form is emptiness” as meaning that emptiness comes only once form has perished, or that emptiness lies outside form. The treatise’s meaning is precisely the reverse: it is by breaking form that there is emptiness, and emptiness is not apart from form; to take emptiness as some separate thing outside form is to fall into a new attachment.
Do not read “not attached to any dharma” as thereby entering nirvāṇa and letting go of everything. The treatise lists five causes and conditions—great compassion, the buddhas’ keeping him in mind, the original vow, vigour, and skilful means—and says the bodhisattva is “not attached even to non-attachment,” so that though he is not attached to dharmas he does not enter nirvāṇa: not being attached is exactly for the sake of not abandoning beings.
Bearing on Practice
When you see others doing good and drawing near the path, learn from the gods’ single thought of joy—rejoicing is itself a practice, and above all towards those who have set their minds on awakening but are “not yet accomplished, still among the fetters,” one should protect and uphold them rather than look down on them: just as in the jātaka of King Śibi, Śakra at first half believed and half doubted, thinking ‘of bodhisattvas who have first aroused the mind, few reach the fruit,’ until he saw the king cut his body to take the dove’s place, and only then did his heart greatly rejoice, and he scattered flowers and gave praise.
When you enjoy good conditions of every kind, think of the meaning of that “sweet fruit tree”: the shade, flowers and fruit you are enjoying now are, traced to the root, the result of someone who first did good and taught by means of the Dharma; so as you enjoy them, keep in mind the repaying of kindness, and resolve to become that cause of benefiting others yourself.
In countering the taint of desire, remember the four faults of the five desires and the proportion of “receiving without really receiving”: a blaze is two fires searing together, foulness is like a dog eating dung, ruin is losing one’s country and endangering one’s person, and like an enemy is the hook for the fish, the snare for the deer, the flame for the moth. The household life is not necessarily an obstacle, nor is leaving home necessarily accomplishment; the key lies in being tainted or untainted. The root of sexual desire runs deep, so be strict with yourself and lenient with others, and do not pass judgement on the basis of a single mark.
When you read “not seeing that I practise, not seeing that I do not practise,” hold it up to yourself: when doing good one easily gives rise to the arrogance of ‘I am cultivating,’ and when slack one easily gives rise to the dejection of “I do not practise”; the medicine of “not seeing” serves at both ends, as in riding a horse one reins it in when too fast and whips it when too slow.
The most important medicine of all is “take the meaning of what is said; do not cling to the words”: all names and marks are provisional names of causes and conditions; in hearing the Dharma and reading the sūtras, and even in teaching the Dharma oneself, take the meaning and do not die in the phrasing; and the reason for not clinging is, again, not to save oneself alone, but for the sake of that great compassion and original vow that “do not enter nirvāṇa.”
Further Resonances
Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter phrase by phrase, and brought out several joints that this treatise does not state explicitly. As to why the chapter is named “Offering the Bowls” or “Recompense,” the ancient master says it is named from “the gods’ wishing to offer bowls”; he further divides the whole chapter into two great parts—the first part making clear the gods’ joy, praise and offerings, the second part reopening the essential theme from Śāriputra’s renewed question—and points out that although this chapter takes the offering of the bowl as its name, the true “opening of the theme and direct teaching of the practice of prajñā” lies in the twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas in the final section, and that from here onward, chapter after chapter directly teaches the meaning of practising prajñā. There is also an ancient master who, taking up this treatise’s three kinds of bodhisattva, adds a reading by “three pairs”—household and home-leaving, body of birth and dharma-body, free of desire and not yet free of desire—three pairs interwoven to gather them in, showing that the three kinds of bodhisattva between them leave nothing out; he also identifies the disciples foremost in great learning, in supernormal power and in wisdom, vowed by the three dragons in the jātaka of the wish-fulfilling jewel, one by one as three later great disciples; and he gives a gloss on “the practice of the youthful state”: as a small child, though complete in faculties and body, has no mind of desire—this alone is the true youthful state, and it does not merely mean outward appearance. These readings each have their own provenance; here only their approach is recorded, without judging which is higher. Brought back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a finer outline, but this chapter’s reversal of the word “recompense”: the gods’ joy and the reward of offering the bowl, spoken to their end, do not come to rest in a merit-reward that can be clung to, but in the great mind that ‘practises prajñā without seeing, and is unattached yet does not abandon beings.’ The offering of the bowl is recompense, it turns out, in order to point out this very mind—this is the deep meaning by which the whole chapter joins offering and the meaning of emptiness into one line.
習相應品Practising in Accord
全文五層 →Full five layers →總說
〈習相應品〉一開篇，佛便告舍利弗：菩薩行般若時，應如是思惟——菩薩但有字、佛亦但有字、般若亦但有字，色受想行識亦但有字；乃至我、眾生、壽者、命者、知者、見者這十六種名相，一切求之皆不可得，只是不可得空故以名字說。全品因此環繞一個「習應」，卻不是問要精熟哪一套觀法，而是問：一個已知我與法都但有假名的菩薩，其智慧憑什麼過一切聲聞辟支佛，又如何才算真正與般若相應。
這一問，論主在開篇即點出樞紐。前之〈報應品〉末已說空，此品何以重說。論主的答覆是——上多說法空，今雜說法空、眾生空。修行人觀外法盡空，卻常暗許那個能觀空的人不空，故須再說觀者亦空；而我空易知、法空難見，二者在般若中同歸於空。這一句是全品的門，也是全品之眼所在。順著它讀下去，品末結穴便自然浮現——於一切相應之中，空相應名為第一相應。空行的菩薩不墮二乘地，能淨佛土、成就眾生，疾得無上菩提；其所以第一，正因唯此一門能破一切邪見戲論而自身不可壞。全品種種「習應」之相，都須放回這個樞紐來讀——離了空，習應只成又一重取著；離了眾生空與法空並說，度生便落在一個實有的能度所度上。
論主還從另一面補足這個樞紐。同是諸法實相慧、同緣滅諦、同是性空無生，聲聞辟支佛的智慧與佛菩薩的智慧體性本無差別；舍利弗正於此起疑——既然無有別異，何以說菩薩一日修智慧便過二乘。論主的答覆不在體性上分高下，而在用上顯別——二乘但觀諸法空，不能觀世間與涅槃為一，亦本不發心願度一切眾生、不迴善根向無上菩提；菩薩則以不可得空知一切法空而亦不見是空，又以此智慧為度脫一切眾生令得涅槃。愚癡與智慧入於般若，如眾流入海同為一味；然初入佛法時是癡是慧宛然有別，轉後深入乃癡慧無異。這一味與這別異，正是全品讀法的兩面——不可在體性上立二乘與菩薩之高下，卻要在發心與方便上見其天地之隔。
全品依三卷分作三分弧。之一（卷35）立空相應之問而奠基——先以法空眾生空並說答「何以重說空」，次以不可得空與度一切眾生二因緣，明菩薩智慧過二乘；其間以滿閻浮提竹麻稻茅、十方恒河沙世界、螢火蟲與日出諸喻，層層放大而歸於一義——二乘如螢火之夜照，菩薩如日出之遍照。又立必定、分別、反問、置四種論，明佛此處是以反問論詰舍利弗，令其自口說出二乘不如菩薩。這一分的重心，是把「智慧無差別」的疑，導入「發心與度生」的別。
之餘上（卷36）把「習應」二字正式落到觀行。先答菩薩云何過二乘地、住阿鞞跋致、淨佛道——以方便力住三解脫門而不取證，如仰射虛空箭箭相拄不令墮地；次明菩薩自初發意乃至坐道場常為二乘作福田、世間一切善法皆由菩薩而有。其後正說習應——習應色空、受想行識空，乃至十二入、十八界、四諦、十二因緣空，是名與般若相應；論主就此逐科廣辨五眾法相，又於十八空外別出性空、自相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空這七空，明其何以利益眾生而重出。分末層層收緊——不見色若相應若不相應、不見生滅垢淨，色空中無色，色即是空、空即是色，是諸法空相不生不滅乃至無智無得；直至空不與空合、色不與三際合。這一分的重心，是把「習應」從精熟一套觀法，改寫為在畢竟空中不取一切相應相的行處。
之餘下（卷37）以「空相應為第一」收束全品。先廣說薩婆若不與三世合、色等不與薩婆若合、佛十力等不與薩婆若合，明菩薩漏結未盡故種種法皆不與佛一切智合，而其不合正由不可見、由畢竟空。次破有見無見二邊——愛多者著有、見多者著無，二邊俱死如行狹道，唯離二邊行中道乃名相應。再明佛即薩婆若、六度即般若，行般若外更無他法可為而行；乃至不為五神通故行、惡魔不能得便諸佛擁護重罪輕受、疾得陀羅尼三昧常值諸佛。末乃直指十八界不與空合，因說空相應名為第一相應——空行菩薩不墮二乘地，如受記無異，利根者如受記、鈍根者近受記；並以不受眾生、眾生空、眾生不可得、眾生離四句釋眾生畢竟不生不滅，明菩薩習是空相應乃能生大慈大悲、不生慳犯戒瞋懈怠亂無智六惡之心。往生度眾之事，至此歸於眾生空與法空並觀的空相應之實證。
本品的說法有經、論兩層。經文多先立一種習應相或一種不合相，再說是名與般若相應；論釋則追問為何如此說、為何此處說此而不說彼、前後相如何銜接，又以出獄穿牆與破獄濟眾、苦藥假蜜、螢火與日、仰射虛空、雜毒食、行狹道二邊俱死等譬喻，顯出行法的重量。若只讀經列，習應種種相容易變成一串空字的名目；若只讀論中的譬喻，又容易失去每則譬喻所回答的那一項難題。最穩妥的讀法，是先認出該段要顯的是「相應」的哪一面，再看經文如何以不可得淨化它，最後看論釋如何把它落回法空眾生空並說的那一味。
因此讀每一段習應相時，至少可問三層。其一，這一相所應之法與所以稱相應之由是什麼——是與空合，還是連能合所合都不可得。其二，經文所說的不可得，究竟在清除哪一個能觀、所觀或相應果的取著相。其三，論釋用哪個問難，防止讀者把「無相應」讀成斷滅、或把「有習應」讀成又一重法執。本品的問答常先承認質疑有力，再以二空並說、以性自空、以語義限定之——正是這種不草率抹平兩邊的方式，使習應既不是一個實有觀法的精熟，也不是可以取消的方便說。順著這條空相應之路讀下去，全品種種習應相自會落定為同一件事：於法空眾生空並觀之中，不取一切相應相而遍與般若相應。
依原論次序讀下去
Overview
At the very opening of “Practising in Accord,” the Buddha tells Śāriputra: when a bodhisattva practises prajñā, he should reflect thus—the bodhisattva has only a word, the Buddha too has only a word, prajñā too has only a word, and form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness too have only a word; and so on to self, being, life-span-holder, life-holder, knower, and seer—these sixteen kinds of name and mark are, all of them, not to be obtained when sought, and it is only because of the emptiness of the unfindable that they are spoken of by names. The whole chapter therefore circles round a single 「習應」 tr. "practising in accord", yet it does not ask which set of contemplations one should master; it asks this: for a bodhisattva who already knows that self and dharmas alike are only provisional names, on what ground does his wisdom surpass all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and how is he to be truly in accord with prajñā?
This question the treatise-author marks out at the very opening as the pivot. The preceding chapter, “Recompense,” has already spoken of emptiness at its close—why does this chapter speak of it again? The treatise-author’s answer is: above, the emptiness of dharmas was mostly spoken of; now the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings are spoken of together. The practitioner contemplates outer dharmas as wholly empty, yet often tacitly allows that the one who is able to contemplate emptiness is not empty; therefore it must further be said that the contemplator too is empty; and the emptiness of self is easy to know, while the emptiness of dharmas is hard to see, and in prajñā the two return alike to emptiness. This sentence is the gate of the whole chapter, and also where the eye of the whole chapter lies. Read on along it, and the chapter’s final knot emerges of itself: among all kinds of accord, accord with emptiness is called the foremost accord. The bodhisattva who practises emptiness does not fall to the stage of the two vehicles, is able to purify a buddha-land and bring beings to maturity, and swiftly attains unsurpassed awakening; and the reason it is foremost is precisely that this gate alone can break all wrong views and idle discourse while itself remaining indestructible. The many marks of ‘practising in accord’ throughout the chapter must all be set back into this pivot to be read—apart from emptiness, practising in accord becomes only one more layer of grasping; apart from speaking of the emptiness of beings together with the emptiness of dharmas, the liberating of beings comes to rest on a really existent liberator and liberated.
The treatise-author also completes this pivot from another side. Being alike the wisdom of the real mark of all dharmas, alike taking the truth of cessation as object, alike empty in nature and non-arising, the wisdom of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas and the wisdom of buddhas and bodhisattvas are in their essential nature fundamentally without difference; it is just here that Śāriputra raises his doubt—since there is no difference, why is it said that a bodhisattva who cultivates wisdom for a single day surpasses the two vehicles? The treatise-author’s answer does not rank them high and low in essential nature, but shows the difference in function: the two vehicles only contemplate all dharmas as empty and cannot contemplate the world and nirvāṇa as one, nor do they in the first place arouse the mind and vow to liberate all beings, nor turn their roots of good toward unsurpassed awakening; the bodhisattva, by contrast, through the emptiness of the unfindable knows all dharmas to be empty and yet does not see even that they are empty, and further takes this wisdom as the means to liberate all beings and lead them to nirvāṇa. Delusion and wisdom, once entered into prajñā, are like the many streams entering the sea, all of a single flavour; yet at the first entry into the Buddha’s Dharma, whether it is delusion or wisdom is plainly distinct, and only after one turns and enters deeply are delusion and wisdom without difference. This single flavour and this distinctness are precisely the two faces of how to read the whole chapter—one may not set up a higher and lower between the two vehicles and the bodhisattva in essential nature, yet one must see, in the arousing of the mind and in skilful means, the distance of heaven from earth between them.
The whole chapter falls, following its three fascicles, into a three-part arc. Part One (Fascicle 35) raises the question of accord with emptiness and lays the foundation—first it answers ‘why speak of emptiness again’ by speaking of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together; next, by the two causes and conditions of the emptiness of the unfindable and of liberating all beings, it makes clear that the bodhisattva’s wisdom surpasses the two vehicles; in between, with the similes of a Jambudvīpa filled with bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds, of worlds as many as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions, and of the firefly and the rising sun, it enlarges layer upon layer and returns to a single meaning—the two vehicles are like a firefly lighting the night, the bodhisattva like the rising sun lighting everywhere. It further sets out the four kinds of answer—the definite, the analytical, the counter-question, and the set-aside—making clear that here the Buddha uses the counter-question to press Śāriputra, so that from his own mouth he states that the two vehicles do not equal the bodhisattva. The weight of this part lies in leading the doubt that ‘wisdom is without difference’ into the difference of ‘arousing the mind and liberating beings.’
The Remainder, First Part (Fascicle 36) formally brings the words ‘practising in accord’ down into contemplative practice. First it answers how the bodhisattva passes beyond the stage of the two vehicles, abides as one non-retrogressing, avaivartika, and purifies the buddha-path—by the power of skilful means he abides in the three gates of liberation without taking realisation, like one shooting arrows up into empty space, each arrow propping up the last so that none is let fall to the ground; next it makes clear that the bodhisattva, from the first arousing of the mind up to sitting at the seat of awakening, is always a field of merit for the two vehicles, and that all wholesome dharmas in the world come about through the bodhisattva. After this it speaks directly of practising in accord—practising in accord with the emptiness of form, the emptiness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on to the emptiness of the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the four truths, and the twelve links of dependent origination: this is called being in accord with prajñā; on this the treatise-author discusses the dharma-marks of the five aggregates at length, heading by heading, and further, beyond the eighteen emptinesses, singles out these seven emptinesses—emptiness of nature, emptiness of specific marks, emptiness of all dharmas, emptiness of the unfindable, emptiness of non-existent dharmas, emptiness of existent dharmas, and emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas—making clear why they are set out again for the benefit of beings. The close of this part tightens layer by layer—not seeing form as either in accord or not in accord, not seeing arising and ceasing, defilement and purity; in the emptiness of form there is no form; form is emptiness, emptiness is form; this mark of the emptiness of all dharmas neither arises nor ceases, and so on to no knowledge and no attainment; until emptiness does not unite with emptiness, and form does not unite with the three times. The weight of this part lies in rewriting ‘practising in accord’ from the mastering of a set of contemplations into a place of practice where, within ultimate emptiness, no mark of accord whatever is grasped.
The Remainder, Last Part (Fascicle 37) closes the whole chapter with ‘accord with emptiness is foremost.’ First it speaks at length of sarvajñā, omniscience, not uniting with the three times, of form and the rest not uniting with sarvajñā, of the Buddha’s ten powers and the rest not uniting with sarvajñā, making clear that because the bodhisattva’s outflows and fetters are not yet exhausted, the various dharmas all do not unite with the Buddha’s omniscience, and that this not-uniting comes precisely from their being unseeable, from ultimate emptiness. Next it breaks the two extremes of the view of existence and the view of non-existence—those strong in craving are attached to existence, those strong in views are attached to non-existence; at both extremes one dies, as when walking a narrow path, and only leaving the two extremes and walking the middle way is called accord. Further it makes clear that the Buddha is sarvajñā and the six perfections are prajñā, and that apart from practising prajñā there is no other dharma that can be done and practised; and so on to not practising for the sake of the five supernormal powers, Māra being unable to get his chance, the buddhas protecting him, grave offences received lightly, swiftly attaining dhāraṇī and samādhi, and constantly meeting the buddhas. At the end it points straight to the eighteen elements not uniting with emptiness, and on that account says that accord with emptiness is called the foremost accord—the bodhisattva who practises emptiness does not fall to the stage of the two vehicles, and is no different from one who has received the prediction: one of keen faculties is like one who has received the prediction, one of dull faculties is near to receiving it; and, by not receiving beings, the emptiness of beings, beings being unfindable, and beings being apart from the four alternatives, it explains that beings ultimately neither arise nor cease, making clear that only the bodhisattva who practises this accord with emptiness can give rise to great kindness and great compassion and not give rise to the six evil minds of stinginess, breaking the precepts, anger, laziness, distraction, and lack of wisdom. The matter of going forth into births to liberate beings here returns to the real realisation of accord with emptiness, in which the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas are contemplated together.
The teaching of this chapter has two layers, sūtra and treatise. The sūtra text mostly first sets up one mark of practising in accord, or one mark of not-uniting, and then says that this is called being in accord with prajñā; the treatise’s explanation presses on why it is said so, why this is said here and not that, and how the marks before and after are joined, and further, through similes—escaping from prison through a hole in the wall versus breaking open the prison to save the many; bitter medicine given as if honey; the firefly and the sun; shooting up into empty space; food mixed with poison; walking a narrow path and dying at either extreme—brings out the weight of the practice. If one reads only the sūtra’s lists, the many marks of practising in accord easily become a string of names made of empty words; if one reads only the similes in the treatise, one easily loses the particular difficulty that each simile answers. The steadiest way to read is first to recognise which face of ‘accord’ a given section means to show, then to see how the sūtra text purifies it by the unfindable, and finally to see how the treatise’s explanation brings it back down into that single flavour in which the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings are spoken of together.
Therefore, in reading each mark of practising in accord, one can ask at least three layers of question. First, what is the dharma this mark accords with, and what is the ground for calling it accord—is it uniting with emptiness, or is even the uniter and the united unfindable? Second, the unfindability the sūtra speaks of—which mark of grasping, at the contemplator, the contemplated, or the fruit of accord, is it clearing away? Third, by which objection does the treatise’s explanation guard against the reader taking ‘no accord’ as annihilation, or taking ‘there is practising in accord’ as one more layer of attachment to dharmas? The questions and answers of this chapter often first grant that the challenge has force, and then set limits to it by speaking of the two emptinesses together, by the emptiness of self-nature, and by the bounds of meaning—it is precisely this way of not carelessly flattening the two sides that makes practising in accord neither the mastery of a really existent contemplation nor a provisional teaching that can be cancelled. Read on along this path of accord with emptiness, and the many marks of practising in accord throughout the chapter will of themselves settle into one and the same matter: within the joint contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings, grasping no mark of accord whatever, and yet being everywhere in accord with prajñā.
Reading On in the Order of the Treatise
習相應品之一Practising in Accord, Part 1 of 3
全文五層 →Full five layers →習相應品之一：眾生空與法空並說，菩薩智慧何以過一切二乘
在問什麼
這一分一開口就撞上一個追問：前面幾品才反覆說空，這裡為什麼還要重說？經文先立下基調——菩薩、佛、般若乃至五蘊都只是名字，連那個常住的「我」以及它的十六種異名都畢竟不可得。既然人法俱空，接著卻說「除佛智慧，過一切聲聞、辟支佛上」，這裡就藏著兩重張力。其一，若一切皆空，重說的空與前說的空差在哪裡？其二，舍利弗隨後正面質疑：諸聖乃至佛的智慧既然同是無生、性空、彼此不相違背，體性上並無差別，憑什麼說菩薩一日之慧就能過二乘之上？習相應品之一要回答的，就是如何在不動搖畢竟空的前提下，既分清眾生空與法空、又安立菩薩智慧勝過二乘的真實所在。
底下還壓著幾層細問，是這一分逐段推進時一一交代的：十六個「我」的異名何以只是一名隨事而立？佛何以偏用智慧第一的舍利弗、神足第一的目連來作喻，又何以要以多為喻、把喻境放大到十方恒河沙世界？『智慧無生性空』與智慧隨心而行如何並存不悖？諸賢聖智慧同緣四諦，何以偏偏只拈出滅諦？佛明知二乘不能度生，何以還要三重反問舍利弗？把這幾問一一問透，『菩薩一日過二乘』這句話的重量才落得下來。
逐段解明
一、重說之「空」——法空與眾生空並說。 先須問：第二品末既已說空，此處何以重說？論主答得斬截：「非重說也」，只因所說的空換了一層——「上多說法空，今雜說法空、眾生空」。這一換極要緊。修行人觀外境諸法盡空、無所有，卻常暗留一個『能知空的人』不空；論便直指這一隱處，再說「觀者亦空」——把那個能觀的心也一併空掉。這眾生空並非新義，聲聞法中本就多說，「一切佛弟子皆知諸法中無我」；論還記下一段教史：佛滅度後五百年間學人分為兩派，一派信法空，一派只信眾生空而執「五眾是定有法」，以為承受五蘊的「我」空、五蘊本身不空。正為對治這後一派的偏執，「佛說眾生空以況法空」——用已被公認的眾生空，去比顯難信的法空。再問難易之別：何以要如此比況？答曰「我空易知，法空難見」。「我」用五種情識去求本就求不到，只是憑身見之力憶想強立；法空這一邊，「色可眼見、聲可耳聞」，看似鑿鑿有實，故難知其空。兩者「般若波羅蜜中皆空」，其詳如「十八空」義中所說——此處論主特地掛一鏈，把眼前的二空接回般若破執的全幅骨架，讀者不宜跳過這一指路。要之，重說不是老話重提，而是把觀行從『破所觀之法』推進到『連能觀之心也不留』。
二、十六異名——同一假名隨事而立。 這裡先要防一個錯讀：把『我、眾生、壽者』以至『知者、見者』這十六名，讀成十六件不同的東西。論設問這些名目「為是一事？為各各異」，答曰「皆是一我，但以隨事為異」——只是同一個假名，隨不同事相而換稱呼。論不厭其煩地一一訓過，正為顯此。於五蘊中起我我所心，故名「我」；五蘊和合而生，故名「眾生」；命根成就，故名「壽者」、「命者」；能起眾事、如父生子，故名「生者」；靠乳哺衣食因緣得長養，故名「養育」；五蘊十二入十八界諸法有其數量，故名「眾數」；能行人法，故名「人」；手足能有所造作，故名「作者」；「力能役他」，故名「使作者」；「能造後世罪福業」，故名「能起者」；「令他起後世罪福業」，故名「使起者」；「後身受罪福果報」，故名「受者」；「令他受苦樂」，故名「使受者」；目覩於色，故名「見者」；五識了知，故名「知者」。十六名逐一數清，用意不在立一張名相表，恰在反顯：名目愈細碎，愈見無一名是實——這個被種種名目所指的「神」，「十方三世諸佛及諸賢聖求之不可得」，只是憶想分別、「強為其名」。再進一問：這神只此十六名，還是另有餘名？答曰「略說則十六，廣說則無量」，隨事而起，如官位稱號的差別、工巧技能、出家得道等等，名目無盡；然而「皆是因緣和合生故無自性，無自性故畢竟空」。名多而益見其虛，正引出這一段的樞紐句：「生空故法空，法空故生亦空」——二空互為表裡，不是先後兩橛，也不是兩件事。
三、菩薩智慧勝二乘，勝在何處——二因緣與五重二法。 承經文「除佛智慧，過一切聲聞、辟支佛上」、「用不可得空故」，須先問：這『過』到底過在哪裡，是體性更高、還是別有其實？論答有二因緣。其一「以空知一切法空，亦不見是空」——不但照見諸法空，連這個空也不留，「空以不空等一不異」，空與不空平等如一。其二以此智慧「為欲度脫一切眾生令得涅槃」。二乘之智但能觀諸法空，「不能觀世間、涅槃為一」。論以出獄設喻，把這一分別畫得極清楚：同是出獄，有人「但穿牆而出自脫身」，有人「破獄壞鎖，既自脫身，兼濟眾人」——前者喻二乘之但求自了，後者喻菩薩之自度兼度他。喻面是穿牆與破獄，所喻是自利與利他二種出離；其邊界則在——並非二乘出得不真，而是出而不兼濟，故未圓。論更疊出菩薩所入的五重二法，層層莊嚴其智：一者「大悲」與「般若波羅蜜」，二者「般舟三昧」與「方便」，三者「常住禪定」與「能通達法性」，四者「能代一切眾生受苦」與「自捨一切樂」，五者「慈心，無怨無恚」與「乃至諸佛功德，心亦不著」。這五對每一對都是悲智雙持、自他不隔，「如是等種種功德莊嚴智慧故勝」。可見判『勝』的準繩，始終不在誰的智慧體性更高，而在能否既照空又不著空、既自度又度他。
四、譬喻何以用利根之人為喻。 論釋將起譬喻，先自設一難：鈍根人可用譬喻開導，「舍利弗智慧利根何以為喻」？答曰「不必以鈍根為譬喻」——用譬喻不是因為聽者鈍，而因譬喻「為莊嚴論議、令人信著」，借五情所見之事去喻意識所知的深理，令人得悟。論連下兩喻明此用意：一如「登樓，得梯則易上」——梯喻譬喻，樓喻難登的深義，有喻則易入；二如「苦藥」難服而「假之以蜜」則易下——蜜喻譬喻的悅人，苦藥喻難信的道理，眾生「著世間樂」而不樂聞涅槃，故須以易受者裹難受者。其邊界則須記著論下一句：「舍利弗於聲聞中智慧第一，比諸佛菩薩未有現焉」——舍利弗在聲聞中固是智慧第一，可一旦拿去比諸佛菩薩，那第一便顯不出來了。所以下文用他作喻，非謂他鈍，恰是借聲聞中最利的一根來反襯：連最利者尚且不及，餘者更不待言。
五、閻浮提訓詁與竹麻稻茅四物。 這一段多是名相訓解，卻不可整段跳過，因為喻境要坐實了，喻旨才有著落。先訓閻浮提之名：「閻浮」是樹名，其林茂盛，此樹於林中最大；「提」意為洲；此洲林中有河，河底金沙名「閻浮檀金」；因有閻浮樹故名閻浮洲，此洲又有「五百小洲圍繞」，通名閻浮提。名義既明，再問：佛弟子那麼多，何以偏舉舍利弗、目揵連滿閻浮提為喻？論答有三重理由。一者此二人是眾中之極——「智慧第一者舍利弗，神足第一者目揵連」，且「於佛法中大，於外法中亦大」，富樓那等雖於佛法中大而於外法不如。二者此二人「常在大眾助佛揚化，破諸外道」，功德特著。三者取其能總攝——「若說舍利弗則攝一切智慧人，若說目揵連則攝一切禪定人」，舉此二人即攝盡慧、定兩類學人。至於何以取竹麻稻茅四物，論又分譬喻為二種：「一者、假以為喻，二者、實事為喻」，此處是「假喻」（假設而非實有其事）；不取別物而取此四，正因四物「叢生稠緻」、種類又多，最堪狀『多』之相。名相、人選、物象三事一一交代清楚，那滿閻浮提的舍利弗目連合起來也不及菩薩百分之一的喻，才立得穩。
六、何以說「百分、千分不及一」而不止說算數不及。 這一問極細，卻透出大乘語脈。有人問：既說「算數譬喻所不能及」已是絕語，何必還層層說「百分、千分不及一」？論答「算數譬喻所不能及」正「是其極語」——是話說到頂的極致語。論以刑罰為喻明何謂極語：「譬如人有重罪，先以打縛楚毒，然後乃殺」——先歷盡楚毒、最後方殺，是把懲治推到極處；喻面是刑之極，所喻是量差之極，二者同取『推至無可再加』之意。論更點出兩乘語脈之別：聲聞法中格量常止於「十六不及一」，大乘法則直說「乃至算數譬喻所不能及」。這一分別本身即在顯大乘所言智慧之差，非聲聞的有限倍數所能框限。
七、何以「以多為喻」——乃至十方恒河沙世界。 經把喻境從滿閻浮提，放大到滿三千大千世界、乃至滿十方如恒河沙等世界的舍利弗目連。論先安一句「此義同上閻浮提，但以多為異」，隨即設問：這些人雖多而智慧無異，「何以以多為喻」？答中論主連破兩種錯計。其一，有人以為「少無力，多則有力」——如「水少，其力亦少」，又如「絕健之人，少眾力寡不能制之，大軍攻之則伏」，以為人多即能敵。其二，更有人以為一個舍利弗智慧少、比不上菩薩，多了或許趕得上；佛正為破此第二計而說「雖多不及」，故特特以多為喻：任你多到十方恒河沙世界，也還是不及。論再以三喻釘死此義：「一切草木力不如火」，「一切諸明勢不及日」，「十方世界諸山，不如一金剛珠」——草木縱多不敵一火，眾明縱廣不敵一日，群山縱大不敵一珠，喻的都是量之多寡不敵質之殊勝。何以菩薩之智有此殊勝？論答「菩薩智慧是一切諸佛法本，能令一切眾生離苦得樂」——是諸佛法之所從出，故非量所能校。接著三喻收束，皆取『未成而已勝』之勢：如迦陵毘伽鳥的雛鳥雖未出殼，「其音勝於眾鳥」，喻菩薩雖未破無明之殼已勝二乘；如轉輪聖王太子「雖未成就，福祚威德勝於一切諸王」，喻菩薩雖未成佛已勝二乘；蓋菩薩「無量阿僧祇劫集無量智慧福德」，故雖未成佛而已過二乘，何況成佛。
八、一日修慧即過二乘——從總相轉入別相。 經又說「一日修智慧，出過一切聲聞、辟支佛上」，論即設問：先前已說「除佛智慧，過一切聲聞、辟支佛上」，此處何以復重說？答曰「非重說也」，「上總相說，今別相說」。這一總、別之分須辨清：先前是就總相說——籠統道一切二乘不及菩薩；此處是就別相說——把差距落到最極處，只點明連菩薩「不及一日智慧」，何況他千萬歲所修。前說立其大局，此說逼到最細，正是層層進逼而非重複。讀者若把別相讀成重述總相，便錯失了經文由粗入細、步步收緊的用意。
九、諸智無差別之問——體同而用別。 舍利弗正面發難：須陀洹乃至佛的智慧「無有差別，不相違背，無生、性空」，既無別異，何以說菩薩一日之慧能過二乘？這一問須先認清問處。論設問今舍利弗何以故問，答曰他「不問智慧勢力能度眾生」，只問佛與六子的智慧體性在法上有無差別——舍利弗問的是體性一層，不是作用一層。何以說體性無別？論列三句同緣：諸賢聖智慧「皆是諸法實相慧」、「皆是四諦及三十七品慧」、「皆是出三界、入三脫門、成三乘果慧」，同緣同趣，故說無差。論復以修證之相印之：如須陀洹以無漏智滅結得果、乃至佛亦如是，同用「有為解脫、無為解脫」二種解脫果，乃至「如佛入涅槃，須陀洹極遲不過七世」——遲速雖異而所趣一。凡此「皆同事、同緣、同行、同果報」，故言「不相違背」，其所以然「不生、性空故」。這一層論主老實承認：就體性寂滅相說，諸智確乎無別——舍利弗問得不錯。難處只在：無別的是體，佛所答的『一日勝過』卻在另一義門。體同而用別，二者並不相礙，這正是下文要層層剝出的。
十、智慧「無生、性空」與智慧隨心而行如何並存。 這裡另有一問，最見論主的精細。有人難道：智慧明明是「破無明、集諸善法」才生起的，是「心相應、心共生、隨心行」的有為之法，怎能說是「無生、性空」、說「無有別異」？答分兩義。其一，「智慧緣滅諦」故說「不生」——智慧以寂滅為所緣，就所緣說不生；「因緣和合故無有自性」，是名「性空」——就其緣起無自性說性空。其二尤妙：「智慧隨緣得名」，如「眼緣色生眼識，或名眼識、或名色識」——同一識，隨所依之根名眼識、隨所緣之境名色識，名隨緣轉而體無定。智慧亦然，「雖因緣和合作法，以緣無生、性空故名為」無生、性空。可見『無生性空』與智慧隨心而行不但不相違，正是一事之兩面：隨緣故有其行相，緣本空故說無生。這一眼緣色的譬喻，是全分辨『有為而空』最精要的一著，不可略過。
十一、諸智同緣四諦，何以偏說滅諦。 承上「智慧緣滅諦」一語，須解一疑：諸賢聖智慧皆緣四諦生，「何以但說滅諦」？論答「四諦中滅諦為上」，何以為上？「是三諦皆屬滅諦故」——苦、集、道三諦究竟皆歸趣於滅。論以宴請為喻：「譬如人請天子併食群臣，亦名供養天子」——正請的是天子，群臣隨與同食，統名供養天子；喻面是併食群臣而稱供養天子，所喻是三諦隨滅諦而舉滅諦即攝三諦，其取意在『舉其上者，餘皆隨攝』。論復分配得清楚：就滅諦一邊立「無生」義，就餘三諦一邊立「性空」義，二名各有著落。論末錄一異解——「有人言：是諸智慧性自然不生、性自空」，其據是「一切法皆因緣和合故無自性，無自性故不生」——這是就緣起通說一切法本自不生，與前就滅諦別說者取徑不同，論但並錄以廣其義，不判其孰為定準。
十二、愚癡與智慧入海一味——無別異的分寸。 承上『無生性空無別異』，立刻逼出一個險難：若如此，「智慧、愚癡無有別異」了？這一步若含糊，便墮撥無因果。論答得有分寸：「諸法如，入法性中無有別異」——是就入法性這一究竟層說無別，不是就事相層抹平善惡。論連下三喻明之。一「如火各各不同，而滅相無異」——眾火燃相各異，其寂滅之相則一；喻智愚事異而實相同寂。二「譬如眾川萬流，各各異色異味，入於大海，同為一味一名」——川流入海失其別色別味而同成一味；喻智愚入般若同歸一味。三「如五色近須彌山，自失其色，皆同金色」——五色近須彌則映成金色；喻內外諸法入般若「皆為一味」。三喻同顯：無別異是就『入』處說的，其所以然「般若波羅蜜相畢竟清淨故」。論更進一著：「愚癡實相即是智慧；若分別著此智慧即是愚癡」——愚癡的實相原即是慧，反之若於慧起分別執著，慧當下成癡；並點出這是有位次的——「初入佛法，是癡、是慧；轉後深入，癡、慧無異」。初學須分癡慧以立取捨，深入則癡慧同入實相而無別。末以一句收束舍利弗之問：這一切眾智「無有別異、不相違背、不生、性空，故無咎」——體性上說無別，並無過失；至於用上之勝，別是一門，正待下文以反問拈出。
十三、四種論與佛何以用反問。 佛不直答舍利弗，反問二乘可有「我行道慧益一切眾生，當以一切種智知一切法、度一切眾生」之念，舍利弗自答「不也」。這反問本身有法度可說。論先列四種論——「必定論」、「分別論」、「反問論」、「置論」，一一舉例，讀者須逐種認明，方知佛此處落在哪一種。「必定論」是直下定判、無可分別者，如「眾生中世尊為第一」、「一切法中無我」、「世間不可樂」、「涅槃為安隱寂滅」、「業因緣不失」，皆一口斷定。「分別論」是須看情境分別而答者，論舉二例：一是無畏太子問「佛能說是語令他人瞋不」，佛言此當分別答，並以無畏之子吞瓦石為喻——父愛子深，見子吞石則「先教令吐」，不吐則捉耳擿口、縱令出血亦不肯放，正因「愍之深故」而使其一時痛、後得安隱；佛以苦言諫眾生令暫瞋而後安，同此一理。二是五比丘問「受樂得道耶」，佛答「不必定」——有受苦得罪者、受苦得樂者，有受樂得罪者、受樂得福者，苦樂與得失並非一定對應。「反問論」者「還以所問答之」，論舉佛問比丘「色常耶？無常耶」、無常則苦不、苦則可執為我我所不——步步反詰，令比丘自答而自悟五蘊非我。「置論」是存而不答者，如「十四難」（世間有常、世間無常、世間有邊、世間無邊等），佛置之不答。四論既明，論即點出佛此處所用：「今佛以反問論答舍利弗」，因「舍利弗智於事未悟，佛反問事端，令其得解」——不是佛不能直說，是反問更能令舍利弗自證其事。認清這是反問論而非必定論，才不會把舍利弗口中的「不也」誤當佛的定判。
十四、道慧、道種慧、一切種智與度生之方便。 反問既明，論趁勢分疏一組相關名數，讀者須逐一辨其分位。「菩薩度眾生智慧名為」「道慧」——菩薩以種種因緣令眾生入道之慧，此其本義。論引後品之判以定三者座標：「薩婆若慧是聲聞辟支佛事，一切種智慧是諸佛事，道種慧是菩薩事」——薩婆若（總相之一切智）屬二乘事，一切種智（別相盡照）屬佛事，道種慧（導眾入道之種種慧）屬菩薩事。論又補釋各名：「八聖道分為實道」，以此令眾生種種因緣入道即是「道慧」；令眾生安住道中，即是「利益」聲聞種、辟支佛種、佛種三種種性；至於「一切智慧無所不得，是名」「一切種」，「若有為、若無為，用一切種智知」——盡照有為無為而無遺，方名一切種智。此三名一辨，前所謂『一切種智度一切眾生』之念便有著落。論復把度一切眾生的方便次第排出：先以三乘道度——「或大乘、或聲聞乘、或辟支佛乘」；若不入三乘，則「教修福德」，令受人天富樂；若不能修福，則以「衣、食、臥具」等今世利益之；若復不得，「當以慈悲心利益」。層層退讓、無一眾生見捨，這才是菩薩度一切的實行——也正是二乘所不作念的地方。
十五、佛何以三重追問——義門各異，非是重複。 佛連問三重：二乘可有『當得菩提、度眾生入無餘涅槃』之念？可有『行六度、成就眾生、莊嚴世界、具十力等』之念？舍利弗皆答「不也」。這裡先要防一個總疑：佛既明知二乘不能為眾生，「何以故問」？論答「欲令舍利弗口自說」「諸聲聞、辟支佛不如菩薩」——要緊在令舍利弗親口說出，其自證比佛直說更力。而三重連問也非重複，論釋其別。第一重之後又問，是因舍利弗「欲以須陀洹同得解脫故，與諸佛菩薩等」，論以毛孔之空與虛空等為喻斥之——毛孔中空與太虛之空，名同而量天壤，喻二乘解脫與佛菩薩解脫不可等視，故佛「重質其事」。且「雖同一事，義門各異」：先問的是智慧為一切眾生，後問的是可有得菩提、令眾生得無餘涅槃之念，問處愈推愈深；至於「無餘涅槃」之義，論注「義如先說」，掛回前文不贅。論又補一句量的絕語：「一聲聞、辟支佛尚不作是念，何況一切」——連一位尚且不發此念，遑論一切二乘。第三重更由略轉廣：「先略說」「我當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」，「今廣說得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提因緣」，即六波羅蜜乃至十八不共法——把當得菩提一句展開成一整幅行因。三問層層由略而廣、由淺而深，把『勝』的根據步步坐實在願與行上。至於舍利弗何以答「不也」，論給出正因：二乘「雖有慈心，本不發心願度一切眾生，亦不迴善根向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」——不及之處，不在智慧體性，而在本無度生之願、不迴向菩提。以是之故，菩薩一日修智慧即過二乘——一分之問答，至此結穴。
十六、螢火與日——悲願普照的總收。 末後以光明之喻總收前義。螢火蟲不作『我力能照一閻浮提』之念，二乘也不作『我智慧能照無量無邊眾生』之念；菩薩則能作念「度脫無量阿僧祇眾生令得涅槃」，如日出遍照。論以螢火與日的對照畫出分野：十方恒河沙的舍利弗目連不如一菩薩，「譬如螢火虫，雖眾多各有所照，不及於日」——喻量多不敵質勝。更有一層時分之喻須點出：螢火蟲「夜能有所照，日出則不能」；二乘亦如是，「未有大菩薩時，能師子吼說法教化；有菩薩出，不能有所作」——非螢火不亮，是日出則其光自隱；非二乘無說法之能，是大士一出則其化自掩。喻的邊界正在此：不是相形見絀的比較，是本量本位的懸絕。論繼以日天子之德喻菩薩之行：日天子「繞四天下」，為眾生「除諸冷濕、照諸闇冥，令各得所」；菩薩亦從初發心常行六度，「除不善冷，乾竭五欲泥，破愚癡無明」，令眾生各得其所——冷濕喻不善，闇冥喻無明，一一對配。又「日明普照，無憎無愛，隨其高下深淺悉照」，喻菩薩「住五神通，處於虛空，放智慧光」，照諸罪福業報無所偏黨。末句「菩薩以智慧光明滅眾生邪見戲論」，「譬如朝露，見日則消」——邪見戲論之於智光，正如朝露之於日出，觸之即消。這一組光明喻把全分義理落到一個鮮明對照：不是螢火不亮，是它不作照世之念；菩薩之勝，勝在那一念普照一切的悲願。
不要讀錯
不要把『諸智無差別』讀成菩薩與二乘毫無分別。無差別是就智慧體性的寂滅相說，是舍利弗的問處；佛答的勝過，是就發心度生的作用門說。體同而用別，混為一談就同時錯失了空義與悲願。也不要把「智慧、愚癡無有別異」讀成撥無善惡——那是就「入法性中」究竟層說的，如眾川入海同一味、五色近須彌同金色，不是就初學取捨的事相層抹平癡慧；論明說「初入佛法，是癡、是慧；轉後深入，癡、慧無異」，位次判然。
不要把菩薩智慧勝讀成量的多寡。十方恒河沙的舍利弗目連再多也不及一菩薩，正說明勝負不在數量、不在體性高低，而在能否照空而不著空、自度而兼度他；「以多為喻」恰恰是為破『一個不及、多則能及』的錯計，讀者切莫反把多寡當作勝負的尺。
不要把十六異名讀成十六件事。論說得明白「皆是一我，但以隨事為異」，一名逐一訓過，用意在反顯無一名是實、那個「神」求之不可得，不是要立一張名相表。也不要把『智慧無生性空』與智慧隨心而行看成相違：隨緣故有行相、緣本空故說無生，一事兩面，如眼緣色而或名眼識或名色識。
不要把佛口中那三重反問誤當必定論的定判。論列「必定論」、「分別論」、「反問論」、「置論」四種，正為標明佛此處用的是反問論——藉舍利弗自答「不也」而令其自悟，說者是舍利弗、佛只反詰事端；認錯了論式，便會把令其得解的方便，錯記成佛的直下斷語。更不要把滿閻浮提竹麻稻茅、金剛珠、迦陵頻伽鳥子這些譬喻讀成實喻或神異談；論已自明這是「假喻」，取徑在莊嚴論議、令人生信，喻旨全在顯菩薩智慧為諸佛法之本，切莫執喻忘義。
修行作用
這一分可作觀行的一把尺。觀空時可問：我是只破了所觀之法，還是連那個能知空的我也一併放下——是停在法空，還是兼得眾生空？論把重說之空落在「觀者亦空」一句上，正是遞來這面照心的鏡子：外境觀得再空，若暗留一個能觀者不空，便還在半途。
起智慧時可問：我這一分明白，是只求自身出獄的穿牆之脫，還是帶著破獄濟眾的大悲？論以出獄二喻分判自了與兼濟，最堪拿來檢點自己修慧的落點在自利一頭、還是自他不隔。菩薩勝二乘不在體性另高，而在那一念度生之願與行——學這一分，事上照見諸法空，心上不捨一眾生，才是『勝』的真義所在。
順境自得時可問：我是像螢火蟲暗自以為能照一閻浮提，還是老實照見自己的念頭裡有沒有那度一切眾生的願？論記二乘「本不發心願度一切眾生，亦不迴善根向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」，正把不及之由指在願上而非慧上——用功人於此可時時自省：是隨喜自了的螢火之明，還是發起普照的悲願之光。若答得住這幾問，便是在畢竟空中不落斷滅、在無生性空裡仍不失悲願——這正是與般若相應在起步處的樣子。
承衍
後來讀這一分的古德，最先被取用的往往是開篇何以重說空、眾生空況法空一段：有以生空、法空二門對舉，判此品重辨生空之所以然；也有把全品科為習應般若、明其得益等數段，作為讀這一長品的骨架。此外一日修智慧出過二乘一句、以及習應即修習使相應的名義訓解，也屢被引作般若行相與相應義的注腳；四種論的科分、道慧道種慧一切種智三名的分位，亦每為後人辨般若三智時所援。這些讀法各有其脈絡，此處只誌其取徑、不判其高下。把它們帶回本品，最值得保留的不是一張更細的科判表，而是這一分對『勝』的改寫：菩薩之所以過一切二乘，不因智慧體性另有高處，而因那一念不見空亦不捨眾生的悲智相續——每一分明白，都不只為自己出離，而是為不離眾生、不離般若而起。
Practising in Accord, Part One: The Emptiness of Beings and the Emptiness of Dharmas Spoken Together, and Why the Bodhisattva’s Wisdom Surpasses All of the Two Vehicles
What Is Being Asked
At its very opening this part runs into a pressing question: the chapters before have spoken of emptiness again and again—why speak of it once more here? The sūtra first lays down the keynote: the bodhisattva, the Buddha, prajñā, and even the five aggregates are only names; even the permanent “self,” together with its sixteen alternative names, is ultimately unfindable. Since persons and dharmas are both empty, and yet what follows says 「除佛智慧，過一切聲聞、辟支佛上」 tr. "except for the Buddha’s wisdom, it surpasses all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas," two tensions lie hidden here. First, if all is empty, how does the emptiness spoken again differ from the emptiness spoken before? Second, Śāriputra goes on to challenge it head-on: since the wisdom of all the sages, up to the Buddha, is alike non-arising, empty in nature, and not contrary one to another, with no difference in substance and nature, on what ground can it be said that a bodhisattva’s wisdom of a single day surpasses the two vehicles? What Part One of Practising in Accord sets out to answer is precisely how, without shaking ultimate emptiness, one can both distinguish clearly the emptiness of beings from the emptiness of dharmas and establish where the real superiority of the bodhisattva’s wisdom over the two vehicles lies.
Beneath this lie several finer questions, which this part accounts for one by one as it advances section by section. Why are the sixteen alternative names of the “self” only a single name set up according to circumstance? Why does the Buddha choose for his simile Śāriputra, foremost in wisdom, and Maudgalyāyana, foremost in the supernormal power of travel, and why does he make the simile out of multitude, enlarging its field to worlds in the ten directions as many as the sands of the Ganges? How can ‘wisdom is non-arising and empty in nature’ stand together, without contradiction, with wisdom’s moving along with the mind? The wisdoms of all the worthies and sages alike take the four truths as object—why single out only the truth of cessation? The Buddha knows full well that the two vehicles cannot liberate beings—why then does he question Śāriputra three times over? Only when these questions have been asked through, one by one, does the weight of the sentence ‘in one day the bodhisattva surpasses the two vehicles’ come to land.
Passage by Passage
1. The “emptiness” spoken again—the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings spoken together. It must first be asked: since emptiness was already spoken of at the end of the second chapter, why is it spoken of again here? The treatise-author answers decisively: 「非重說也」 tr. "this is not a repetition"—it is only that the emptiness spoken of has moved to another layer: 「上多說法空，今雜說法空、眾生空」 tr. "above, mostly the emptiness of dharmas was spoken of; now the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings are spoken of together." This shift is of the utmost importance. A practitioner contemplates all outer dharmas as entirely empty and without anything, yet often secretly keeps back ‘a person who knows emptiness’ as not empty; the treatise points straight at this hidden corner and says further, 「觀者亦空」 tr. "the contemplator too is empty"—emptying out, together with the rest, the very mind that contemplates. This emptiness of beings is no new meaning; in the śrāvaka Dharma it was already much spoken of: “all the Buddha’s disciples know that among all dharmas there is no self.” The treatise also records a piece of the history of the teaching: in the five hundred years after the Buddha’s passing into extinction, students split into two groups—one believed in the emptiness of dharmas; the other believed only in the emptiness of beings and held that “the five aggregates are definitely existent dharmas,” taking the “self” that undergoes the five aggregates to be empty, but the five aggregates themselves not empty. It is precisely to counter the one-sided attachment of this latter group that 「佛說眾生空以況法空」 tr. "the Buddha spoke of the emptiness of beings in order to illustrate the emptiness of dharmas"—using the emptiness of beings, already acknowledged, to bring out by comparison the emptiness of dharmas, which is hard to believe. Asked further about the difference of ease and difficulty—why make such a comparison?—the answer is 「我空易知，法空難見」 tr. "the emptiness of self is easy to know; the emptiness of dharmas is hard to see." The “self,” sought through the five kinds of sense-cognition, is not to be found in the first place; it is only by the force of the view of self that it is recollected, imagined, and forcibly set up. On the side of the emptiness of dharmas, “form can be seen by the eye, sound can be heard by the ear,” and they seem solidly real, so their emptiness is hard to know. Both are “empty within the prajñāpāramitā,” as explained in detail under the meaning of “the eighteen emptinesses”—here the treatise-author deliberately hangs a link, joining the two emptinesses before us back to the full framework of prajñā’s breaking of attachment, and the reader should not skip over this signpost. In short, the speaking again is not an old saying repeated, but the pushing of contemplative practice forward from ‘breaking the dharmas contemplated’ to ‘not keeping even the mind that contemplates.’
2. The sixteen alternative names—one provisional name set up according to circumstance. Here a misreading must first be guarded against: taking these sixteen names, from ‘self, being, life-span holder’ to ‘knower, seer,’ as sixteen different things. The treatise asks whether these names “are one thing, or each different,” and answers 「皆是一我，但以隨事為異」 tr. "all are one self, differing only according to circumstance"—they are only one and the same provisional name, changing its appellation with different features of circumstance. The treatise glosses them one by one without tiring, precisely to show this. Because the thought of I and mine arises in the five aggregates, it is called “self”; because it is born from the coming together of the five aggregates, it is called “being”; because the life faculty is accomplished, it is called “life-span holder” and “life-holder”; because it can give rise to many affairs, as a father begets a son, it is called “begetter”; because it grows through the causes and conditions of milk and nursing, clothing and food, it is called “nourished one”; because the dharmas of the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, and the eighteen elements have their numbers, it is called “one of the many numbers”; because it can practise human dharmas, it is called “person”; because hands and feet can make and do, it is called “doer”; because “its strength can put others to work,” it is called “causer of doing”; because it “can create karma of offence and merit for later lives,” it is called “initiator”; because it “causes others to initiate karma of offence and merit for later lives,” it is called “causer of initiating”; because “in a later body it receives the fruit and retribution of offence and merit,” it is called “receiver”; because it “causes others to receive suffering and pleasure,” it is called “causer of receiving”; because the eye beholds form, it is called “seer”; because the five consciousnesses cognise, it is called “knower.” The sixteen names are counted out one by one, and the intent is not to set up a table of names and marks but precisely to show the reverse: the more finely the names are divided, the more plainly it is seen that not one name is real—this “soul” pointed to by all these names 「十方三世諸佛及諸賢聖求之不可得」 tr. "the buddhas of the ten directions and the three times and all the worthies and sages seek, and cannot find"; it is only recollection, imagining, and discrimination, “forcibly given its names.” One question further: does this spirit have only these sixteen names, or are there other names besides? The answer is 「略說則十六，廣說則無量」 tr. "stated briefly, sixteen; stated at length, immeasurable"—arising according to circumstance, like the distinctions of official ranks and titles, of crafts and skills, of going forth and attaining the path, and so on, the names are endless; and yet “because all arise from the coming together of causes and conditions they have no self-nature, and because they have no self-nature they are ultimately empty.” The more the names, the more their hollowness shows—and this leads precisely to the pivotal sentence of the section: 「生空故法空，法空故生亦空」 tr. "because beings are empty, dharmas are empty; because dharmas are empty, beings too are empty"—the two emptinesses are the outside and inside of each other, not two separate stages one after the other, nor two separate matters.
3. Where the bodhisattva’s wisdom surpasses the two vehicles—two causes and conditions and five pairs of dharmas. Taking up the sūtra’s “except for the Buddha’s wisdom, it surpasses all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas” and “because of the emptiness of the unfindable,” it must first be asked: where exactly does this ‘surpassing’ surpass—is it higher in substance and nature, or is there some other reality to it? The treatise answers with two causes and conditions. The first: 「以空知一切法空，亦不見是空」 tr. "by emptiness it knows all dharmas to be empty, and does not see this emptiness either"—not only does it illuminate dharmas as empty, it does not keep even this emptiness: “emptiness and non-emptiness are equal, one, not different,” emptiness and non-emptiness level as one. The second: it is with this wisdom “wishing to liberate all beings and bring them to nirvāṇa.” The wisdom of the two vehicles can only contemplate the emptiness of dharmas; it 「不能觀世間、涅槃為一」 tr. "cannot contemplate the world and nirvāṇa as one." The treatise sets up a simile of leaving a prison, drawing this distinction with great clarity: in leaving the prison alike, one person “merely bores through the wall and gets out, freeing only himself,” another “breaks the prison and smashes the locks, and having freed himself, rescues the multitude as well”—the former illustrates the two vehicles’ seeking only to finish their own affair, the latter the bodhisattva’s liberating himself and liberating others as well. The face of the simile is boring through the wall and breaking the prison; what it illustrates is two kinds of departure, benefiting oneself and benefiting others; and its boundary lies here—it is not that the two vehicles’ getting out is not real, but that they get out without rescuing others as well, and so it is not complete. The treatise further piles up five pairs of dharmas that the bodhisattva enters, adorning his wisdom layer upon layer: first, “great compassion” and “prajñāpāramitā”; second, “the pratyutpanna samādhi” and “skilful means”; third, “always abiding in meditative concentration” and “being able to penetrate the nature of dharmas”; fourth, “being able to undergo suffering in place of all beings” and “giving up all pleasure oneself”; fifth, “a mind of kindness, without enmity and without anger” and “even toward the merits of all the buddhas, the mind is not attached.” Each of these five pairs holds compassion and wisdom together, with self and other unseparated: “because wisdom is adorned with such various merits, it surpasses.” It can be seen that the standard for judging ‘surpassing’ never lies in whose wisdom is higher in substance and nature, but in whether one can both illuminate emptiness and not be attached to emptiness, both liberate oneself and liberate others.
4. Why a person of keen faculties is used for the simile. As the treatise’s explanation is about to take up the simile, it first raises an objection of its own: people of dull faculties can be led on by similes, but “Śāriputra’s wisdom is of keen faculty—why make a simile?” The answer is 「不必以鈍根為譬喻」 tr. "similes are not necessarily made for the dull of faculty"—a simile is used not because the listener is dull, but because a simile is “for adorning discussion and making people believe and hold to it,” using things seen by the five senses to illustrate the deep principle known by the mind-consciousness, so that people are brought to awakening. The treatise sets down two similes in a row to make this intention clear. First, as in “climbing a tower, with a ladder it is easy to go up”—the ladder illustrates the simile, the tower the deep meaning hard to climb; with a simile it is easy to enter. Second, as “bitter medicine” is hard to take, but “with honey added” goes down easily—the honey illustrates the pleasingness of the simile, the bitter medicine the principle hard to believe; beings are “attached to worldly pleasure” and take no delight in hearing of nirvāṇa, so what is hard to receive must be wrapped in what is easy to receive. Its boundary must be kept in mind through the treatise’s next sentence: 「舍利弗於聲聞中智慧第一，比諸佛菩薩未有現焉」 tr. "Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom among the śrāvakas; compared with the buddhas and bodhisattvas, it does not even show"—among the śrāvakas Śāriputra is indeed foremost in wisdom, but once set against the buddhas and bodhisattvas, that foremostness no longer shows at all. So the use of him in the simile below does not mean he is dull; it precisely borrows the keenest faculty among the śrāvakas as a foil: if even the keenest falls short, the rest need not be spoken of.
5. The gloss on Jambudvīpa, and the four things: bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds. This section is mostly glosses on names and terms, yet it must not be skipped as a whole, for only when the field of the simile is made solid does the point of the simile have somewhere to rest. First the name Jambudvīpa is glossed: “jambu” is the name of a tree; its forest is luxuriant, and this tree is the largest in the forest; “dvīpa” means continent; in the forest of this continent there is a river, and the gold sand at the river’s bottom is called “jambūnada gold”; because it has jambu trees it is called the jambu continent, and this continent is further “surrounded by five hundred small continents,” all together called Jambudvīpa. With the meaning of the name made clear, the question comes: the Buddha’s disciples are so many—why single out Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana filling Jambudvīpa for the simile? The treatise answers with three reasons. First, these two are the utmost of the assembly—“foremost in wisdom is Śāriputra, foremost in the supernormal power of travel is Maudgalyāyana”—and moreover they are “great within the Buddha-dharma and great in outside teachings too,” whereas Pūrṇa and others, though great within the Buddha-dharma, fall short in outside teachings. Second, these two “are always in the great assembly, helping the Buddha spread his teaching and defeating those of the outside paths,” their merit especially outstanding. Third, they are chosen for their power to gather in the whole: 「若說舍利弗則攝一切智慧人，若說目揵連則攝一切禪定人」 tr. "to speak of Śāriputra gathers in all people of wisdom; to speak of Maudgalyāyana gathers in all people of meditative concentration"—naming these two gathers in fully the two kinds of learners, those of wisdom and those of concentration. As for why the four things bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds are taken, the treatise further divides similes into two kinds: 「一者、假以為喻，二者、實事為喻」 tr. "first, a simile by supposition; second, a simile from actual fact." Here it is a “simile by supposition” (supposed, not something that actually exists); and the reason it takes these four and not other things is that the four “grow in clumps, thick and dense,” and are moreover of many kinds, best fitted to depict the aspect of ‘multitude.’ With the three matters—the names and terms, the choice of persons, and the images of things—accounted for one by one, only then does the simile stand firm: that Śāriputras and Maudgalyāyanas filling Jambudvīpa, all taken together, do not reach one hundredth of the bodhisattva.
6. Why it says “not one hundredth, not one thousandth,” and does not stop at “beyond the reach of calculation.” This question is very fine, yet it reveals the grain of Mahāyāna speech. Question: since “beyond the reach of calculation and simile” is already a final word, why also say, layer upon layer, “not one hundredth, not one thousandth”? The treatise answers that “beyond the reach of calculation and simile” is precisely 「是其極語」 tr. "its utmost word"—a word that takes speech to its very summit. The treatise uses a simile of punishment to make clear what an utmost word is: “as when a person has a grave offence, first he is beaten, bound, and put to torment, and only then is he killed”—first to go through every torment and only at the last be killed is to push punishment to its extreme; the face of the simile is the extreme of punishment, what it illustrates is the extreme of the difference in measure, and both take the sense of ‘pushed to where nothing further can be added.’ The treatise further points out the difference between the ways of speaking of the two vehicles: in the śrāvaka Dharma the measuring usually stops at “not one sixteenth,” whereas the Mahāyāna Dharma says outright, “up to: beyond the reach of calculation and simile.” This distinction itself shows that the difference in wisdom spoken of in the Mahāyāna cannot be framed within the limited multiples of the śrāvakas.
7. Why “multitude is made the simile”—up to worlds in the ten directions as many as the sands of the Ganges. The sūtra enlarges the field of the simile from Śāriputras and Maudgalyāyanas filling Jambudvīpa to their filling the three-thousand great-thousand world, and even to their filling worlds in the ten directions as many as the sands of the Ganges. The treatise first sets down a sentence, 「此義同上閻浮提，但以多為異」 tr. "this meaning is the same as the Jambudvīpa above; it differs only in multitude," and at once asks: these people, though many, do not differ in wisdom—“why make multitude the simile?” In the answer the treatise-author refutes two mistaken reckonings in succession. The first: some think “the few have no strength; the many have strength”—as “when water is little, its force too is little,” and again as “a man of extreme strength cannot be subdued by a small band of little strength, but when a great army attacks him he submits”—supposing that many people can therefore be a match. The second: some further think that a single Śāriputra’s wisdom is small and cannot compare with a bodhisattva’s, but that many might catch up; it is precisely to refute this second reckoning that the Buddha says “though many, they do not reach,” and so deliberately makes multitude the simile: however many they are, even as many as the worlds of the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions, still they do not reach. The treatise further nails down this meaning with three similes: 「一切草木力不如火」 tr. "the strength of all grasses and trees is not equal to fire," 「一切諸明勢不及日」 tr. "the force of all lights does not reach the sun," 「十方世界諸山，不如一金剛珠」 tr. "the mountains of the worlds of the ten directions are not equal to a single vajra jewel"—grasses and trees, however many, are no match for one fire; lights, however broad, are no match for one sun; mountains, however great, are no match for one jewel; what they all illustrate is that more or less in quantity is no match for excellence in quality. Why does the bodhisattva’s wisdom have this excellence? The treatise answers, 「菩薩智慧是一切諸佛法本，能令一切眾生離苦得樂」 tr. "the bodhisattva’s wisdom is the root of all the buddhas’ dharmas, and can bring all beings to leave suffering and attain happiness"—it is that from which the buddhas’ dharmas come forth, and so it cannot be weighed by quantity. Then three similes close the matter, all taking the momentum of ‘already surpassing before accomplishment’: as the chick of the kalaviṅka bird, though not yet out of its shell, “has a voice surpassing all other birds,” illustrating that the bodhisattva, though he has not yet broken the shell of ignorance, already surpasses the two vehicles; as the crown prince of a wheel-turning sage king, “though not yet accomplished, surpasses all kings in fortune, majesty, and virtue,” illustrating that the bodhisattva, though not yet a buddha, already surpasses the two vehicles; for the bodhisattva “through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas gathers immeasurable wisdom, merit, and virtue,” so that although not yet a buddha he already exceeds the two vehicles—how much more once he has become a buddha.
8. One day’s cultivation of wisdom surpasses the two vehicles—turning from the general mark to the particular mark. The sūtra further says, “one day of cultivating wisdom goes beyond all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas,” and the treatise at once asks: it was already said before, “except for the Buddha’s wisdom, it surpasses all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas”—why say it again here? The answer is “this is not a repetition”: 「上總相說，今別相說」 tr. "above it was said in terms of the general mark; now it is said in terms of the particular mark." This distinction of general and particular must be clearly discerned. Before, it was said in terms of the general mark—stating broadly that none of the two vehicles reaches the bodhisattva; here it is said in terms of the particular mark—bringing the gap down to its most extreme point, pointing out only that they do not reach even the bodhisattva’s “wisdom of one day,” how much less what he cultivates over thousands and myriads of years. The former sets up the overall picture, the latter presses to the finest point—this is pressing forward layer by layer, not repetition. If the reader takes the particular mark as a restatement of the general mark, he misses the sūtra’s intent of passing from coarse to fine and tightening step by step.
9. The question of the non-difference of all wisdoms—the same in substance, different in function. Śāriputra raises the challenge head-on: the wisdom of the srota-āpanna up to that of the Buddha is “without difference, not contrary one to another, non-arising, empty in nature”; since there is no difference, why say that the bodhisattva’s wisdom of one day can surpass the two vehicles? In this question one must first recognise where the question is aimed. The treatise asks why Śāriputra now asks this, and answers that he “does not ask about the power of wisdom to liberate beings”; he asks only whether the wisdom of the Buddha and of the six sons differs in substance and nature at the level of Dharma—what Śāriputra asks about is the layer of substance and nature, not the layer of function. Why is it said that there is no difference in substance and nature? The treatise lists three sentences of a shared object: the wisdom of all the worthies and sages “is all wisdom of the real mark of all dharmas,” “is all wisdom of the four truths and the thirty-seven limbs of the path,” “is all wisdom that leaves the three realms, enters the three gates of liberation, and accomplishes the fruits of the three vehicles”—sharing the same object and the same destination, and therefore said to have no difference. The treatise further confirms this with the features of practice and realisation: as the srota-āpanna extinguishes the fetters with undefiled knowledge and attains the fruit, and so on up to the Buddha likewise, all alike use the two kinds of liberation-fruit, “conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation,” up to: “as the Buddha enters nirvāṇa, so the srota-āpanna, at the very slowest, takes no more than seven lives”—slow and fast differ, yet the destination is one. All of this is “the same matter, the same object, the same practice, the same fruit and retribution,” and therefore “not contrary one to another” is said; the reason for it is “because non-arising and empty in nature.” On this layer the treatise-author frankly concedes: spoken of in terms of the mark of quiescent extinction of substance and nature, all wisdoms are indeed without difference—Śāriputra was not wrong to ask. The difficulty lies only here: what is without difference is the substance, whereas the Buddha’s answer, ‘in one day surpassing,’ lies in another gate of meaning. The same in substance and different in function, the two do not obstruct each other—and this is exactly what the text below will peel out layer by layer.
10. How wisdom’s being “non-arising, empty in nature” coexists with wisdom’s moving along with the mind. Here there is another question, one that most displays the treatise-author’s precision. Someone objects: wisdom arises only by “breaking ignorance and gathering all wholesome dharmas”; it is a conditioned dharma, “associated with the mind, arising together with the mind, moving along with the mind”—how can it be called “non-arising, empty in nature,” and said to be “without difference”? The answer divides into two meanings. First, 「智慧緣滅諦」 tr. "wisdom takes the truth of cessation as its object," and therefore “non-arising” is said—wisdom takes quiescent extinction as its object, and in terms of that object it is non-arising; “because it comes together from causes and conditions, it has no self-nature”—this is called “empty in nature,” said in terms of its dependent arising without self-nature. The second is especially fine: 「智慧隨緣得名」 tr. "wisdom gets its name according to its object," as “the eye, taking form as object, gives rise to eye-consciousness, which is called either eye-consciousness or form-consciousness”—one and the same consciousness is called eye-consciousness after the faculty on which it depends and form-consciousness after the object it takes; the name turns with its conditions, and the substance has no fixity. Wisdom is likewise: “although it is a dharma made by the coming together of causes and conditions, because its object is non-arising and empty in nature, it is called” non-arising and empty in nature. It can be seen that ‘non-arising and empty in nature’ and wisdom’s moving along with the mind are not only not contrary, but are precisely two sides of one matter: because it follows conditions it has its features of activity; because its object is originally empty it is said to be non-arising. This simile of the eye taking form as object is the most essential move in the whole part’s distinguishing of ‘conditioned and yet empty,’ and must not be passed over.
11. All wisdoms alike take the four truths as object—why speak only of the truth of cessation? Following on from the words “wisdom takes the truth of cessation as its object” above, a doubt must be resolved: the wisdoms of all the worthies and sages arise taking the four truths as object—“why speak only of the truth of cessation?” The treatise answers, 「四諦中滅諦為上」 tr. "among the four truths, the truth of cessation is highest." Why is it highest? 「是三諦皆屬滅諦故」 tr. "because these three truths all belong to the truth of cessation"—the three truths of suffering, origination, and the path all return and tend in the end toward cessation. The treatise uses a simile of a banquet: 「譬如人請天子併食群臣，亦名供養天子」 tr. "as when someone invites the Son of Heaven and feeds the ministers along with him, this too is called making offering to the Son of Heaven"—the one really invited is the Son of Heaven, the ministers eat alongside, and the whole is called making offering to the Son of Heaven. The face of the simile is feeding the ministers along with him and calling it offering to the Son of Heaven; what it illustrates is that the three truths follow the truth of cessation, and naming the truth of cessation gathers in the three truths; its point is ‘name the highest, and the rest are gathered in along with it.’ The treatise further assigns them clearly: on the side of the truth of cessation it establishes the meaning of “non-arising,” and on the side of the other three truths the meaning of “empty in nature”—each of the two names has its own place. At the end the treatise records a different explanation: “some say: these wisdoms by their nature are naturally non-arising, by their nature empty,” its ground being “because all dharmas come from the coming together of causes and conditions they have no self-nature; because they have no self-nature, they do not arise.” This speaks generally, in terms of dependent arising, of all dharmas as originally non-arising, taking a different route from the preceding account, which speaks specifically in terms of the truth of cessation; the treatise merely records both together to broaden the meaning, without judging which is the settled standard.
12. Delusion and wisdom enter the ocean as one flavour—the proportion of ‘no difference.’ Following on from ‘non-arising, empty in nature, without difference,’ a perilous objection is at once forced out: if so, then “wisdom and delusion are without difference”? If this step is left vague, one falls into denying cause and effect. The treatise answers with proportion: 「諸法如，入法性中無有別異」 tr. "the suchness of all dharmas: within entry into the nature of dharmas there is no difference"—it is on the ultimate layer of entering the nature of dharmas that no difference is said, not a levelling of good and evil on the layer of phenomenal features. The treatise sets down three similes in a row to make this clear. First, “as fires are each different, yet the mark of their extinction is not different”—the burning features of many fires differ, but their mark of quiescent extinction is one; this illustrates that delusion and wisdom differ in their affairs yet are alike quiescent in the real mark. Second, “as the many rivers and ten thousand streams, each of different colour and different taste, entering the great ocean become alike of one taste and one name”—the rivers and streams, entering the ocean, lose their separate colours and tastes and become one taste together; this illustrates that delusion and wisdom, entering prajñā, return alike to one flavour. Third, “as the five colours, drawing near Mount Sumeru, lose their own colour and all become alike the colour of gold”—the five colours near Sumeru are reflected into gold; this illustrates that inner and outer dharmas, entering prajñā, “all become one flavour.” The three similes show one and the same thing: ‘no difference’ is said in terms of the place of ‘entering,’ and the reason for it is “because the mark of prajñāpāramitā is ultimately pure.” The treatise goes one move further: 「愚癡實相即是智慧；若分別著此智慧即是愚癡」 tr. "the real mark of delusion is itself wisdom; if one discriminates and is attached to this wisdom, it is itself delusion"—the real mark of delusion is originally wisdom, and conversely, if one gives rise to discrimination and attachment toward wisdom, wisdom that very moment becomes delusion. And it points out that this has stages: 「初入佛法，是癡、是慧；轉後深入，癡、慧無異」 tr. "on first entering the Buddha-dharma, this is delusion, this is wisdom; turning later to enter deeply, delusion and wisdom are not different." The beginner must distinguish delusion and wisdom in order to establish what to take up and what to reject; for one who has entered deeply, delusion and wisdom enter the real mark together and are without difference. At the end a sentence closes Śāriputra’s question: all these many wisdoms are “without difference, not contrary one to another, non-arising, empty in nature, and so there is no fault”—to speak of no difference in substance and nature is no error; as for superiority in function, that is another gate, which awaits the counter-questions below to bring it out.
13. The four kinds of discourse, and why the Buddha uses counter-questioning. The Buddha does not answer Śāriputra directly, but asks back whether the two vehicles have the thought, “with the wisdom of my practice of the path I shall benefit all beings; I shall know all dharmas with the omniscience of all kinds and liberate all beings,” and Śāriputra himself answers, “No.” This counter-question itself has a method that can be spoken of. The treatise first lists four kinds of discourse—“the definite,” “the analytical,” “the counter-question,” and “the set-aside”—and gives an example of each; the reader must recognise each kind clearly in order to know into which of them the Buddha’s answer here falls. “The definite” is the kind that pronounces a settled judgement directly, with nothing to discriminate: such as “among beings the World-Honored One is foremost,” “among all dharmas there is no self,” “the world is not to be delighted in,” “nirvāṇa is peaceful and quiescent,” “the causes and conditions of karma are not lost”—each pronounced at a single word. “The analytical” is the kind that must be answered by discriminating according to the situation, and the treatise gives two examples. One: Prince Fearless asked, “can the Buddha speak words that make others angry?” The Buddha said this should be answered with discrimination, and used as a simile the prince’s own child swallowing a potsherd or pebble: the father, loving his child deeply, on seeing him swallow a stone “first teaches him to spit it out”; if he does not, he seizes the child’s ear and gouges into his mouth, not letting go even if it draws blood, precisely because “his pity is deep,” making the child hurt for a moment so that afterwards he is safe; the Buddha’s admonishing beings with bitter words, making them angry for a time so that afterwards they are at peace, follows the same principle. Two: the five bhikṣus asked, “does one attain the path by enjoying pleasure?” and the Buddha answered, “not necessarily”—there are those who undergo suffering and incur offence, those who undergo suffering and gain happiness; there are those who enjoy pleasure and incur offence, those who enjoy pleasure and gain merit; suffering and pleasure do not correspond fixedly with gain and loss. “The counter-question” is to “answer by turning back what was asked”; the treatise cites the Buddha asking a bhikṣu, “is form permanent or impermanent?”—and if impermanent, is it suffering or not; and if suffering, can it be held as I and mine or not—questioning back step by step, making the bhikṣu answer for himself and awaken for himself to the five aggregates’ not being self. “The set-aside” is keeping a question aside and not answering it, as with “the fourteen difficult questions” (the world is permanent, the world is impermanent, the world has an end, the world has no end, and so on), which the Buddha sets aside and does not answer. With the four kinds of discourse made clear, the treatise at once points out what the Buddha uses here: 「今佛以反問論答舍利弗」 tr. "now the Buddha answers Śāriputra with the counter-question," because “Śāriputra’s wisdom had not yet awakened to the matter; the Buddha asked back about the root of the matter so that he might understand”—it is not that the Buddha could not say it directly, but that counter-questioning is better able to make Śāriputra realise the matter for himself. Only by recognising that this is the counter-question and not the definite will one avoid mistaking the “No” in Śāriputra’s mouth for the Buddha’s settled judgement.
14. Path-wisdom, the wisdom of the kinds of paths, the omniscience of all kinds, and the skilful means of liberating beings. With the counter-question made clear, the treatise takes the opportunity to sort out a set of related names and numbers, and the reader must discern their positions one by one. “The wisdom by which the bodhisattva liberates beings is called” “path-wisdom”—the wisdom by which the bodhisattva, through various causes and conditions, brings beings into the path; this is its basic meaning. The treatise cites the judgement of a later chapter to fix the coordinates of the three: 「薩婆若慧是聲聞辟支佛事，一切種智慧是諸佛事，道種慧是菩薩事」 tr. "sarvajñā wisdom is the affair of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; the wisdom of the omniscience of all kinds is the affair of the buddhas; the wisdom of the kinds of paths is the affair of bodhisattvas"—sarvajñā (omniscience in terms of the general mark) belongs to the affair of the two vehicles; the omniscience of all kinds (illuminating the particular marks exhaustively) belongs to the affair of the buddhas; the wisdom of the kinds of paths (the various wisdoms that lead the many into the path) belongs to the affair of bodhisattvas. The treatise also glosses each name further: “the eight noble path-factors are the real path,” and by these to bring beings into the path through various causes and conditions is “path-wisdom”; to bring beings to abide securely within the path is “benefiting” the three lineages—the śrāvaka lineage, the pratyekabuddha lineage, and the buddha lineage; as for “wisdom of all, with nothing it does not attain—this is called” “all kinds”: “whether conditioned or unconditioned, it is known with the omniscience of all kinds”—only what illuminates the conditioned and the unconditioned exhaustively, with nothing left out, is called the omniscience of all kinds. Once these three names are distinguished, the thought mentioned before, ‘with the omniscience of all kinds to liberate all beings,’ has something to rest on. The treatise further sets out the sequence of skilful means for liberating all beings: first to liberate them by the path of the three vehicles—“either the Great Vehicle, or the śrāvaka vehicle, or the pratyekabuddha vehicle”; if they do not enter the three vehicles, then “to teach them to cultivate merit,” so that they receive the wealth and happiness of humans and gods; if they cannot cultivate merit, then to benefit them in this present life with “clothing, food, bedding,” and so on; and if even this cannot be had, “one should benefit them with a mind of kindness and compassion.” Yielding step by step, with not a single being abandoned—this alone is the real practice of the bodhisattva’s liberating all, and it is exactly where the two vehicles do not form the thought.
15. Why the Buddha questions three times—the gates of meaning differ, and it is not repetition. The Buddha questions three times in a row: do the two vehicles have the thought, ‘I shall attain awakening and liberate beings into nirvāṇa without remainder’? Do they have the thought, ‘I shall practise the six perfections, bring beings to accomplishment, adorn the world, and be complete in the ten powers and so on’? Śāriputra answers each time, “No.” Here a general doubt must first be guarded against: since the Buddha knows full well that the two vehicles cannot act for beings, “why does he ask?” The treatise answers: “he wished Śāriputra to say with his own mouth” that “the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are not equal to the bodhisattvas”—the essential point is to make Śāriputra say it with his own mouth, for his own confirmation carries more force than the Buddha’s saying it directly. And the three questions in a row are not repetition either; the treatise explains their difference. The reason the Buddha asks again after the first is that Śāriputra “wished, on the ground that the srota-āpanna attains the same liberation, to make him equal to the buddhas and bodhisattvas”; the treatise rebukes this with the simile of the space in a pore being equal to empty space—the space inside a pore and the space of the great void share a name but differ in measure as heaven from earth, illustrating that the liberation of the two vehicles and the liberation of buddhas and bodhisattvas cannot be regarded as equal; therefore the Buddha “questions him again on the matter.” Moreover, 「雖同一事，義門各異」 tr. "though it is the same matter, the gates of meaning each differ": the first question was about wisdom for the sake of all beings; the later one asks whether they have the thought of attaining awakening and bringing beings to nirvāṇa without remainder—where the question aims is pushed ever deeper; as for the meaning of “nirvāṇa without remainder,” the treatise notes, “the meaning is as explained before,” linking back to the earlier text without repeating it. The treatise also adds a final word of measure: “not even one śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha forms this thought, how much less all of them”—if even one does not give rise to this thought, what need is there to speak of all the two vehicles? The third question further turns from brief to broad: “before, it was stated briefly”—“I shall attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi” (unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening)—“now the causes and conditions for attaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi are stated at length,” namely the six perfections up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—unfolding the single phrase ‘I shall attain awakening’ into a whole picture of the causes of practice. The three questions go layer by layer from brief to broad and from shallow to deep, fixing step by step the ground of ‘surpassing’ in vow and practice. As for why Śāriputra answers “No,” the treatise gives the real reason: the two vehicles, 「雖有慈心，本不發心願度一切眾生，亦不迴善根向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "though they have a mind of kindness, from the outset do not arouse the mind vowing to liberate all beings, nor do they turn their roots of goodness toward anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—where they fall short lies not in the substance and nature of wisdom, but in having from the outset no vow to liberate beings and no dedication toward awakening. For this reason the bodhisattva’s one day of cultivating wisdom surpasses the two vehicles—and here the questions and answers of this part come to their culmination.
16. The firefly and the sun—the summation in the universal shining of compassion and vow. At the last, a simile of light gathers up all the foregoing meaning. The firefly does not form the thought, ‘my power can light up a Jambudvīpa,’ and the two vehicles likewise do not form the thought, ‘my wisdom can light up immeasurable, boundless beings’; the bodhisattva, however, can form the thought “to liberate immeasurable asaṃkhyeyas of beings and bring them to nirvāṇa,” like the sun rising and shining everywhere. The treatise draws the dividing line through the contrast of the firefly and the sun: Śāriputras and Maudgalyāyanas as many as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions are not equal to one bodhisattva, “like fireflies, which, though many and each shining somewhat, do not reach the sun”—illustrating that great quantity is no match for excellence of quality. There is a further layer, a simile of time, that must be pointed out: the firefly “can shine somewhat at night, but when the sun rises it cannot”; the two vehicles are likewise: 「未有大菩薩時，能師子吼說法教化；有菩薩出，不能有所作」 tr. "when there is not yet a great bodhisattva, they can give the lion’s roar, teach the Dharma, and transform others; when a bodhisattva appears, they can do nothing"—it is not that the firefly does not shine, but that when the sun rises its light hides of itself; it is not that the two vehicles lack the ability to teach the Dharma, but that once the great being appears, their transforming is eclipsed of itself. The boundary of the simile lies exactly here: it is not a comparison in which one is put to shame side by side, but a gulf of original measure and original station. The treatise continues with the virtue of the sun-god as a simile for the bodhisattva’s practice: the sun-god “circles the four continents,” for beings “dispelling all cold and damp and lighting up all darkness, so that each obtains its place”; the bodhisattva likewise, from the first arousing of the mind, constantly practises the six perfections, “dispelling the cold of the unwholesome, drying up the mud of the five desires, and breaking the ignorance of delusion,” so that beings each obtain their place—the cold and damp illustrating the unwholesome, the darkness illustrating ignorance, each matched to its counterpart. Again, “the sun’s light shines everywhere, without hatred and without love, shining on all according to high and low, deep and shallow,” illustrating the bodhisattva who, “abiding in the five supernormal powers and dwelling in empty space, emits the light of wisdom,” illuminating all the karmic retribution of offence and merit without partiality. The last sentence: 「菩薩以智慧光明滅眾生邪見戲論」 tr. "the bodhisattva with the light of wisdom extinguishes beings’ wrong views and idle discourse," “like the morning dew, which melts on seeing the sun”—wrong views and idle discourse are to the light of wisdom exactly what the morning dew is to the sunrise: touched, they melt at once. This group of light similes brings the meaning of the whole part down onto one vivid contrast: it is not that the firefly does not shine, but that it does not form the thought of lighting the world; the bodhisattva’s superiority lies in that single thought of compassion and vow that shines universally on all.
Do Not Misread
Do not read ‘all wisdoms are without difference’ as meaning that the bodhisattva and the two vehicles are not distinguished at all. No difference is said with respect to the mark of quiescent extinction of wisdom’s substance and nature, and that is where Śāriputra’s question lies; the surpassing in the Buddha’s answer is said with respect to the gate of function, arousing the mind and liberating beings. The same in substance and different in function: to run the two together is to miss the meaning of emptiness and the vow of compassion at once. Nor read “wisdom and delusion are without difference” as denying good and evil—that is said on the ultimate layer, “within entry into the nature of dharmas,” as the many rivers entering the ocean share one taste and the five colours near Sumeru share one gold colour, not a levelling of delusion and wisdom on the phenomenal layer where the beginner takes up and rejects; the treatise says plainly, “on first entering the Buddha-dharma, this is delusion, this is wisdom; turning later to enter deeply, delusion and wisdom are not different”—the stages are distinct.
Do not read the superiority of the bodhisattva’s wisdom as a matter of more or less in quantity. That Śāriputras and Maudgalyāyanas as many as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions, however many, do not reach one bodhisattva shows precisely that superiority lies neither in number nor in higher or lower substance and nature, but in whether one can illuminate emptiness without being attached to emptiness, and liberate oneself while liberating others as well; “making multitude the simile” is exactly for refuting the mistaken reckoning that ‘one does not reach, but many can,’ and the reader must on no account turn it round and take more or less as the measure of superiority.
Do not read the sixteen alternative names as sixteen things. The treatise says clearly, “all are one self, differing only according to circumstance”; the names are glossed one by one in order to show by contrast that not one name is real and that the “soul” is sought and cannot be found—not to set up a table of names and marks. Nor regard ‘wisdom is non-arising and empty in nature’ and wisdom’s moving along with the mind as contradictory: because it follows conditions it has its features of activity, and because its object is originally empty it is said to be non-arising—two sides of one matter, as the eye taking form as object gives rise to a consciousness called either eye-consciousness or form-consciousness.
Do not mistake the three counter-questions from the Buddha’s mouth for the settled judgements of the definite. The treatise lists four kinds—“the definite,” “the analytical,” “the counter-question,” and “the set-aside”—precisely to mark that what the Buddha uses here is the counter-question: by Śāriputra’s own answer, “No,” he is made to awaken for himself; the one who says it is Śāriputra, and the Buddha only questions back on the root of the matter. Misidentify the form of discourse, and one will misremember a skilful means for bringing him to understanding as a direct pronouncement of the Buddha. Still less read these similes—bamboo, hemp, rice, and reeds filling Jambudvīpa, the vajra jewel, the chick of the kalaviṅka bird—as actual similes or tales of marvels; the treatise has made clear of itself that this is a “simile by supposition,” whose path lies in adorning discussion and making people give rise to faith, and the point of the similes lies wholly in showing that the bodhisattva’s wisdom is the root of the buddhas’ dharmas; do not cling to the simile and forget the meaning.
Bearing on Practice
This part can serve as a measuring rule for contemplative practice. When contemplating emptiness, one can ask: have I broken only the dharmas contemplated, or have I set down along with them the self that knows emptiness—have I stopped at the emptiness of dharmas, or attained the emptiness of beings as well? The treatise sets the emptiness spoken again on the single sentence “the contemplator too is empty,” handing us precisely this mirror in which to see the mind: however empty one contemplates outer objects to be, if one secretly keeps back a contemplator who is not empty, one is still only halfway.
When wisdom arises, one can ask: is this bit of understanding of mine only the boring through the wall by which one seeks to get oneself out of prison, or does it carry the great compassion that breaks the prison and rescues the multitude? The treatise’s two similes of leaving the prison, which distinguish finishing one’s own affair from rescuing others as well, are the fittest means for examining whether the landing point of one’s own cultivation of wisdom lies at the end of self-benefit or where self and other are not separated. The bodhisattva surpasses the two vehicles not by some higher substance and nature, but by that one thought of vow and practice to liberate beings—to learn this part is to see all dharmas as empty in one’s dealings while not abandoning a single being in one’s heart; only this is where the true meaning of ‘surpassing’ lies.
When pleased with oneself in favourable circumstances, one can ask: am I like the firefly, secretly supposing it can light up a Jambudvīpa, or do I honestly look to see whether, among my thoughts, there is that vow to liberate all beings? The treatise records that the two vehicles “from the outset do not arouse the mind vowing to liberate all beings, nor do they turn their roots of goodness toward anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi,” pointing the cause of falling short at the vow and not at wisdom—the one who applies effort can examine himself here at all times: is this the light of a firefly, content with finishing its own affair, or the light of a compassionate vow rising to shine on all? If one can answer these few questions steadily, that is not falling into annihilation within ultimate emptiness, and not losing the vow of compassion within non-arising and emptiness of nature—and this is precisely what accord with prajñā looks like at its starting point.
Further Resonances
Of the ancient masters who later read this part, what was most often taken up first was the opening section on why emptiness is spoken again and on the emptiness of beings illustrating the emptiness of dharmas: some set the two gates of the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas side by side, judging that this chapter re-examines why beings are empty; others divided the whole chapter into several sections—practising in accord with prajñā, making clear the benefit gained, and so on—as a framework for reading this long chapter. Besides this, the sentence on one day’s cultivation of wisdom surpassing the two vehicles, and the gloss on the name “practising in accord” as cultivating so as to bring into accord, were repeatedly cited as notes on the features of the practice of prajñā and on the meaning of accord; the division of the four kinds of discourse, and the positions of the three names path-wisdom, the wisdom of the kinds of paths, and the omniscience of all kinds, were also often drawn on by later people in distinguishing the three knowledges of prajñā. These readings each have their own provenance; here only their approach is recorded, without judging which is higher. Brought back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a finer outline, but this part’s rewriting of ‘surpassing’: the bodhisattva surpasses all the two vehicles not because his wisdom has some higher place in substance and nature, but because of that unbroken continuity of compassion and wisdom which does not see emptiness and yet does not abandon beings—every bit of understanding arises not only for one’s own deliverance, but in order not to leave beings and not to leave prajñā.
習相應品之餘上Practising in Accord, Part 2 of 3
全文五層 →Full five layers →習相應品之餘上：習應色空——為何說『空』不是把色打壞
在問什麼
這一分把整品的正名句交了出來。舍利弗一路問到底，先問菩薩怎樣過二乘地、住不退地、淨佛道，又問菩薩憑什麼能作二乘的福田，接著追出一句更遠的問——世間一切善法、乃至一切貴賤果報，何以都說是因菩薩而有，菩薩又如何身為施主而施諸善法。這一串問答鋪到夠了，才逼出那句要害。菩薩究竟怎樣習應般若、與般若相應。佛的回答斬截得幾乎不像回答。習應色空，是名與般若相應。習應受想行識空，習應十二入、十八界、四諦、十二因緣空，乃至習應一切有為無為法空，都是名與般若相應。
於是問題就逼出來了。若相應之道只是把色說成空、把五眾說成空、把一切法都說成空，那這個空到底做了什麼。它是把色打壞、把眼前這一切法一筆勾銷，換來一個空空蕩蕩的境界嗎。若是這樣，論主前面費那麼大力氣分別五眾的種種色相、種種受相，把受分到十八、三十六、一百八，把行分成身口意三行、福罪無動三行，豈不是白說。而經文偏偏在最險處補了一句——非色異空，非空異色，色即是空，空即是色。這一分要回答的就是這件事。習應色空的空，不是滅色之後另立的一個空，也不是把色搬空的一種手段，而是色自身的實相。看不清這一層，習相應就會被讀成一種厭離色法、躲進空裡的修法，那恰恰是這一品要破的。
底下還壓著幾處難關，須先標出來。第一，菩薩既已見涅槃，何以能不墮涅槃、直過而住不退地——論用『仰射虛空』一喻答此，是全分方便義的樞紐。第二，菩薩漏結未盡，憑什麼能作二乘的福田、能受人供養而不虧損。第三，一切善法乃至世間貴賤都說『從菩薩有』，這話怎麼站得住，其中還藏著一個少見的名目——『敗壞菩薩』。第四，論主為什麼要在正名句後鋪陳那麼繁密的五眾分類，這一大段稅目般的枚舉，用意何在。第五，習應『七空』，這七空各是什麼，彼此又是什麼次第。第六，既說相應，何以又處處說『不見相應、不見不相應』。這幾問，正是這一分要一一交代的。
逐段解明
一、舍利弗三問與『仰射虛空』的方便箭喻。 舍利弗先問菩薩怎樣「過聲聞、辟支佛地，住阿鞞跋致地，淨佛道」。論主先替這一問找根由——舍利弗上文既已因佛的種種譬喻，信了菩薩智慧為勝，心意已通，這才順勢問菩薩憑什麼能過二乘、住不退、淨佛道。有人難他：小乘人本不趣成佛，舍利弗何必問『淨佛道』。論主答得周至：舍利弗是「隨佛轉法輪將」，這一問於他自身雖無所增益，卻為利益求佛道的眾生而問；又因愛樂菩薩甚深之法，雖自不能得，如見人妙寶而樂問。佛的正答是：菩薩「從初發意行六波羅蜜，住空、無相、無作法」，便能過二乘、住不退、淨佛道。這裡立刻翻出全分第一個難處——一入空、無相、無作這三解脫門，不是直到涅槃了嗎，怎麼反能『過』二乘而不墮涅槃。論主的答，是這一分最要緊的一個方便義。無方便力的人，入三解脫門便直取涅槃；有方便力的菩薩，雖住三解脫門、雖見涅槃，卻以慈悲心轉此心、重新發起。他打了一個絕妙的比方：「譬如仰射虛空，箭箭相拄，不令墮地」——菩薩以智慧之箭仰射三解脫這片虛空，再「以方便後箭射前箭，不令墮涅槃之地」。前箭是入空的智慧，後箭是不捨眾生的方便；後箭頂住前箭，箭箭相拄，於是雖見涅槃而直過不住，別期一件大事，就是無上菩提。論主一句點斷關鍵——「今是觀時，非是證時」。同是入空，聲聞入之而證，菩薩入之而觀，只在證與不證一線之間。這一喻若不講清，『菩薩住三解脫門卻不入涅槃』便成一句無理的話。
二、阿毘跋致地與淨佛道地的界定。 過了二乘二地之後是什麼地，論主給了定義：「若過是二地，知諸法不生不滅，即是阿毘跋致地。」不退，不是站在一個高處不再後退，而是照見諸法不生不滅、於此無所退轉。住此地而「教化眾生、淨佛世界，是為能淨佛道」。論主又補一路說法：菩薩住三解脫門觀四諦，知四諦是二乘之法，於是「直過四諦，入一諦」——這一諦，就是一切法「不生不滅、不垢不淨、不來不去」。入此一諦即名不退地。至於『淨佛道地』的實義，論說得很切實：是「滅除身、口、意麁惡之業」，並滅去諸法中從初以來所失壞之事。可見淨佛道不是別置一個莊嚴境界，而是三業麁惡與無始所失一併除盡。
三、菩薩漏結未盡，何以能作二乘福田。 舍利弗轉問一個切近的難處：菩薩自身漏結未盡，住什麼功德，竟能為聲聞、辟支佛作福田、受其供養。佛答：菩薩「從初發意行六波羅蜜，乃至坐道場」，這中間常為二乘作福田。論主點出關竅——三解脫門、趣涅槃這件事，菩薩與二乘看似相同，然而「菩薩有大慈悲，聲聞、辟支佛無」；菩薩從初發心行六度乃至十八不共法，志在度盡一切眾生、具足一切佛法，正因這大慈悲與大願，纔堪為漏盡二乘之福田。福田之勝，勝在悲願，不在漏盡與否。
四、一切善法皆因菩薩而現於世；貴姓與受身種種。 佛更把菩薩的利益推廣說——「以有菩薩摩訶薩因緣故」，世間諸善法生。論主分兩重解。前一重是『內益』——菩薩勤行眾行故能作福田；這一重是『外益』——因菩薩故世間才有一切善法。何以只歸功菩薩？因為即便是靠聲聞、辟支佛而有的善法，也都由菩薩而有：若菩薩不發心，世間尚無佛道，何況二乘，佛道正是二乘的根本。經文接著列了一長串善法——十善道、五戒、八分齋、四禪、四無量、四無色定、四念處乃至八聖道分，又六波羅蜜、十八空、佛十力乃至一切種智，又剎利、婆羅門、居士諸貴姓乃至非想非非想天，又須陀洹乃至佛——都說因菩薩而現於世。這裡有人難：貴姓縱無菩薩也自然有，怎說從菩薩生。論主答得實在：因菩薩故世間有五戒十善八齋等法，這些法有上中下三品，「上者得道，中者生天，下者為人」，正因有此感報的階差，才有剎利、婆羅門、居士這樣的貴姓。又難：無菩薩世間也照樣有這些。論主再答：菩薩受身種種不同，「或時受業因緣身、或受變化身」，於世間宣說善法、世界法、王法、世俗法乃至在家出家諸法，憐愍眾生、護持世界，雖行的是世法，這一切仍從菩薩而有。一句總收：「世間諸富貴皆從二乘道有，二乘道從佛有，佛因菩薩有。」若無菩薩說善法，世間便無天道、人道、阿修羅道，無樂受、無不苦不樂受，「但有苦受，常有地獄啼哭之聲」。菩薩利益如此之大，怎不堪為世間福田。
五、少見的一個名目：『敗壞菩薩』。 這裡翻出一個要緊而易被忽略的教法。有人難：菩薩清淨、行大慈悲，怎麼會去說王法、刑法這種世俗雜法。論主答：菩薩有兩種。一者「行慈悲直入菩薩道」，是清淨菩薩；二者名為「敗壞菩薩」——這種菩薩「亦有悲心，治以國法，無所貪利」，雖以刑罰治世、於中有所惱害，然而「所安者多，治一惡人，以成一家」。如此立法治世的人，雖不得名清淨菩薩，卻仍得名『敗壞菩薩』，這一切治世之法也因他而有。須看清論主的分寸：『敗壞』不是墮落貶斥之辭，而是就『與清淨直入者相形』而立的一個名——他以世法悲心利世、不貪其利，仍在菩薩之數，只是不居清淨之名。這一名目點破一件事：菩薩道不止一途，以國法止惡安民、不圖私利者，同是悲心所攝，不可一概斥為與菩薩無干。
六、施福本已淨畢；菩薩為大施主。 舍利弗聞菩薩有此大功德、理當供養，心裡卻起一念疑慮：菩薩「煩惱未盡，雖有大福，不能消其供養」，就像「如人雖噉好食，以內有病故，不能消化」。於是問佛：菩薩的施福已經清淨圓滿了嗎。佛答不然，「本以淨畢故」。論主解此『本已淨畢』：菩薩從初發心便「為一切眾生供養之上首」，決定為無量眾生「代受勤苦」、令得度脫，志取諸佛大智慧力，「能令世間即是涅槃」——以此種種因緣，故其施福本來已淨已畢，不待今日始淨。接著經又翻進一層：菩薩不但令世間有善法，更「為大施主」，親自施與善法，所施是「十善道、五戒乃至十八不共法、一切種智」。論主點出前後之別：前說『由菩薩因緣，世間有善法』，是就緣起說；今說『菩薩施善法之主』，是就作者說——一是善法所自來，一是善法所自施，這才是二段的差別所在。這一整段從福田、貴姓、敗壞菩薩到大施主，都在回答同一問：菩薩何以是世間一切善法與果報的根本。
七、正名句：習應色空即是相應。 前面那整條菩薩道鋪足了，舍利弗才問到要害：菩薩「云何習應般若波羅蜜，與般若波羅蜜相應」。論主先替這一問找根由——上文說『一日修般若便勝二乘』，這樣的大功德都從般若生，故問怎樣習應；又因般若「難行難得、如幻如化、難可受持」，恐修行人違失錯亂，故問習應之法。佛的正答斬截：菩薩「習應色空，是名與般若波羅蜜相應」，習應受想行識空、眼耳鼻舌身心空、色聲香味觸法空、十八界空、四諦空、十二因緣空，乃至習應一切有為無為法空，都是與般若相應。可見『習應色空』不是一個孤立的觀法，而是前面那整條菩薩道的心髓——過二乘、住不退、作福田、施善法，其根都在這一句『習應諸法空』。
八、論何以繁密地攤開五眾——攤得越細，『皆空』落下越重。 論主為什麼在正名句之後，忽然鋪陳那麼長一段五眾的分別，色有幾種、受有幾種、想行識各怎樣分。表面看那像一段繁瑣的法相清點，用意卻正在反面。論主先把五眾窮盡地攤開，攤得越細密，後面一句『今五眾等諸法皆是空』落下時的力量就越大。這不是先立後破的玩弄，而是要人明白：被說為空的，正是這樣豐富、這樣歷歷分明的五眾，不是一個早已模糊不清、可有可無的東西。空不是因為色本來就稀薄好空掉，而是即便如此分明的色，推其自性仍畢竟不可得。以下三段（色、受想行識、五眾之通義）便是這一攤開的細目，讀時須記住：每一層分類都不是為分類而分類，而是為著最後那一句『皆空』預先鋪足分量。
九、色眾：從可見有對到動色、影像、誑色。 論釋色眾，先立一綱：「色眾者，是可見法」，然而因這可見的色為緣，「亦有不可見有對」的色，有對雖不可見「亦名為色」。他打一個貼切的比方——如已得道者名道人，未得道而出家者「亦名為道人」，可見色之名不限於眼所見。故經說色有三種：「有色可見有對，有色不可見有對，有色不可見無對」；並非只有眼見的才是色，內外十處能起五識者皆名色。接著論以種種數目分色：四種色（內外受不受）、五種色（五塵）、一種色（惱壞相，有身則有飢渴寒熱刀杖等苦）、二種色（四大與四大所造，內外、受不受、繫不繫等一長串對舉）、三種色（善不善無記，學無學非學非無學，見諦斷思惟斷無斷）、又三種（欲色界繫不繫，能生貪瞋癡、能生三善根）、又四種、又五種——這一串稅目般的分法，用意不在記帳，而在顯色法之無量差別，全是因緣所成、無一有定性。其中最堪玩味的是末後幾種色相。「麁色」者可見可聞可嗅可味可觸，如土石。「動色」有二：一是眾生動作，二是非眾生動作——如風動水、水動地、風動樹，乃至「如磁石吸鐵，如真珠、玉、車渠、馬碯夜能自行」，論歸之為「皆是眾生先世福德業因緣，不可思議」。至於「影色、像色」何以別立，有人以為影像不過是遮光反照、別無他法，論主駁得細：「如油中見像黑」則非本色，五尺刀中橫看面像廣、縱看面像長則非本面，水精玷中面像非一——可見像非還見本像，而是「有鏡、有人、有持者、有光明，眾緣和合故有像生」，這是別自有法的一種微色，不同麁色。又問影與像何以再分，論答：「鏡中像有種種色，影則一色」，影從遮明而現、像從眾緣而生，雖同細色而各各差別。最後是「誑色」——「如炎、如幻、如化、如乾闥婆城」，「遠誑人眼，近無所有」。這一串影、像、誑色，正是色法中最像『有』而其實最空的一類，論特意細辨，是要人連這最迷惑眼目的色也照見其但從因緣、無有實體。
十、受眾：觸生心數法，以至十八受、三十六、一百八。 受眾之生，論引經說：「因眼緣色生眼識，三事和合故生觸」，這觸即時使三眾共生，「所謂受、想、行」。有人問：眼識也與三眾作因，何以獨說觸。論主答：「眼識少時住，見色便滅」，隨即生意識分別好醜，眼識因緣遠故不說，單就觸生心數法而言。又問：一切識皆有觸，何以獨說觸生心數法。論分心為二：「一者、念念生滅心，二者、次第相續心」；相續之觸麁而了了，故說因觸生心數法，念念之觸微細不了故不別說。定了受之所由，論便逐級分受之數：一種（受相）、二種（身受心受、內外、麁細、遠近、淨不淨）、三種（苦樂捨，善不善無記，學無學等）、四種（內外身心受，四正勤四如意足相應）、五種（樂苦憂喜捨五根，五蓋五結相應）、六受（六識相應）。到這裡論翻出一個習見常引的法數——意識分別為「十八受」：眼見色思惟分別而心生喜、生憂、生捨，如是六根對六塵各生喜憂捨，成十八；「是十八受中有淨、有垢，為三十六」；「三世各有三十六，為百八」。這正是後世常說的『百八』之所從出。論列這一串一到百八的層層分法，不是要人背數，而是把受眾攤到極盡，好與『受空』相形——受相如此繁密，而其自性仍不可得。
十一、想眾四想、行眾三行、識眾依意生識。 想、行、識三眾，論說「亦如是分別」，因與受眾相應之故。想眾，佛說「有小想、大想、無量想、無所有想」四種：就界繫說，欲界繫想名為小、色界繫想名為大、三無色天繫想名為無量、無所有處繫想名為無所有想；就染淨說，煩惱相應想名小想、有漏無垢想名大想、諸法實相想名無所有想、無漏想名無量想。又有六想，眼觸相應乃至意觸相應所生。行眾最須辨清兩重『三行』，易混。第一重是身口意三行：「身行」者出入息，因息屬身；「口行」者覺觀，因先覺觀而後語言；「意行」者受、想，因受苦樂、取相而心發動——心數法屬愛者名受、屬見者名想，故合此二為意行。第二重是十二因緣中的三行：「福行」者，欲界繫善業；「罪行」者，不善業；「無動行」者，色、無色界繫業。這後一重三行是十二因緣『無明緣行』的行，配三界善不善不動業，是要緊的教法，不可與身口意三行相濫。此外阿毘曇又立一義：除受、想二者，其餘心數法及無想定、滅盡定等心不相應法，總名行眾。識眾者，「內外六入和合故生六覺，名為識」，因所依內根之緣力大，故隨根立名為眼識乃至意識。有人問：意即是識，何以說『因意緣力生意識』。論答：意有二種，「一者、念念滅，二者、心次第相續名為一」，依這相續之意而生識，並無過咎。論末點一句要害——正因意識依意而生這一義難解，「九十六種外道不說依意故生識，但以依神為本」，把識的相續錯認作一個常住的神我。這一句是全段的眼目：外道之病，正在把念念相續的識，坐實成一個能生識的『神』。
十二、五眾攝於四念處；濁水喻——心與心數非即非離。 論把五眾繫回修行的骨架：這五眾「四念處中廣說」——「身念處說色眾，受念處說受眾，心念處說識眾，法念處說想眾、行眾」。可見分別五眾不是玄談，正是四念處觀身受心法的所觀境。接著論答一個要緊的難問：有人主張不必立五眾，只立色眾、識眾便足，受想行不過是識隨時分別的異名，如不淨識名煩惱、淨識名善法。論主駁得極透，並用一個絕妙的譬喻。他先立理：「若名異故實亦異；若無異法，名不應異」，若唯有心而無心法，心就不該有垢有淨。然後打喻：「譬如清淨池水，狂象入中，令其混濁；若清水珠入，水即清淨」——煩惱如狂象入心令心濁，慈悲等善法如清水珠入心令心淨，「不得言水外無象、無珠」。象、珠不是水，卻能令水濁淨；煩惱、善法不即是心，卻能令心染淨。故不得言煩惱、慈悲等法即是心。這一喻說的正是心與心數法『非即非離』之義：若說心數即是心，則心自濁自淨無待於外，講不通；若說心外無心數，則象珠入水令濁令淨之事無著落。唯有心與心數非一非異，垢淨之事才安立得住，五眾之立才有著實的必要。論再堵一路：有人引『垢心即煩惱、淨心即善法』來難，論反問——若垢心相續，如何忽生淨心；淨心相續，如何忽生垢心；可見必有心數法在心上起滅，不可因不知心數而謂其無，「當知必有五眾」。
十三、何以不多不少但說五；五眾、入、界、四諦、十二因緣何以各異說。 有人問：若立五眾，何以不多不少恰是五。論答得爽利：「諸法各有定限。如手法五指」，不可強求多少；又「有為法雖復無量，佛分判為五分則盡」。又問：既有五眾，何必再說十二入、十八界。論主由此開出一段極要緊的方法論——佛為法王，「或時略說、或時廣說」，全隨眾生根機下藥。於色識不甚迷、而多錯於心數者，為說五眾；於心數不惑、獨迷於色者，為說色為十處、心心數總為二處（合成十二入）；於心數少惑而多不了色心者，為說心數為一界、色心為十七界（合成十八界）；不知苦法生滅、不知離苦道者，為說四諦；著吾我而於諸法起一異邪見者，為說十二因緣；執神常、法常者，為說一切有為皆是作法、無有常定，「譬如木人，種種機關，木楔和合故能動作，無有實事」。同是諸法，或攤作五眾、或攤作入界、或攤作諦緣，並非法有增減，只是應病與藥、廣略不同。這一段把五眾、入、界、四諦、十二因緣諸門的分合，一舉貫通，是讀通阿毘達磨諸法門的一把鑰匙。至於五眾的次第，論也交代：修行者於五眾立觀有其次第，「先觀麁法，知身不淨」，故先色眾；次觀著身之樂亦無常，故次受；次取相而著，故次想；受樂發動諸行，故次行；識了離苦得樂之方便，故次識。「五欲即是色，色是根本，故初說色眾」，餘者依次而立名。
十四、五眾畢竟空——聖主說、十八空、微塵破析、假名之鏈、大空劫火。 攤盡了五眾，論主纔落下那一句：「今五眾等諸法皆是空。」他一連給了幾重理由。其一，聖主說故——「聖有三種下、中、上，佛為其主」，「如星宿月中，日為其最」，佛得一切智慧名為聖主，「聖主所說故，應當是實」。其二，「以有十八空故一切法空」，若但性空、但內外空已能空一切，何況具十八空。其三，就法分兩類破：色法「分別破裂乃至微塵，分別微塵亦不可得」，終皆歸空；無色法念念生滅故空。其四，最見工夫的一路——諸法性空、但是名字，因緣和合故有。論主用微塵作眼，又用假名之鏈層層剝：山河草木土地人民名之為『國』，巷里市陌廬館宮殿名之為『都』，梁柱椽棟瓦竹壁石名之為『殿』，上中下分和合名之為『柱』，片片和合名『分』，眾札名『片』，眾微名『札』——每一層都只是因緣假名，離了因緣名字便無有法。再逼微塵一著：微塵有大中小三品，「大者，遊塵可見；中者，諸天所見；小者，上聖人天眼所見」，而慧眼觀之則無所見，因其性實無故；「若微塵實有即是常，不可分裂」，又若說微塵有形則有十方分、不名為微，無形則不成其為色——兩路俱窮，故知色無實體。其五，論主更立『二種空』以防人於空上生新著：「一者、說名字空，但破著有而不破空；二者、以空破有，亦無有空。」前者只破對『有』的執，尚存一個空；後者連空亦破。他打一個震動人心的比方——小劫盡時尚有人物山河，大劫燒時山河金剛地下大水皆盡，「劫火既滅，持水之風亦滅，一切廓然無有遺餘」；『空』若只破諸法而自己巍然獨存、被取相執著，還是一重法；真正的『大空』者，「破一切法，空亦復空」，如劫火燒盡萬物之後、連持水之風也一併滅去。這才是這一分的空義：不是留一個空在那裡當歸宿，是連空也不立。論收一句：「名字與法俱無有異」，若無有一則亦無有多（樹之根莖枝葉，若無樹法則為誰和合），如是種種因緣，知諸法畢竟空。
十五、習與相應的界定。 攤空既竟，論主回頭界定『習』與『相應』二字。所謂習，是「隨般若波羅蜜修習行觀，不息不休」——不是偶一觀之，是相續不斷的行觀。所謂相應，論打兩個比方：一如弟子隨順師教、不違師意；二如「函、蓋，大小相稱」——般若有其相，菩薩隨此相以智慧觀照，能得能成就而「不增不減」，正像函與蓋大小恰好相稱。相應從來不是把心調到某個特別狀態，而是心所觀與法之實相剛好相稱、不多不少。論再補一句要義：雖然般若滅諸觀法，卻因智慧之力而「無所不能、無所不觀」，能如是知而「不墮二邊」，這才是與般若相應。可見『滅諸觀』不是昏昧無知，而是不落有無二邊的照了。
十六、七空逐空——從性空到無法有法空的一條上行之路。 這一分最大的一處，是經文標出的『七空』，須逐空講清，不可一句帶過。經說習應「性空、自相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空」七空。有人先問：何不說十八空、獨說七空。論答：廣說則十八、略說則七，如廣說助道法為三十七品、略說則七覺分；且七空「多用利益眾生」，如大空、無始空正為對治某類邪見而設。以下逐空。第一，「性空」——「一切諸法性本末尚自空，何況現在」，因緣尚且空，何況果報；先從法之本性上照見其空。第二，「自相空」——「諸法總相、別相盡觀其空，心則遠離」；不但共通的總相空，各法各別的自相也空，觀盡則心離諸法。第三，「諸法空」——「用是二空，諸法皆空」；合性空、自相空二者，一切法無不空，此即諸法空。第四，「不可得空」——從性空故有相，相空故諸法皆空，諸法空故更無所得；諸法既空，於中更無一法可得，此名不可得空。前四空是一路破有：性空破其性、自相空破其相、諸法空總破諸法、不可得空破所得。第五、第六兩空，是防修行人破有之後轉而著無、又著有的一對藥。第五，「無法空」——用前四空破一切有法，行者「心則離有而存於無」，於是連這存下來的『無』也破，「若以有法、有相為過者，取於無法」，是故說無法空。第七之前的第六，「有法空」——若行者又以『無法』為非、心無所寄而回頭欲存有，故略說「有法空」以破這回頭存有之心，因存有之心已薄故略說。第七，「無法有法空」——行者以無法空為非則心還疑有，若觀有則又疑無法，於是「有、無俱觀其空，如內外空觀」，有無二邊一時俱空。「以是故但說七空。」讀這七空，須看出它是一條上行的路：先破法之性相（前三），再遣所得（第四），再破著無（第五）、破回頭著有（第六），末後有無雙遣（第七）——七空不是七個各別的空境，是同一個『空』隨行人所著之處而立的七個名。行人著到哪裡，空就破到哪裡。
十七、既說相應，何以又『不見相應、不見不相應』；不見生滅垢淨。 講了七空，經緊接翻出一個看似自語相違的說法：菩薩習應七空時，「不見色若相應若不相應」，不見生相滅相、垢相淨相，乃至不見般若若相應若不相應。有人正就此問難：你說『如是觀名相應、不如是觀名不相應』，這一分別是非「即亦是觀」，怎能算滅諸觀。這一問極利——既立相應之相，就又落一重取相，怎能算滅諸觀。經以『不見相應不相應』作答：真到相應處，是連『相應』之相也不立，一有『這樣才算相應、那樣就不相應』的分別，那分別本身又成新的取相、新的戲論。至於『不見生滅、不見垢淨』，論說得警策。不見生滅相者——若五眾實有生滅，「即墮斷滅中」，墮斷滅則無罪無福，無罪無福則「與禽獸無異」。不見垢淨相者——若五眾是縛性，則「無有得解脫者」；若五眾是淨性，則「無有學道法」。可見『不見』不是抹殺生滅垢淨，恰是不把生滅垢淨執成五眾的定相，否則落入斷滅或無修無證的死路。
十八、諸法不相合，其性空故；色即是空，空不是滅色。 這一分最要緊的一步，是把空從『滅法』手裡救出來。經先說色不與受合、受不與想合，何以故「無有法與法合者，其性空故」。論解：「心、心數法無形」，無形故無住處，故色不與受合；如四大所造色有二觸和合，而心心數法中無觸，故不得和合。有人問：何以說受想行識不共和合。論答——佛自說「一切法性常空故」，無一法與一法合；而「若無法與法合，亦無有離」，合既不成，離亦不立。接著經說「色空中無有色」，論即追問：這是不是說空來了就把色滅掉。他分兩層答。一層是隨順地說：「色與空相違。若空來則滅色」，如「水中無火，火中無水，性相違故」，又如有人主張色非實空、只是入空三昧才見色空——這只是對治的說法。真正的立義在後面那句：「非色異空，非空異色，色即是空，空即是色」。論解得極準：若五眾與空是兩個東西，那空中反倒該藏著五眾；正因「五眾不異空、空不異五眾，五眾即是空、空即是五眾」，所以「空不破五眾」。這裡藏著全品的樞紐。前說『色空中無色』，不是空把色趕走，而是色的自相本就不可得，故說無——「五眾各各自相不可得故」。空與色不是先後、不是能滅所滅，是同一件事的兩面：色空故無惱壞相、受空故無受相、想空故無知相、行空故無作相、識空故無覺相，各就自相不可得而說『無』。經更把這義推到極處：「是諸法空相，不生不滅、不垢不淨、不增不減」，非過去非未來非現在，是故空中無五眾、無十二入十八界、無十二因緣、無四諦、無智無得、乃至「無佛、亦無佛道」。論主又補一刀，怕人把空當成一種三昧修出來的效果——有人「雖復習空，而想空中猶有諸法」，如行慈之人雖無眾生而想眾生得樂；佛故說「諸法性常自空，非空三昧故令法空」，「如水冷相，火令其熱」：水本自冷，不是火令它冷；法本自空，不是空三昧令它空。若說是空三昧令法空，那空就成了外加的、可修可不修的，色也就成了本不空、被觀成空的——這正是這一分死守不放的分界。經末又點『智』『得』二字之義：「智」者是無漏八智，「得」者是初得聖道須陀洹果乃至佛道，皆先已廣說。
十九、不見般若相應不相應，乃至一切種智；空不與空合；重說無咎。 正因空不是滅色，習相應才落在一個奇特的姿態上——不見相應、不見不相應。經一路排下去：菩薩行般若「不見般若波羅蜜若相應若不相應」，不見五波羅蜜、五眾、十二入十八界、四念處乃至一切種智若相應若不相應。論解：菩薩入般若、得諸法實相，於般若尚「不見定相」，何況見有餘法；所謂不見，是不立『如是行為應般若、不如是行為不應般若』的判分。他把這判分一層層排出來：「如常、樂、我行，不應般若波羅蜜；無常、苦、無我行，為應般若波羅蜜」，以實則不應、以空則應，以有無則不應、以非有非無則應——最後連這一層層的『應』也要放掉，因為「般若波羅蜜相畢竟清淨故」。有人問：般若畢竟清淨還說得通，五波羅蜜等法怎麼也清淨。論答：「五事離般若波羅蜜不名波羅蜜」，與般若和合故才名波羅蜜，如初品所說『云何名檀，不見施者、不見受者、無財物故』；五眾諸法是菩薩觀處，與般若和合、畢竟清淨故，不見相應不相應。又有人問：菩薩非二乘，何以有三十七品；未成佛，何以有十力四無畏。論答：菩薩「亦觀聲聞、辟支佛法」以其道度眾生，或行而不取證（「今是觀時，非是證時」），或新發意者讀誦憶念分別，故說菩薩有三十七品；十力等亦然，菩薩憶想分別佛之十力四無畏亦是『我分』，無量劫修習、坐佛樹下得無礙解脫而增益清淨，「譬如勳勞既立，然後受其功賞」。經又說『空不與空合、無相不與無相合、無作不與無作合』。論分空為二：「一者、空三昧，二者、法空」；空三昧不與法空合，因若以空三昧之力去合法空，「是法非自性空」——法之空是性自空、不從因緣生，若入定見空、出定不見空，「當知是虛妄」。最後論答一個總持性的難問：既在一處說過不見相應不相應便足，何必處處重說。論答得周至：這不是重複，而是「諸法相雖不可說，佛以大慈大悲故種種方便說」，為斷見諦結、為斷思惟結、為利為鈍，說法各有所為；且「鈍根者，少智為其重說」，利根一說便悟，「譬如駛馬，下一鞭便走；駑馬，多鞭乃去」，故「經中重說無咎」。
二十、入自相空，色不與三際合。 這一分收尾在『色不與三際合』，把空義從法相推到時間上。經說菩薩入諸法自相空，色不作合、不作不合，「色不與前際合」「不與後際合」「不與現在合」。論先界定『合』與『不合』：「合」者，諸法如其相——「如地堅相，識知相」，自相不在異法上，是名合；「不合」者，自相不在自法中。再就三際說：「前際空無所有，但有名字」，色若入過去便滅而無所有，拿什麼與前際合；後際未有未生，無可與合；現在色「生滅不住」故不可取相，也無可與合。論更破那把三世看成實有的說法：有人謂三世諸法皆有，未來轉現在、現在轉過去，「如泥揣現在，瓶為未來」，成瓶時瓶現在、泥揣過去、瓶破為未來——「若有三世相，是事不然，以多過故」。菩薩不作這樣的合，因為「過去已滅，云何能為因、能為緣？未來未有，云何為因緣？現在乃至一念中不住，云何為因緣」。末後佛自說因緣一句收盡：「三世及名字空故，云何言合」。於是時間也被收進畢竟空。習應色空至此圓足——不但色空、受想行識空、一切法空，連承載這一切的三際也名為空，而這一切的空，仍舊不是把時間與諸法打壞，只是照見它們從頭到尾只是因緣名字、無自性可得。
不要讀錯
不要把『習應色空』讀成厭色入空。這一分處處防的就是這一著。色即是空、空即是色，說的正是不必離色別求空，也無空可入。誰若把它讀成滅掉眼前萬法、躲進一個空境，就恰好落進論主用『色空中無色，卻不異空』一句要破的坑。
不要把菩薩住三解脫門而不入涅槃讀成一句無理的話。『仰射虛空、箭箭相拄』的方便箭喻正是為此設：前箭是入空智慧，後箭是不捨眾生之方便，後箭頂前箭，故雖見涅槃而不墮。要害只在「今是觀時，非是證時」——同入一空，證則墮二乘，觀則過二乘，差只在證與不證。
不要把『敗壞菩薩』讀成貶斥墮落之辭。論立此名，是就『與清淨直入者相形』而說——以國法治世、止惡安民而不貪其利者，悲心仍在、仍在菩薩之數，只是不居清淨之名。把它讀成罵人，便失了論主『菩薩道不止一途』的本意。
不要把那一長串五眾的細分讀成一本無謂的法相帳簿。十八受、三十六、一百八，身口意三行、福罪無動三行，四想六想——論攤得越密，正為襯出『皆空』落下時越重：被說空的，正是這樣歷歷分明的五眾，不是一個本就模糊、可有可無的東西。
不要把『七空』讀成七個各別的空境，彷彿要一個一個修進去。七空是同一個空隨行人所著之處而立的七個名——著性著相則性空自相空破之，著所得則不可得空破之，破有而轉著無則無法空破之，著無而回頭存有則有法空破之，末後有無雙遣是無法有法空。行人著到哪裡，空就破到哪裡。
不要把『不見相應不相應』讀成一種高妙的無記或不分別，彷彿什麼都不想就是相應。論分明說，那是連相應之相也不再取，不是連善惡是非的分別智都不要——前面整段五眾法相的分別，正是這智的細密處。若無這分別的功夫，所謂不見相應只是儱侗。
更不要把空當成一種三昧修出來的效果。「諸法性常自空，非空三昧故令法空」，如水本自冷、不是火令它冷。空若是修出來的，色就成了本有；色若本有，習相應便成了一種以空壓有的手段，而不是照見實相。最後，不要以為三際名空是把時間否定掉——被否定的只是三世實有、互相和合的執，不是這相續生滅的現前事相。
修行作用
這一分可以當作一把校準觀心的尺。修空觀時可以自問，我是在把眼前這一切法一樣樣打壞、換一個空境來安住，還是就在這歷歷分明的色受想行識上，照見它本自不可得。若是前者，那是以空滅有，論主早已標為病；若是後者，才是色即是空。
方便箭喻更可作觀行的一則切近提點。用功見到一分寂滅、一分涅槃的滋味時，正好拿『今是觀時，非是證時』自照——這一分明是可觀之境，不是可安身取證之地；若無不捨眾生的後箭頂住，前箭一鬆便墮。見涅槃而直過不住，是這一分留給行人的一個極要緊的分寸。
七空這條上行的路，也堪拿來檢點自己觀空觀到哪一著。破了法的性相之後，心是不是悄悄存下一個『無』來安住——那正是無法空要破的；破無之後又回頭想抓一點『有』——那是有法空要破的。順這七名一路自照，便知自己的著落在何處，空便該破到何處。
再就日常的順逆遷流問，我是不是把過去悔恨、未來憂懼、現在攀緣都當成實有而互相牽合——若能看出前際已滅、後際未生、現在不住，三際只是因緣名字，心便不被時間之流綁住。這幾問若答得穩，習應色空就不再是一句口訣，而是當下這一念裡，色與空不二、心與實相相稱的實事。
承衍
這一分的正名句與那句『色即是空、空即是色』，後來被古德一再取用。有判教者引本品這段色空句，用來注釋『色不異空、空不異色』一路的般若綱宗，把它繫在色空不二、空不遮有的論法上；也有取本品開頭舍利弗的問答之型，說明『習應』就是如是修習使得相應之義；至於這一分細攤五眾、逐立七空的段落，古來釋般若者亦多取為『廣破諸法自性』的張本。這些讀法各有其來歷與脈絡，此處只誌其取徑、不判其高下。把它們帶回本品，最該保留的不是一張更細的色法分類表、一串受想行的稅目，也不是一套判教的名目，而是這一分反覆錘打的那一句——空不是滅色之後另立的一個東西，空就是色的實相本身。所謂習相應，也因此不是把心練到某個空境，而是讓能觀之智與諸法本來的畢竟空，剛好相稱、不增不減。而那一大段從福田、貴姓、敗壞菩薩到大施主的鋪陳，看似旁枝，其實同歸一義：世間一切善法所以能立，全繫於菩薩習應諸法空而不捨眾生的這一行——空與悲本是一事，空故無所著，悲故不捨世，二者相拄，正如那仰射虛空的箭。之餘上以『三際名空』作結，恰把這一義推到極處：連承載色心的時間都收歸因緣名字，而現前這一切，仍在因緣中歷歷生滅、不曾被空打壞。這正是下文續說色不與三際合、以至一切相應中空相應為第一的張本。
Practising in Accord, The Remainder, First Part: Practising in Accord with the Emptiness of Form—Why ‘Emptiness’ Does Not Mean Smashing Form
What Is Being Asked
This part delivers the defining sentence of the whole chapter. Śāriputra presses his questions all the way to the bottom: first he asks how a bodhisattva passes beyond the grounds of the two vehicles, abides in the ground of non-retrogression, and purifies the Buddha-path; then he asks on what ground a bodhisattva is able to be a field of merit for the two vehicles; and then he pursues a still more far-reaching question—why all the wholesome dharmas of the world, and even all fruits of recompense, noble and base, are said to exist because of the bodhisattva, and how the bodhisattva, being himself a donor, gives all wholesome dharmas. Only when this string of questions and answers has been laid out in full is that crucial sentence forced out. How, after all, does a bodhisattva practise in accord with prajñā and come to be in accord with prajñā? The Buddha’s answer is so decisive that it hardly seems an answer. Practising in accord with the emptiness of form—this is called being in accord with prajñā. Practising in accord with the emptiness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, practising in accord with the emptiness of the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the four truths, and the twelve causes and conditions, and so on up to practising in accord with the emptiness of all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas—all of these are called being in accord with prajñā.
And so the question is forced out. If the way of accord is only to call form empty, to call the five aggregates empty, to call all dharmas empty, then what exactly does this emptiness do? Does it smash form, strike out at a stroke all these dharmas before one’s eyes, and trade them for a hollow, vacant realm? If so, then all the great effort the treatise-author spends beforehand in distinguishing the various marks of form and the various marks of feeling among the five aggregates—dividing feeling into eighteen, thirty-six, and one hundred and eight, and dividing constructions into the three constructions of body, speech, and mind and the three constructions of merit, demerit, and the imperturbable—would it not all have been said for nothing? Yet the sūtra, at the most perilous point, adds one sentence—form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form; form is emptiness, emptiness is form. What this part has to answer is exactly this matter. The emptiness in practising in accord with the emptiness of form is not an emptiness set up separately after form has been destroyed, nor a device for emptying form out; it is the real mark of form itself. If this layer is not seen clearly, practising in accord will be read as a practice of loathing and leaving form and hiding away in emptiness—and that is precisely what this chapter sets out to break.
Beneath this there also lie several difficult passes, which must first be marked out. First: since the bodhisattva has already seen nirvāṇa, how can he not fall into nirvāṇa, but pass straight through and abide in the ground of non-retrogression?—the treatise answers this with the simile of ‘shooting upward into the sky,’ which is the pivot of the meaning of skilful means in this whole part. Second: the bodhisattva’s outflows and fetters are not yet exhausted—on what ground can he be a field of merit for the two vehicles, able to receive people’s offerings without their being diminished? Third: all wholesome dharmas, and even the noble and the base of the world, are said to ‘exist from the bodhisattva’—how can this claim stand? And hidden within it there is also a rarely seen name—‘the ruined bodhisattva.’ Fourth: why does the treatise-author, after the defining sentence, lay out so dense a classification of the five aggregates—what is the purpose of this great tax-roll-like enumeration? Fifth: of the ‘seven emptinesses’ that are practised in accord with, what is each of these seven, and in what order do they stand to one another? Sixth: since accord is spoken of, why is it said everywhere ‘not seeing accord, not seeing non-accord’? These several questions are exactly what this part has to account for one by one.
Passage by Passage
1. Śāriputra’s three questions and the simile of the arrows of skilful means, ‘shooting upward into the sky.’ Śāriputra first asks how a bodhisattva 「過聲聞、辟支佛地，住阿鞞跋致地，淨佛道」 tr. "passes beyond the grounds of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, abides in the avaivartika ground, and purifies the Buddha-path." The treatise-author first finds the root of this question for him—Śāriputra, in the passage above, has already come through the Buddha’s various similes to believe that the bodhisattva’s wisdom is superior, and his mind has come through; only then does he go on to ask on what ground the bodhisattva can pass beyond the two vehicles, abide in non-retrogression, and purify the Buddha-path. Someone challenges him: people of the Small Vehicle do not in the first place head toward becoming a buddha—why should Śāriputra ask about ‘purifying the Buddha-path’? The treatise-author answers thoroughly: Śāriputra is 「隨佛轉法輪將」 tr. "the general who follows the Buddha in turning the wheel of the Dharma"; though this question adds nothing to himself, he asks it for the benefit of beings who seek the Buddha-path; and again, because he loves and delights in the bodhisattva’s very deep Dharma, though he himself cannot attain it, he asks with delight, like one who sees another’s wondrous jewel. The Buddha’s direct answer is: the bodhisattva, 「從初發意行六波羅蜜，住空、無相、無作法」 tr. "from his first arousing of the intention, practises the six perfections and abides in the dharmas of emptiness, the signless, and non-action," and so is able to pass beyond the two vehicles, abide in non-retrogression, and purify the Buddha-path. Here at once the first difficulty of the whole part turns up—once one enters these three gates of liberation, emptiness, the signless, and non-action, does one not go straight to nirvāṇa? How can one instead ‘pass beyond’ the two vehicles without falling into nirvāṇa? The treatise-author’s answer is the single most important meaning of skilful means in this part. A person without the power of skilful means, on entering the three gates of liberation, straightway takes nirvāṇa; a bodhisattva with the power of skilful means, though he abides in the three gates of liberation, though he sees nirvāṇa, yet with a mind of kindness and compassion turns this mind round and arouses it afresh. He strikes upon a marvellous comparison: 「譬如仰射虛空，箭箭相拄，不令墮地」 tr. "it is like shooting upward into the sky, arrow propping arrow, not letting them fall to the ground"—the bodhisattva shoots the arrow of wisdom upward into this sky of the three liberations, and then 「以方便後箭射前箭，不令墮涅槃之地」 tr. "with the later arrow of skilful means shoots the earlier arrow, not letting it fall to the ground of nirvāṇa." The earlier arrow is the wisdom that enters emptiness; the later arrow is the skilful means that does not abandon beings; the later arrow props up the earlier, arrow propping arrow, and so, though he sees nirvāṇa, he passes straight through without stopping, looking toward one other great matter, which is unsurpassed awakening. The treatise-author settles the crux in a single sentence—「今是觀時，非是證時」 tr. "now is the time for contemplating, not the time for realising." Entering emptiness alike, the śrāvaka enters it and realises, the bodhisattva enters it and contemplates; the difference lies only in the single line between realising and not realising. If this simile is not explained clearly, ‘the bodhisattva abides in the three gates of liberation yet does not enter nirvāṇa’ becomes a sentence without reason.
2. Defining the avaivartika ground and the ground of purifying the Buddha-path. What ground comes after one has passed beyond the two grounds of the two vehicles? The treatise-author gives the definition: 「若過是二地，知諸法不生不滅，即是阿毘跋致地。」 tr. "If one passes beyond these two grounds and knows that dharmas neither arise nor cease, that is the avaivartika ground." Non-retrogression is not standing on a height and no longer slipping back; it is seeing clearly that dharmas neither arise nor cease, and having nothing in this from which to retreat. Abiding in this ground and 「教化眾生、淨佛世界，是為能淨佛道」 tr. "teaching and transforming beings and purifying a buddha-world—this is being able to purify the Buddha-path." The treatise-author adds a further line of explanation: the bodhisattva, abiding in the three gates of liberation, contemplates the four truths, and knowing the four truths to be the Dharma of the two vehicles, he 「直過四諦，入一諦」 tr. "passes straight beyond the four truths and enters the one truth"—this one truth is that all dharmas 「不生不滅、不垢不淨、不來不去」 tr. "neither arise nor cease, are neither stained nor pure, neither come nor go." Entering this one truth is called the ground of non-retrogression. As for the real meaning of ‘the ground of purifying the Buddha-path,’ the treatise speaks of it very concretely: it is 「滅除身、口、意麁惡之業」 tr. "extinguishing the coarse and evil actions of body, speech, and mind," and extinguishing as well whatever has been lost and ruined among dharmas from the beginning. It is plain that purifying the Buddha-path is not setting up some separate realm of adornment, but removing entirely both the coarse evil of the three kinds of action and what has been lost since beginningless time.
3. With his outflows and fetters not yet exhausted, how can the bodhisattva be a field of merit for the two vehicles? Śāriputra turns to ask about a close-pressing difficulty: the bodhisattva’s own outflows and fetters are not yet exhausted—abiding in what merit is he able, of all things, to be a field of merit for śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas and to receive their offerings? The Buddha answers: the bodhisattva, 「從初發意行六波羅蜜，乃至坐道場」 tr. "from his first arousing of the intention practising the six perfections, up to sitting at the seat of awakening," is throughout this interval constantly a field of merit for the two vehicles. The treatise-author points out the crux—in the matter of the three gates of liberation and heading toward nirvāṇa, the bodhisattva and the two vehicles look the same, and yet 「菩薩有大慈悲，聲聞、辟支佛無」 tr. "the bodhisattva has great kindness and compassion; the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha do not"; the bodhisattva, from the first arousing of the mind, practises the six perfections up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, aiming to carry all beings across and to be complete in all buddha-dharmas; it is precisely because of this great kindness and compassion and this great vow that he is fit to be a field of merit for the two vehicles whose outflows are exhausted. The superiority of a field of merit lies in compassion and vow, not in whether or not the outflows are exhausted.
4. All wholesome dharmas appear in the world because of the bodhisattva; noble clans and the various bodies he takes on. The Buddha extends the benefit of the bodhisattva still further—「以有菩薩摩訶薩因緣故」 tr. "because there are the causes and conditions of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva," the wholesome dharmas of the world arise. The treatise-author explains it in two layers. The former layer is ‘inner benefit’—because the bodhisattva diligently practises the many practices, he can be a field of merit; this layer is ‘outer benefit’—because of the bodhisattva the world has all wholesome dharmas at all. Why credit the bodhisattva alone? Because even the wholesome dharmas that exist by relying on śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas all exist through the bodhisattva: if the bodhisattva did not arouse the mind, the world would not have even the Buddha-path, let alone the two vehicles; and the Buddha-path is precisely the root of the two vehicles. The sūtra then lists a long series of wholesome dharmas—the ten wholesome courses of action, the five precepts, the eightfold fast, the four meditations, the four immeasurables, the four formless attainments, the four foundations of mindfulness up to the limbs of the noble eightfold path; again, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the ten powers of the Buddha up to the omniscience of all kinds; again, the noble clans of the kṣatriyas, the brahmins, and the householders, up to the Heaven of Neither Perception nor Non-perception; again, the srota-āpanna up to the Buddha—and says of all of them that they appear in the world because of the bodhisattva. Here someone objects: noble clans would exist naturally even without bodhisattvas—how can it be said that they arise from the bodhisattva? The treatise-author answers solidly: because of the bodhisattva the world has such dharmas as the five precepts, the ten wholesome courses, and the eightfold fast, and these dharmas have three grades, upper, middle, and lower—「上者得道，中者生天，下者為人」 tr. "the upper attain the path, the middle are born in the heavens, the lower become human"; it is precisely because there are these gradations in the recompense they bring about that there are such noble clans as the kṣatriyas, the brahmins, and the householders. The objection comes again: even without bodhisattvas the world would still have these. The treatise-author answers again: the bodies the bodhisattva takes on are of many different kinds—「或時受業因緣身、或受變化身」 tr. "sometimes he takes on a body from the causes and conditions of karma, sometimes he takes on a body of transformation"—and in the world he proclaims wholesome dharmas, the dharmas of the world, the dharmas of kings, the dharmas of worldly custom, up to the various dharmas of household life and of leaving home, pitying beings and protecting and sustaining the world; though what he practises are worldly dharmas, all of these still exist from the bodhisattva. A single sentence gathers it all up: 「世間諸富貴皆從二乘道有，二乘道從佛有，佛因菩薩有。」 tr. "All the wealth and nobility of the world exist from the path of the two vehicles; the path of the two vehicles exists from the Buddha; the Buddha exists because of the bodhisattva." If there were no bodhisattva to teach wholesome dharmas, the world would have no path of gods, no path of humans, no path of asuras, no pleasant feeling, no feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant—「但有苦受，常有地獄啼哭之聲」 tr. "there would be only painful feeling, and always the sound of weeping in the hells." So great is the benefit of the bodhisattva—how could he not be fit to be the world’s field of merit?
5. A rarely seen name: ‘the ruined bodhisattva.’ Here an important teaching that is easily overlooked turns up. Someone objects: the bodhisattva is pure and practises great kindness and compassion—how would he go and teach such mixed worldly dharmas as the laws of kings and penal law? Answer: there are two kinds of bodhisattva. The first 「行慈悲直入菩薩道」 tr. "practises kindness and compassion and enters the bodhisattva path directly"—this is the pure bodhisattva; the second is called 「敗壞菩薩」 tr. "the ruined bodhisattva"—this kind of bodhisattva 「亦有悲心，治以國法，無所貪利」 tr. "also has a compassionate mind; he governs by the law of the state, with no greed for gain"; though he governs the world with punishments and in doing so causes some vexation and harm, yet 「所安者多，治一惡人，以成一家」 tr. "those he brings to peace are many: he punishes one evil person so as to make a household whole." A person who sets up laws and governs the world in this way, though he does not attain the name of pure bodhisattva, still attains the name ‘ruined bodhisattva,’ and all these dharmas of governing the world likewise exist because of him. One must see the treatise-author’s sense of proportion clearly: ‘ruined’ is not a word of degeneration and censure, but a name set up with regard to ‘the contrast with the one who is pure and enters directly’—he benefits the world through worldly dharmas with a compassionate mind and is not greedy for its gain; he is still counted among bodhisattvas, only he does not hold the name of purity. This name lays bare one thing: the bodhisattva path is not a single road; one who with the law of the state stops evil and brings peace to the people, seeking no private gain, is likewise gathered in by the compassionate mind, and must not be dismissed wholesale as having nothing to do with bodhisattvas.
6. The merit of giving was purified and completed from the start; the bodhisattva as the great donor. Śāriputra, hearing that the bodhisattva has such great merit and ought by rights to receive offerings, yet has a thought of doubt arise in his mind: the bodhisattva’s 「煩惱未盡，雖有大福，不能消其供養」 tr. "afflictions are not yet exhausted; though he has great merit, he cannot digest his offerings," just 「如人雖噉好食，以內有病故，不能消化」 tr. "as a person, though he eats good food, cannot digest it because there is sickness within." So he asks the Buddha: has the bodhisattva’s merit of giving already been purified and completed? The Buddha answers that it is not so—「本以淨畢故」 tr. "because it was purified and completed from the start." The treatise-author explains this ‘purified and completed from the start’: from his first arousing of the mind the bodhisattva is 「為一切眾生供養之上首」 tr. "the foremost in the offerings of all beings"; he resolves, for immeasurable beings, to 「代受勤苦」 tr. "bear toil and suffering in their place," so that they attain deliverance, and aims to take up the great power of wisdom of the buddhas, 「能令世間即是涅槃」 tr. "able to make the world itself nirvāṇa"—for these various causes and conditions, his merit of giving was already purified and already completed from the start, and does not wait until today to begin to be pure. Then the sūtra turns in a further layer: the bodhisattva not only causes the world to have wholesome dharmas, but further 「為大施主」 tr. "is a great donor," himself giving wholesome dharmas, and what he gives is 「十善道、五戒乃至十八不共法、一切種智」 tr. "the ten wholesome courses of action, the five precepts, up to the eighteen unshared dharmas and the omniscience of all kinds." The treatise-author points out the difference between before and after: what was said before—‘through the bodhisattva’s causes and conditions the world has wholesome dharmas’—speaks in terms of dependent arising; what is said now—‘the bodhisattva is the master who gives wholesome dharmas’—speaks in terms of the agent: the one is where wholesome dharmas come from, the other is by whom wholesome dharmas are given, and this is where the difference between the two sections lies. This whole section, from the field of merit, the noble clans, and the ruined bodhisattva to the great donor, is answering one and the same question: why is the bodhisattva the root of all the wholesome dharmas and fruits of recompense in the world?
7. The defining sentence: practising in accord with the emptiness of form is itself accord. Only when the whole bodhisattva path above has been laid out in full does Śāriputra ask about the crux: the bodhisattva—「云何習應般若波羅蜜，與般若波羅蜜相應」 tr. "how does he practise in accord with prajñāpāramitā and come to be in accord with prajñāpāramitā?" The treatise-author first finds the root of this question—above it was said that ‘cultivating prajñā for one day surpasses the two vehicles,’ and such great merit all arises from prajñā, so he asks how to practise in accord with it; and again, because prajñā is 「難行難得、如幻如化、難可受持」 tr. "hard to practise and hard to attain, like an illusion, like a conjuration, hard to receive and uphold," he fears that practitioners will go astray and fall into confusion, and so asks the method of practising in accord. The Buddha’s direct answer is decisive: the bodhisattva 「習應色空，是名與般若波羅蜜相應」 tr. "practises in accord with the emptiness of form—this is called being in accord with prajñāpāramitā"; practising in accord with the emptiness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the emptiness of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, the emptiness of forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and dharmas, the emptiness of the eighteen elements, the emptiness of the four truths, the emptiness of the twelve causes and conditions, and so on up to practising in accord with the emptiness of all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas—all are being in accord with prajñā. It is plain that ‘practising in accord with the emptiness of form’ is not an isolated method of contemplation, but the heart-marrow of the whole bodhisattva path that came before—passing beyond the two vehicles, abiding in non-retrogression, being a field of merit, giving wholesome dharmas: the root of all of them lies in this one sentence, ‘practising in accord with the emptiness of dharmas.’
8. Why the treatise spreads out the five aggregates so densely—the finer the spread, the heavier ‘all are empty’ falls. Why does the treatise-author, after the defining sentence, suddenly lay out so long a section distinguishing the five aggregates—how many kinds of form there are, how many kinds of feeling, how perception, constructions, and consciousness are each divided? On the surface it looks like a tedious inventory of dharma-characteristics, yet its intent lies precisely on the opposite side. The treatise-author first spreads the five aggregates out exhaustively; the finer and denser the spread, the greater the force with which the later sentence, ‘now the five aggregates and all dharmas are empty,’ falls. This is not the trick of first setting up and then breaking down; it is to make people understand that what is said to be empty is precisely these five aggregates, so rich and so distinctly clear, and not something already blurred and indistinct, which might as well be there or not. Emptiness is not because form is thin to begin with and easy to empty away; it is that even form so distinct, when its self-nature is sought, is still ultimately unfindable. The three sections below (form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; and the general meaning of the five aggregates) are the detailed items of this spreading-out, and in reading them one must remember: each layer of classification is not classifying for classification’s sake, but lays in its full weight in advance for that final sentence, ‘all are empty.’
9. The aggregate of form: from the visible and resistant to moving form, shadows and images, and deceptive form. In explaining the aggregate of form, the treatise first sets up a guiding principle: 「色眾者，是可見法」 tr. "the aggregate of form is visible dharmas"; yet because this visible form serves as condition, 「亦有不可見有對」 tr. "there is also the invisible and resistant" form, which, though resistant and invisible, 「亦名為色」 tr. "is also called form." He makes an apt comparison—just as one who has attained the path is called a person of the path, and one who has left home but not yet attained the path 「亦名為道人」 tr. "is also called a person of the path," so the name of form is not limited to what the eye sees. Hence the sūtra says there are three kinds of form: 「有色可見有對，有色不可見有對，有色不可見無對」 tr. "there is form that is visible and resistant, there is form that is invisible and resistant, there is form that is invisible and non-resistant"; it is not only what the eye sees that is form—the ten inner and outer sense-fields that can give rise to the five consciousnesses are all called form. Next the treatise divides form by various numbers: four kinds of form (inner and outer, appropriated and not appropriated), five kinds of form (the five objects), one kind of form (the mark of vexing and breaking: where there is a body there are the sufferings of hunger and thirst, cold and heat, knives and staves, and so on), two kinds of form (the four great elements and what the four great elements produce; inner and outer, appropriated and not appropriated, bound and not bound, and a long series of such pairs), three kinds of form (wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate; of training, beyond training, and neither of training nor beyond training; abandoned by seeing the truths, abandoned by contemplation, and not abandoned), another three kinds (bound to the desire realm, bound to the form realm, and not bound; able to give rise to greed, hatred, and delusion, and able to give rise to the three wholesome roots), again four kinds, again five kinds—the intent of this tax-roll-like string of divisions does not lie in keeping accounts, but in showing the immeasurable differences of form-dharmas, all brought about by causes and conditions, not one having a fixed nature. Most worth savouring among them are the last few kinds of form-mark. 「麁色」 tr. "Coarse form" can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and touched, like earth and stone. 「動色」 tr. "Moving form" is of two kinds: one is movement by beings, the other is movement not by beings—as wind moves water, water moves earth, wind moves trees, and even 「如磁石吸鐵，如真珠、玉、車渠、馬碯夜能自行」 tr. "as a lodestone draws iron, as pearls, jade, giant-clam shell, and agate can move of themselves at night," which the treatise attributes to this: 「皆是眾生先世福德業因緣，不可思議」 tr. "all are the causes and conditions of the karma of merit of beings’ former lives, inconceivable." As for why 「影色、像色」 tr. "shadow-form and image-form" are set up separately, some take shadows and images to be nothing but the blocking of light and its reflection, with no further dharma; the treatise-author refutes this finely: 「如油中見像黑」 tr. "as an image seen in oil is black," then it is not the original colour; in a five-foot blade the face looks broad seen crosswise and long seen lengthwise, then it is not the original face; in a crystal bead the face-images are not one—it is plain that an image is not a return to seeing the original image, but that 「有鏡、有人、有持者、有光明，眾緣和合故有像生」 tr. "there is a mirror, there is a person, there is one who holds it, there is light: because many conditions come together, an image arises"; this is a subtle form that is a dharma in its own right, different from coarse form. Asked again why shadow and image are further distinguished, the treatise answers: 「鏡中像有種種色，影則一色」 tr. "an image in a mirror has various colours; a shadow has one colour"; a shadow appears by blocking light, an image arises from many conditions; though both are subtle form, each differs from the other. Last is 「誑色」 tr. "deceptive form"—「如炎、如幻、如化、如乾闥婆城」 tr. "like a mirage, like an illusion, like a conjuration, like a city of the gandharvas," 「遠誑人眼，近無所有」 tr. "from afar it deceives people’s eyes; up close there is nothing there." This string of shadow, image, and deceptive form is precisely the class among form-dharmas that most seems ‘existent’ yet in fact is most empty; the treatise distinguishes them with special care to make people see clearly that even this form which most deludes the eye arises only from causes and conditions and has no real substance.
10. The aggregate of feeling: mental concomitants born of contact, up to eighteen feelings, thirty-six, and one hundred and eight. For the arising of the aggregate of feeling, the treatise cites the sūtra: 「因眼緣色生眼識，三事和合故生觸」 tr. "dependent on the eye and conditioned by form, eye-consciousness arises; because the three things come together, contact arises"; this contact at once makes three aggregates arise together, 「所謂受、想、行」 tr. "namely feeling, perception, and constructions." Question: eye-consciousness too serves as cause for the three aggregates—why speak of contact alone? Answer: 「眼識少時住，見色便滅」 tr. "eye-consciousness abides for a short time; having seen form it ceases," and right after, mind-consciousness arises and discriminates beautiful and ugly; since eye-consciousness is a remote cause and condition it is not spoken of, and the statement is made solely with regard to contact giving rise to mental-factor dharmas. Asked again: all consciousnesses have contact—why say only that contact gives rise to mental-factor dharmas? The treatise divides mind into two: 「一者、念念生滅心，二者、次第相續心」 tr. "first, mind arising and ceasing moment by moment; second, mind continuing in sequence"; the contact of the continuing mind is coarse and clearly evident, so it is said that mental-factor dharmas arise because of contact, while the contact of the momentary mind is subtle and not evident and so is not spoken of separately. Having fixed where feeling comes from, the treatise then divides the number of feelings grade by grade: one kind (the mark of feeling), two kinds (bodily feeling and mental feeling; inner and outer; coarse and subtle; far and near; pure and impure), three kinds (painful, pleasant, and equanimous; wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate; of training, beyond training, and so on), four kinds (inner and outer, bodily and mental feelings; associated with the four right efforts and the four bases of supernormal power), five kinds (the five faculties of pleasure, pain, sorrow, joy, and equanimity; associated with the five hindrances and the five fetters), six feelings (associated with the six consciousnesses). At this point the treatise turns up a familiar, often-cited dharma-number: mind-consciousness discriminates them into 「十八受」 tr. "eighteen feelings": the eye sees form, thinks and discriminates, and the mind gives rise to joy, to sorrow, to equanimity; in this way the six faculties, facing the six objects, each give rise to joy, sorrow, and equanimity, making eighteen; 「是十八受中有淨、有垢，為三十六」 tr. "within these eighteen feelings there are pure and defiled, making thirty-six"; 「三世各有三十六，為百八」 tr. "each of the three times has thirty-six, making one hundred and eight." This is exactly where the ‘one hundred and eight’ so often spoken of in later ages comes from. The treatise lists this string of divisions from one to one hundred and eight not to make people memorise numbers, but to spread the aggregate of feeling out to the utmost, so as to set it against ‘the emptiness of feeling’—the marks of feeling are so dense, and yet its self-nature is still unfindable.
11. Four perceptions in the aggregate of perception, three constructions in the aggregate of constructions, and consciousness arising in dependence on mind in the aggregate of consciousness. Of the three aggregates of perception, constructions, and consciousness, the treatise says 「亦如是分別」 tr. "they too are distinguished in this way," because they are associated with the aggregate of feeling. Of the aggregate of perception, the Buddha says there are four kinds: 「有小想、大想、無量想、無所有想」 tr. "there is small perception, great perception, immeasurable perception, and the perception of nothingness": speaking in terms of realm-binding, perception bound to the desire realm is called small, perception bound to the form realm is called great, perception bound to the three formless heavens is called immeasurable, and perception bound to the sphere of nothingness is called the perception of nothingness; speaking in terms of defiled and pure, perception associated with afflictions is called small perception, perception with outflows but without defilement is called great perception, the perception of the real mark of dharmas is called the perception of nothingness, and perception without outflows is called immeasurable perception. There are also six perceptions, arising in association with eye-contact up to association with mind-contact. In the aggregate of constructions, what most needs clear distinction are the two sets of ‘three constructions,’ which are easily confused. The first set is the three constructions of body, speech, and mind: 「身行」 tr. "bodily construction" is the in-and-out breath, because breath belongs to the body; 「口行」 tr. "verbal construction" is initial and sustained thought, because initial and sustained thought come first and speech after; 「意行」 tr. "mental construction" is feeling and perception, because by feeling pain and pleasure and grasping marks the mind is set in motion—among mental-factor dharmas, what belongs to craving is called feeling and what belongs to views is called perception, and so these two together make mental construction. The second set is the three constructions within the twelve causes and conditions: 「福行」 tr. "meritorious construction" is wholesome karma bound to the desire realm; 「罪行」 tr. "demeritorious construction" is unwholesome karma; 「無動行」 tr. "imperturbable construction" is karma bound to the form and formless realms. This latter set of three constructions is the construction of ‘ignorance conditions constructions’ in the twelve causes and conditions, matched to the wholesome, unwholesome, and imperturbable karma of the three realms; it is an important teaching and must not be confused with the three constructions of body, speech, and mind. Besides this, the Abhidharma sets up a further meaning: apart from feeling and perception, the remaining mental-factor dharmas, together with dharmas dissociated from mind such as the attainment of non-perception and the attainment of cessation, are all together called the aggregate of constructions. As for the aggregate of consciousness, 「內外六入和合故生六覺，名為識」 tr. "because the six inner and outer sense-fields come together, six awarenesses arise; these are called consciousness"; because the conditioning force of the inner faculty on which it depends is great, it is named after the faculty—eye-consciousness up to mind-consciousness. Question: mind just is consciousness—why say ‘mind-consciousness arises by the conditioning force of mind’? The treatise answers: mind is of two kinds, 「一者、念念滅，二者、心次第相續名為一」 tr. "first, ceasing moment by moment; second, mind continuing in sequence, which is called one"; consciousness arises in dependence on this continuing mind, and there is no fault. At the end the treatise points out one crucial sentence—precisely because the meaning that mind-consciousness arises in dependence on mind is hard to understand, 「九十六種外道不說依意故生識，但以依神為本」 tr. "the ninety-six kinds of teachers of the outside paths do not say that consciousness arises in dependence on mind, but take dependence on the soul as the basis," mistaking the continuity of consciousness for a permanently abiding soul-self. This sentence is the eye of the whole section: the sickness of the outside paths lies precisely in fixing consciousness, which continues moment by moment, into a ‘spirit’ that can give rise to consciousness.
12. The five aggregates gathered into the four foundations of mindfulness; the simile of turbid water—mind and mental concomitants neither identical nor separate. The treatise ties the five aggregates back to the framework of practice: these five aggregates are 「四念處中廣說」 tr. "explained at length within the four foundations of mindfulness"—「身念處說色眾，受念處說受眾，心念處說識眾，法念處說想眾、行眾」 tr. "the foundation of mindfulness of the body explains the aggregate of form, the foundation of mindfulness of feeling explains the aggregate of feeling, the foundation of mindfulness of mind explains the aggregate of consciousness, the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas explains the aggregates of perception and constructions." It is plain that distinguishing the five aggregates is not abstruse talk, but precisely the objects contemplated in the four foundations of mindfulness, the contemplation of body, feeling, mind, and dharmas. Next the treatise answers an important difficult question: someone holds that there is no need to set up five aggregates—it is enough to set up only the aggregate of form and the aggregate of consciousness; feeling, perception, and constructions are nothing but other names for consciousness as it discriminates at various times, as impure consciousness is called affliction and pure consciousness is called wholesome dharmas. The treatise-author refutes this most thoroughly, and uses a marvellous simile. He first sets out the principle: 「若名異故實亦異；若無異法，名不應異」 tr. "if the names differ, the realities also differ; if there were no different dharma, the names should not differ"; if there were only mind and no mental dharmas, mind should not be defiled or pure. Then he gives the simile: 「譬如清淨池水，狂象入中，令其混濁；若清水珠入，水即清淨」 tr. "it is like the clear, pure water of a pool: a mad elephant enters it and makes it turbid; if a water-clearing jewel enters, the water becomes clear and pure"—afflictions are like the mad elephant entering the mind and making the mind turbid; wholesome dharmas such as kindness and compassion are like the water-clearing jewel entering the mind and making the mind pure; 「不得言水外無象、無珠」 tr. "one cannot say that outside the water there is no elephant and no jewel." The elephant and the jewel are not the water, yet they can make the water turbid or clear; afflictions and wholesome dharmas are not identical with mind, yet they can make the mind defiled or pure. Therefore one cannot say that dharmas such as afflictions and kindness and compassion are mind itself. This simile speaks precisely of the meaning that mind and mental-factor dharmas are ‘neither identical nor separate’: if mental concomitants were said to be identical with mind, then mind would become turbid and clear of itself without depending on anything outside, which does not hold; if it were said that outside mind there are no mental concomitants, then the elephant and the jewel entering the water and making it turbid or clear would have nothing to rest on. Only if mind and mental concomitants are neither one nor different can the matter of defilement and purity be established, and only then is there a solid necessity for setting up the five aggregates. The treatise blocks one more road: someone raises the objection that ‘a defiled mind is affliction, a pure mind is a good dharma’; the treatise asks in return—if a defiled mind continues, how does a pure mind suddenly arise? if a pure mind continues, how does a defiled mind suddenly arise? It is plain that there must be mental-factor dharmas arising and ceasing upon the mind; one cannot say they do not exist because one does not know the mental concomitants: 「當知必有五眾」 tr. "know that there must be the five aggregates."
13. Why exactly five, neither more nor fewer; why the aggregates, sense-fields, elements, four truths, and twelve causes and conditions are each taught differently. Question: if five aggregates are set up, why are there exactly five, neither more nor fewer? The treatise answers crisply: 「諸法各有定限。如手法五指」 tr. "Dharmas each have their fixed limit, as it is the nature of the hand to have five fingers"; one cannot force them to be more or fewer; and again, 「有為法雖復無量，佛分判為五分則盡」 tr. "though conditioned dharmas are immeasurable, when the Buddha divides them into five parts they are exhausted." Asked again: since there are the five aggregates, why speak further of the twelve sense-fields and the eighteen elements? From this the treatise-author opens out a most important section on method—the Buddha, as Dharma-king, 「或時略說、或時廣說」 tr. "sometimes speaks briefly, sometimes speaks at length," wholly prescribing medicine according to beings’ faculties. For those not much confused about form and consciousness but mostly mistaken about mental concomitants, he teaches the five aggregates; for those not bewildered about mental concomitants but confused only about form, he teaches form as ten sense-fields and mind and mental concomitants together as two sense-fields (making the twelve sense-fields); for those little bewildered about mental concomitants but mostly unclear about form and mind, he teaches mental concomitants as one element and form and mind as seventeen elements (making the eighteen elements); for those who do not know the arising and ceasing of the dharmas of suffering and do not know the path of leaving suffering, he teaches the four truths; for those attached to I and mine who give rise to wrong views of one and different regarding dharmas, he teaches the twelve causes and conditions; for those who cling to the soul as permanent and to dharmas as permanent, he teaches that all conditioned things are made dharmas, with nothing permanent or fixed—「譬如木人，種種機關，木楔和合故能動作，無有實事」 tr. "it is like a wooden puppet: with its various mechanisms and wooden pegs fitted together it can move and act, yet there is nothing real in it." All alike are dharmas—sometimes spread out as the five aggregates, sometimes spread out as sense-fields and elements, sometimes spread out as truths and causes and conditions; it is not that dharmas increase or decrease, only that medicine is given in response to sickness, at greater or lesser length. This section threads together at a single stroke the dividing and combining of the gates of the aggregates, sense-fields, elements, four truths, and twelve causes and conditions; it is a key for reading through all the Dharma-gates of the Abhidharma. As for the order of the five aggregates, the treatise accounts for that too: the practitioner’s setting up of contemplation upon the five aggregates has its order—「先觀麁法，知身不淨」 tr. "first he contemplates coarse dharmas and knows the body to be impure," so the aggregate of form comes first; next he contemplates that the pleasure attached to the body is also impermanent, so feeling comes next; next he grasps marks and becomes attached, so perception comes next; receiving pleasure sets the constructions in motion, so constructions come next; consciousness understands the means of leaving suffering and attaining happiness, so consciousness comes next. 「五欲即是色，色是根本，故初說色眾」 tr. "The five desires are form; form is the root; therefore the aggregate of form is spoken of first," and the rest are named in order after it.
14. The five aggregates are ultimately empty—the Lord of Sages says so, the eighteen emptinesses, the analysis of atoms, the chain of provisional names, the fire of the great kalpa. Only when the five aggregates have been spread out to the end does the treatise-author let fall that sentence: 「今五眾等諸法皆是空。」 tr. "Now the five aggregates and all dharmas are empty." He gives several layers of reasons in succession. First, because the Lord of Sages says so—「聖有三種下、中、上，佛為其主」 tr. "sages are of three kinds, lower, middle, and upper, and the Buddha is their lord," 「如星宿月中，日為其最」 tr. "as among the stars and the moon the sun is supreme"; the Buddha attained all wisdom and is called the Lord of Sages; 「聖主所說故，應當是實」 tr. "because it is what the Lord of Sages says, it must be true." Second, 「以有十八空故一切法空」 tr. "because there are the eighteen emptinesses, all dharmas are empty"; if the emptiness of nature alone, or inner-and-outer emptiness alone, can already empty everything, how much more when all eighteen emptinesses are present. Third, breaking dharmas by dividing them into two classes: form-dharmas are 「分別破裂乃至微塵，分別微塵亦不可得」 tr. "analysed and split down to atoms, and when atoms are analysed they too are unfindable," so that in the end all return to emptiness; formless dharmas are empty because they arise and cease moment by moment. Fourth, the line that most shows workmanship—dharmas are empty in nature, are only names, and exist through the coming together of causes and conditions. The treatise-author takes the atom as the eye of the argument, and strips layer after layer with the chain of provisional names: mountains and rivers, grass and trees, land and people are named ‘a country’; lanes and quarters, markets and streets, huts and halls, palaces and mansions are named ‘a capital’; beams and pillars, rafters and ridgepoles, tiles and bamboo, walls and stones are named ‘a hall’; upper, middle, and lower portions coming together are named ‘a pillar’; piece upon piece coming together is named ‘a portion’; many slips are named ‘a piece’; many particles are named ‘a slip’—every layer is only a provisional name of causes and conditions, and apart from causes and conditions and names there is no dharma. Then he presses the atom one move further: atoms are of three grades, large, middle, and small—「大者，遊塵可見；中者，諸天所見；小者，上聖人天眼所見」 tr. "the large: floating dust that can be seen; the middle: what the gods see; the small: what is seen by the divine eye of the highest sages"—yet contemplated with the wisdom-eye nothing is seen, because their nature is in reality nonexistent; 「若微塵實有即是常，不可分裂」 tr. "if atoms really existed they would be permanent and could not be split"; and further, if it is said that an atom has shape, then it has parts in the ten directions and is not called minute; if it has no shape, it does not amount to form—both roads are exhausted, and so it is known that form has no real substance. Fifth, the treatise-author further sets up ‘two kinds of emptiness’ to prevent people from giving rise to a new attachment upon emptiness: 「一者、說名字空，但破著有而不破空；二者、以空破有，亦無有空。」 tr. "First, the emptiness of names is taught, which only breaks attachment to existence and does not break emptiness; second, existence is broken by means of emptiness, and there is no emptiness either." The former breaks only the clinging to ‘existence,’ and one emptiness still remains; the latter breaks even emptiness. He makes a comparison that shakes the heart—when a small kalpa ends there are still people and things, mountains and rivers; when the great kalpa burns, mountains and rivers, the vajra ground, and the great waters beneath are all exhausted: 「劫火既滅，持水之風亦滅，一切廓然無有遺餘」 tr. "once the kalpa fire has died out, the wind that holds up the water dies out too, and everything is vast and empty with nothing left over"; if ‘emptiness’ only broke dharmas while itself standing lofty and alone, grasped as a mark and clung to, it would still be one more dharma; the true ‘great emptiness’ is 「破一切法，空亦復空」 tr. "breaking all dharmas, emptiness too is empty," as, after the kalpa fire has burned up the myriad things, even the wind that holds up the water dies out along with them. Only this is the meaning of emptiness in this part: not leaving an emptiness there as a place to return to, but not setting up even emptiness. The treatise concludes with a sentence: 「名字與法俱無有異」 tr. "names and dharmas are alike without difference"; if there is not one, there is not many either (the roots, trunk, branches, and leaves of a tree—if there were no dharma ‘tree,’ for whom would they come together?); by such various causes and conditions one knows that dharmas are ultimately empty.
15. Defining practice and accord. Having finished spreading out emptiness, the treatise-author turns back to define the two words ‘practice’ and ‘accord.’ What is called practice is 「隨般若波羅蜜修習行觀，不息不休」 tr. "following prajñāpāramitā, cultivating and practising contemplation, without pause and without rest"—not contemplating once in a while, but contemplation practised continuously without break. As for what is called accord, the treatise makes two comparisons: one is like a disciple who follows his teacher’s instruction and does not go against the teacher’s intent; the other is like 「函、蓋，大小相稱」 tr. "a box and its lid, matched in size"—prajñā has its mark, and the bodhisattva, following this mark, illuminates it with wisdom, able to attain and able to accomplish, and 「不增不減」 tr. "neither increasing nor decreasing," just as a box and its lid match each other exactly in size. Accord has never meant tuning the mind into some special state; it is that what the mind contemplates exactly matches the real mark of dharmas, neither more nor less. The treatise adds one more essential sentence: although prajñā extinguishes all contemplations, yet by the power of wisdom it is 「無所不能、無所不觀」 tr. "capable of everything and contemplating everything," able to know in this way and 「不墮二邊」 tr. "not fall into the two extremes"—only this is being in accord with prajñā. It is plain that ‘extinguishing all contemplations’ is not dull ignorance, but an illumination that does not fall into the two extremes of existence and nonexistence.
16. The seven emptinesses one by one—an upward road from the emptiness of nature to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas. The largest matter in this part is the ‘seven emptinesses’ marked out by the sūtra, which must be explained one emptiness at a time and not passed over in a single phrase. The sūtra says one practises in accord with the seven emptinesses: 「性空、自相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空、無法有法空」 tr. "the emptiness of nature, the emptiness of specific marks, the emptiness of all dharmas, the emptiness of the unfindable, the emptiness of non-existent dharmas, the emptiness of existent dharmas, and the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas." Someone first asks: why not speak of the eighteen emptinesses—why speak only of seven? The treatise answers: spoken at length they are eighteen, spoken briefly they are seven, just as the dharmas that aid the path, spoken at length, are the thirty-seven limbs, and spoken briefly are the seven limbs of awakening; moreover, the seven emptinesses are 「多用利益眾生」 tr. "mostly used to benefit beings," as great emptiness and beginningless emptiness were set up precisely to counter certain kinds of wrong view. Now emptiness by emptiness. First, 「性空」 tr. "the emptiness of nature"—「一切諸法性本末尚自空，何況現在」 tr. "the nature of all dharmas, root and branch, is empty of itself even so—how much more the present"; if even causes and conditions are empty, how much more the fruit of recompense; first one sees emptiness in the fundamental nature of dharmas. Second, 「自相空」 tr. "the emptiness of specific marks"—「諸法總相、別相盡觀其空，心則遠離」 tr. "the general marks and particular marks of dharmas are all contemplated as empty, and the mind then draws far away from them"; not only are the general marks held in common empty, the particular specific marks of each dharma are empty too, and when contemplation is complete the mind leaves all dharmas. Third, 「諸法空」 tr. "the emptiness of all dharmas"—「用是二空，諸法皆空」 tr. "by these two emptinesses, all dharmas are empty"; combining the two, the emptiness of nature and the emptiness of specific marks, there is no dharma that is not empty—this is the emptiness of all dharmas. Fourth, 「不可得空」 tr. "the emptiness of the unfindable"—because of the emptiness of nature there is the emptiness of marks; because the marks are empty, all dharmas are empty; because all dharmas are empty, there is nothing further to be obtained; since dharmas are empty, not one dharma among them can be obtained, and this is called the emptiness of the unfindable. The first four emptinesses are one line of breaking existence: the emptiness of nature breaks its nature, the emptiness of specific marks breaks its marks, the emptiness of all dharmas breaks all dharmas at once, the emptiness of the unfindable breaks what is obtained. The fifth and sixth emptinesses are a pair of medicines against the practitioner who, after breaking existence, turns to attach to nonexistence and then again to existence. Fifth, 「無法空」 tr. "the emptiness of non-existent dharmas"—having broken all existent dharmas with the first four emptinesses, the practitioner’s 「心則離有而存於無」 tr. "mind then leaves existence and holds on to nonexistence," and so even this ‘nonexistence’ that is held on to is broken: 「若以有法、有相為過者，取於無法」 tr. "if one takes existent dharmas and existent marks to be a fault, one grasps at non-existent dharmas," and therefore the emptiness of non-existent dharmas is taught. The sixth, which comes before the seventh, 「有法空」 tr. "the emptiness of existent dharmas"—if the practitioner again takes ‘non-existent dharmas’ to be wrong and, the mind having nothing to rest on, turns back wishing to hold on to existence, then ‘the emptiness of existent dharmas’ is taught briefly to break this mind that turns back to hold on to existence; because the mind that holds on to existence is already thin, it is taught briefly. Seventh, 「無法有法空」 tr. "the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas"—when the practitioner takes the emptiness of non-existent dharmas to be wrong, his mind again doubts existence; if he contemplates existence, he again doubts non-existent dharmas; and so 「有、無俱觀其空，如內外空觀」 tr. "existence and nonexistence are both contemplated as empty, like the contemplation of inner-and-outer emptiness," and the two extremes of existence and nonexistence are emptied at once. 「以是故但說七空。」 tr. "For this reason only seven emptinesses are taught." In reading these seven emptinesses, one must see that they are an upward road: first breaking the nature and marks of dharmas (the first three), then dismissing what is obtained (the fourth), then breaking attachment to nonexistence (the fifth), breaking the turning back to attach to existence (the sixth), and finally dismissing both existence and nonexistence (the seventh)—the seven emptinesses are not seven separate realms of emptiness, but seven names set up for one and the same ‘emptiness’ according to where the practitioner is attached. Wherever the practitioner is attached, there emptiness breaks.
17. Since accord is spoken of, why is it also said ‘not seeing accord, not seeing non-accord’; not seeing arising and ceasing, defilement and purity. Having spoken of the seven emptinesses, the sūtra immediately turns up a statement that seems self-contradictory: when the bodhisattva practises in accord with the seven emptinesses, he 「不見色若相應若不相應」 tr. "does not see form as either in accord or not in accord," does not see the mark of arising or the mark of ceasing, the mark of defilement or the mark of purity, and so on up to not seeing prajñā as either in accord or not in accord. Someone raises a challenge on precisely this point: you say ‘contemplating in this way is called accord, not contemplating in this way is called non-accord’—this distinguishing of right and wrong 「即亦是觀」 tr. "is itself also a contemplation"—how can it count as extinguishing all contemplations? This question is very sharp—once a mark of accord is set up, one falls again into one more grasping of marks; how can it count as extinguishing all contemplations? The sūtra answers with ‘not seeing accord or non-accord’: when one truly arrives at accord, not even the mark of ‘accord’ is set up; as soon as there is the discrimination ‘this way counts as accord, that way is non-accord,’ that discrimination itself becomes a new grasping of marks, a new idle discourse. As for ‘not seeing arising and ceasing, not seeing defilement and purity,’ the treatise speaks of it pointedly. Not seeing the marks of arising and ceasing—if the five aggregates really had arising and ceasing, one 「即墮斷滅中」 tr. "would at once fall into annihilation"; falling into annihilation, there would be no offence and no merit, and with no offence and no merit one would be 「與禽獸無異」 tr. "no different from birds and beasts." Not seeing the marks of defilement and purity—if the five aggregates were of a bound nature, then 「無有得解脫者」 tr. "there would be no one who attains liberation"; if the five aggregates were of a pure nature, then 「無有學道法」 tr. "there would be no dharma of training in the path." It is plain that ‘not seeing’ is not wiping out arising and ceasing, defilement and purity, but precisely not clinging to arising and ceasing, defilement and purity as fixed marks of the five aggregates; otherwise one falls onto the dead-end road of annihilation or of no cultivation and no realisation.
18. Dharmas do not combine, because their nature is empty; form is emptiness, and emptiness is not the destruction of form. The most important step in this part is to rescue emptiness from the hands of ‘destroying dharmas.’ The sūtra first says that form does not combine with feeling and feeling does not combine with perception—why? 「無有法與法合者，其性空故」 tr. "There is no dharma that combines with a dharma, because their nature is empty." The treatise explains: 「心、心數法無形」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas have no shape"; having no shape, they have no place of abiding, and so form does not combine with feeling; just as form produced by the four great elements has the coming together of two tangibles, whereas among mind and mental-factor dharmas there is no tangible, so they cannot come together. Question: why is it said that feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness do not combine together? The treatise answers—the Buddha himself says 「一切法性常空故」 tr. "because the nature of all dharmas is always empty," not one dharma combines with another; and 「若無法與法合，亦無有離」 tr. "if no dharma combines with a dharma, there is no separating either"—since combining does not come about, separating is not established either. Next the sūtra says 「色空中無有色」 tr. "in the emptiness of form there is no form," and the treatise at once presses the question: does this mean that when emptiness comes it destroys form? He answers in two layers. One layer speaks accommodatingly: 「色與空相違。若空來則滅色」 tr. "Form and emptiness oppose each other; if emptiness comes, it destroys form," as 「水中無火，火中無水，性相違故」 tr. "in water there is no fire, in fire there is no water, because their natures oppose each other"; and again, as some hold that form is not really empty, and that only on entering the emptiness samādhi is form seen to be empty—this is only a way of speaking as a remedy. The true establishment of the meaning lies in the sentence that follows: 「非色異空，非空異色，色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form; form is emptiness, emptiness is form." The treatise explains it with great precision: if the five aggregates and emptiness were two things, then the five aggregates ought instead to be hidden within emptiness; precisely because 「五眾不異空、空不異五眾，五眾即是空、空即是五眾」 tr. "the five aggregates are not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from the five aggregates; the five aggregates are emptiness, emptiness is the five aggregates," therefore 「空不破五眾」 tr. "emptiness does not break the five aggregates." Here lies hidden the pivot of the whole chapter. What was said before—‘in the emptiness of form there is no form’—does not mean that emptiness drives form away, but that the own-mark of form is from the start unfindable, and so it is said to be absent—「五眾各各自相不可得故」 tr. "because the own-mark of each of the five aggregates is unfindable." Emptiness and form are not before and after, not what destroys and what is destroyed; they are two sides of one and the same matter: because form is empty there is no mark of vexing and breaking; because feeling is empty there is no mark of feeling; because perception is empty there is no mark of knowing; because constructions are empty there is no mark of making; because consciousness is empty there is no mark of awareness—each is said to be ‘absent’ in terms of its own-mark being unfindable. The sūtra pushes this meaning further, to its limit: 「是諸法空相，不生不滅、不垢不淨、不增不減」 tr. "this mark of emptiness of dharmas neither arises nor ceases, is neither stained nor pure, neither increases nor decreases"; it is neither past nor future nor present, and therefore in emptiness there are no five aggregates, no twelve sense-fields and eighteen elements, no twelve causes and conditions, no four truths, no knowledge and no attainment, and even 「無佛、亦無佛道」 tr. "no Buddha, and no Buddha-path either." The treatise-author adds one more cut, fearing that people will take emptiness as an effect produced by cultivating a samādhi—some 「雖復習空，而想空中猶有諸法」 tr. "though they practise emptiness, still imagine that within emptiness there are dharmas," as one who practises kindness, though there are no beings, imagines beings attaining happiness; therefore the Buddha says 「諸法性常自空，非空三昧故令法空」 tr. "the nature of dharmas is always empty of itself; it is not because of the emptiness samādhi that dharmas are made empty," 「如水冷相，火令其熱」 tr. "as with the cold mark of water: fire makes it hot": water is cold of itself, it is not fire that makes it cold; dharmas are empty of themselves, it is not the emptiness samādhi that makes them empty. If it were said that the emptiness samādhi makes dharmas empty, then emptiness would become something added from outside, which may or may not be cultivated, and form would become something originally not empty that is contemplated into emptiness—this is exactly the dividing line that this part holds to and will not let go. At the end the sūtra also points out the meaning of the two words ‘knowledge’ and ‘attainment’: 「智」 tr. "knowledge" is the eight knowledges without outflows; 「得」 tr. "attainment" is first attaining the noble path, the fruit of srota-āpanna, up to the Buddha-path—all of which have already been explained at length before.
19. Not seeing prajñā as in accord or not in accord, up to the omniscience of all kinds; emptiness does not combine with emptiness; repeating is no fault. Precisely because emptiness is not the destruction of form, practising in accord comes to rest in a singular posture—not seeing accord, not seeing non-accord. The sūtra lays it out all the way down: the bodhisattva practising prajñā 「不見般若波羅蜜若相應若不相應」 tr. "does not see prajñāpāramitā as either in accord or not in accord," does not see the five perfections, the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields and eighteen elements, the four foundations of mindfulness, up to the omniscience of all kinds as either in accord or not in accord. The treatise explains: the bodhisattva enters prajñā and attains the real mark of dharmas; of prajñā itself he still 「不見定相」 tr. "does not see a fixed mark," how much less does he see other dharmas; what is called not seeing is not setting up the judgement ‘practising in this way is according with prajñā, not practising in this way is not according with prajñā.’ He lays this judgement out layer by layer: 「如常、樂、我行，不應般若波羅蜜；無常、苦、無我行，為應般若波羅蜜」 tr. "for example, practising in terms of permanence, pleasure, and self does not accord with prajñāpāramitā; practising in terms of impermanence, suffering, and non-self accords with prajñāpāramitā"; in terms of the real it does not accord, in terms of emptiness it accords; in terms of existence and nonexistence it does not accord, in terms of neither existence nor nonexistence it accords—and in the end even these layer upon layer of ‘according’ must be let go, because 「般若波羅蜜相畢竟清淨故」 tr. "the mark of prajñāpāramitā is ultimately pure." Question: that prajñā is ultimately pure makes sense—how are dharmas such as the five perfections also pure? The treatise answers: 「五事離般若波羅蜜不名波羅蜜」 tr. "the five things, apart from prajñāpāramitā, are not called pāramitā"; it is only by coming together with prajñā that they are called pāramitā, as was said in the first chapter: ‘what is called giving? not seeing a giver, not seeing a receiver, because there is no property’; the five aggregates and all dharmas are the places the bodhisattva contemplates, and because they come together with prajñā and are ultimately pure, he does not see accord or non-accord. Someone further asks: the bodhisattva is not of the two vehicles—why does he have the thirty-seven limbs? He has not yet become a buddha—why does he have the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses? The treatise answers: the bodhisattva 「亦觀聲聞、辟支佛法」 tr. "also contemplates the dharmas of the śrāvakas and the pratyekabuddhas" and carries beings across by their paths, or practises them without taking realisation (「今是觀時，非是證時」 tr. "now is the time for contemplating, not the time for realising"), or those who have newly aroused the intention recite, recollect, and discriminate them; so it is said that the bodhisattva has the thirty-seven limbs; and it is the same with the ten powers and the rest: the bodhisattva’s recollecting, imagining, and discriminating the Buddha’s ten powers and four fearlessnesses is also ‘his own share,’ and cultivating them for immeasurable kalpas, sitting beneath the Buddha-tree he attains unobstructed liberation and they increase in purity—「譬如勳勞既立，然後受其功賞」 tr. "just as, once meritorious service has been rendered, one then receives its reward." The sūtra further says ‘emptiness does not combine with emptiness, the signless does not combine with the signless, non-action does not combine with non-action.’ The treatise divides emptiness into two: 「一者、空三昧，二者、法空」 tr. "first, the emptiness samādhi; second, the emptiness of dharmas"; the emptiness samādhi does not combine with the emptiness of dharmas, because if by the power of the emptiness samādhi one went to combine with the emptiness of dharmas, then 「是法非自性空」 tr. "this dharma would not be empty by its own nature"—the emptiness of dharmas is empty by its very nature and is not born from causes and conditions; if one sees emptiness on entering concentration and does not see emptiness on leaving concentration, 「當知是虛妄」 tr. "know that this is false." Last, the treatise answers a comprehensive difficult question: since it would be enough to have said ‘not seeing accord or non-accord’ once in one place, why repeat it everywhere? The treatise answers thoroughly: this is not repetition, but 「諸法相雖不可說，佛以大慈大悲故種種方便說」 tr. "though the marks of dharmas cannot be spoken, the Buddha, out of great kindness and great compassion, speaks of them by various skilful means"—to cut off the fetters abandoned by seeing the truths, to cut off the fetters abandoned by contemplation, for the sharp and for the dull, each teaching has its purpose; moreover, 「鈍根者，少智為其重說」 tr. "for those of dull faculties, with little wisdom, it is repeated for them," while those of sharp faculties awaken at a single telling—「譬如駛馬，下一鞭便走；駑馬，多鞭乃去」 tr. "just as a swift horse runs at a single stroke of the whip, while a nag goes only after many strokes"—and so 「經中重說無咎」 tr. "repetition in the sūtra is no fault."
20. Entering the emptiness of specific marks: form does not combine with the three times. This part closes on ‘form does not combine with the three times,’ carrying the meaning of emptiness from the characteristics of dharmas out to time. The sūtra says that the bodhisattva enters the emptiness of the specific marks of dharmas: form neither makes combination nor makes non-combination; 「色不與前際合」 tr. "form does not combine with the prior limit," 「不與後際合」 tr. "does not combine with the later limit," 「不與現在合」 tr. "does not combine with the present." The treatise first defines ‘combining’ and ‘not combining’: 「合」 tr. "combining" is dharmas being as their marks are—「如地堅相，識知相」 tr. "as earth has the mark of solidity, consciousness the mark of knowing"—the own-mark not lying upon a different dharma: this is called combining; 「不合」 tr. "not combining" is the own-mark not lying within its own dharma. Then, speaking of the three times: 「前際空無所有，但有名字」 tr. "the prior limit is empty, with nothing there; there is only a name"; if form enters the past it ceases and there is nothing, so with what would it combine with the prior limit? The later limit is not yet existent and not yet arisen, with nothing to combine with; present form 「生滅不住」 tr. "arises and ceases without abiding," and so no mark can be grasped of it, and there is nothing to combine with either. The treatise further breaks the view that takes the three times as really existent: some say that dharmas of the three times all exist, the future turning into the present and the present turning into the past—「如泥揣現在，瓶為未來」 tr. "as when the lump of clay is present, the pot is future"; when the pot is made, the pot is present and the lump of clay is past, and when the pot breaks it is future—「若有三世相，是事不然，以多過故」 tr. "if there were marks of the three times, this would not be so, because of its many faults." The bodhisattva does not make this kind of combination, because 「過去已滅，云何能為因、能為緣？未來未有，云何為因緣？現在乃至一念中不住，云何為因緣」 tr. "the past has already ceased—how can it be a cause, be a condition? The future does not yet exist—how can it be cause and condition? The present does not abide even for a single moment—how can it be cause and condition?" At the end the Buddha himself states the reason in a single sentence that gathers it all in: 「三世及名字空故，云何言合」 tr. "because the three times and names are empty, how can one speak of combining?" And so time too is gathered into ultimate emptiness. Practising in accord with the emptiness of form is here brought to completion—not only is form empty, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness empty, all dharmas empty, but even the three times that carry all of this are called empty; and all this emptiness, once again, is not smashing time and dharmas, but only seeing clearly that from beginning to end they are only causes and conditions and names, with no self-nature to be obtained.
Do Not Misread
Do not read ‘practising in accord with the emptiness of form’ as loathing form and entering emptiness. This is exactly the move this part guards against at every turn. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form—this says precisely that there is no need to leave form to seek emptiness elsewhere, and that there is no emptiness to be entered either. Whoever reads it as destroying the myriad dharmas before one’s eyes and hiding away in a realm of emptiness falls right into the pit that the treatise-author sets out to break with the sentence ‘in the emptiness of form there is no form, yet it is not other than emptiness.’
Do not read the bodhisattva’s abiding in the three gates of liberation without entering nirvāṇa as a sentence without reason. The simile of the arrows of skilful means, ‘shooting upward into the sky, arrow propping arrow,’ is set up precisely for this: the earlier arrow is the wisdom that enters emptiness, the later arrow is the skilful means that does not abandon beings; the later arrow props up the earlier, and so though he sees nirvāṇa he does not fall. The crux lies only in 「今是觀時，非是證時」 tr. "now is the time for contemplating, not the time for realising"—entering one and the same emptiness, to realise is to fall into the two vehicles, to contemplate is to pass beyond the two vehicles; the difference lies only in realising or not realising.
Do not read ‘the ruined bodhisattva’ as a word of censure or degeneration. The treatise sets up this name with regard to ‘the contrast with the one who is pure and enters directly’—one who governs the world with the law of the state, stopping evil and bringing peace to the people without greed for gain, still has a compassionate mind and is still counted among bodhisattvas; only he does not hold the name of purity. To read it as an insult is to lose the treatise-author’s original intent, that ‘the bodhisattva path is not a single road.’
Do not read that long series of fine divisions of the five aggregates as a pointless ledger of dharma-characteristics. Eighteen feelings, thirty-six, one hundred and eight; the three constructions of body, speech, and mind, the three constructions of merit, demerit, and the imperturbable; four perceptions, six perceptions—the denser the treatise spreads them, the heavier, by contrast, ‘all are empty’ falls: what is said to be empty is precisely these five aggregates so distinctly clear, not something blurred from the start, which might as well be there or not.
Do not read the ‘seven emptinesses’ as seven separate realms of emptiness, as though one had to cultivate one’s way into them one by one. The seven emptinesses are seven names set up for one and the same emptiness according to where the practitioner is attached—attached to nature or to marks, the emptiness of nature and the emptiness of specific marks break it; attached to what is obtained, the emptiness of the unfindable breaks it; breaking existence and turning to attach to nonexistence, the emptiness of non-existent dharmas breaks it; attached to nonexistence and turning back to hold on to existence, the emptiness of existent dharmas breaks it; and at the last, dismissing both existence and nonexistence is the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas. Wherever the practitioner is attached, there emptiness breaks.
Do not read ‘not seeing accord or non-accord’ as some lofty indeterminacy or non-discrimination, as though thinking of nothing at all were accord. The treatise says plainly that it is no longer grasping even the mark of accord, not dispensing even with the discriminating wisdom of good and evil, right and wrong—the whole preceding section on the dharma-characteristics of the five aggregates is precisely where this wisdom is at its finest. Without the work of this discrimination, so-called not seeing accord is only vagueness.
Still less take emptiness as an effect produced by cultivating a samādhi. 「諸法性常自空，非空三昧故令法空」 tr. "the nature of dharmas is always empty of itself; it is not because of the emptiness samādhi that dharmas are made empty"—as water is cold of itself and it is not fire that makes it cold. If emptiness were produced by cultivation, form would be originally existent; if form were originally existent, practising in accord would become a device for suppressing existence with emptiness, rather than seeing the real mark clearly. Finally, do not think that calling the three times empty denies time—what is denied is only the clinging to the three times as really existent and combining with one another, not the present appearance of this continuing arising and ceasing.
Bearing on Practice
This part can be used as a ruler for calibrating the contemplation of mind. When cultivating the contemplation of emptiness, one can ask oneself: am I smashing all these dharmas before my eyes one by one and trading them for a realm of emptiness to settle in, or am I, right upon this distinctly clear form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, seeing that they are of themselves unfindable? If the former, that is destroying existence with emptiness, which the treatise-author long ago marked as a sickness; only if the latter is it form is emptiness.
The simile of the arrows of skilful means can serve still more as a close reminder for contemplative practice. When in one’s effort one sees a measure of stillness and tastes a measure of nirvāṇa, that is just the time to shine ‘now is the time for contemplating, not the time for realising’ back upon oneself—this is clearly a realm to be contemplated, not a place to settle down and take realisation; without the later arrow of not abandoning beings to prop it up, the moment the earlier arrow slackens one falls. Seeing nirvāṇa and passing straight through without stopping is a most important sense of proportion that this part leaves to practitioners.
The upward road of the seven emptinesses can also be used to check how far one’s own contemplation of emptiness has gone. After breaking the nature and marks of dharmas, has the mind quietly kept back a ‘nonexistence’ to settle in?—that is exactly what the emptiness of non-existent dharmas breaks; after breaking nonexistence, does one turn back wanting to grab a little ‘existence’?—that is what the emptiness of existent dharmas breaks. Following these seven names and shining them back upon oneself, one knows where one’s attachment has settled, and there emptiness ought to break.
Again, ask of the everyday flow of favourable and adverse circumstances: am I taking past regret, future anxiety, and present clinging all as really existent and dragging them into combination with one another? If one can see that the prior limit has ceased, the later limit has not arisen, the present does not abide, and the three times are only causes and conditions and names, then the mind is no longer bound by the flow of time. If these few questions are answered steadily, practising in accord with the emptiness of form is no longer a mere formula, but a real matter, in this very moment of thought, of form and emptiness not being two and of the mind matching the real mark.
Further Resonances
The defining sentence of this part and the sentence ‘form is emptiness, emptiness is form’ were later taken up again and again by ancient masters. One who classified the teachings cited this form-and-emptiness passage of the present chapter to annotate the core of the prajñā teaching running along the line of ‘form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form,’ tying it to the argument that form and emptiness are not two and that emptiness does not screen off existence; another took the pattern of Śāriputra’s questions and answers at the beginning of this chapter to show that ‘practising in accord’ means cultivating in this way so as to come into accord; as for the passages of this part that spread out the five aggregates in fine detail and set up the seven emptinesses one by one, those of old who explained prajñā also often took them as the groundwork for ‘broadly breaking the self-nature of all dharmas.’ These readings each have their own provenance and context; here only their approach is recorded, without judging which is higher. Brought back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a finer classification table of form-dharmas or a tax-roll of feeling, perception, and constructions, nor a set of names for classifying the teachings, but the one sentence this part hammers at again and again—emptiness is not something set up separately after form has been destroyed; emptiness is the real mark of form itself. So-called practising in accord is therefore not training the mind into some realm of emptiness, but letting the wisdom that contemplates match exactly the ultimate emptiness that dharmas originally are, neither increasing nor decreasing. And that long exposition, from the field of merit, the noble clans, and the ruined bodhisattva to the great donor, which looks like a side branch, in fact returns to one and the same meaning: that all the wholesome dharmas of the world can be established rests wholly on this one practice of the bodhisattva, who practises in accord with the emptiness of dharmas and does not abandon beings—emptiness and compassion are at root one matter: empty, so there is nothing to attach to; compassionate, so the world is not abandoned; the two prop each other up, just like those arrows shot upward into the sky. The Remainder, First Part ends with ‘the three times are called empty,’ which pushes this meaning exactly to its limit: even the time that carries form and mind is gathered back into causes and conditions and names, while all that is present still arises and ceases distinctly within causes and conditions, never smashed by emptiness. This is exactly the groundwork for what follows—continuing on form not combining with the three times, up to the statement that among all kinds of accord, accord with emptiness is foremost.
習相應品之餘下Practising in Accord, Part 3 of 3
全文五層 →Full five layers →習相應品之餘下：一切法不與薩婆若合，離有無二見，魔不能壞，空相應終為第一
在問什麼
習相應品前兩分反覆講「習應色空、與般若相應」，講到這第三分，經文忽然換了一個看似相反的說法，一連串地說「不合」——薩婆若不與過去、未來、現在三世合，不與色乃至十八界合，不與六波羅蜜、三十七品合，不與佛十力乃至十八不共法合，甚至連佛不與薩婆若合、菩提不與薩婆若合。前面才苦口婆心地教人相應，這裡怎麼又處處說不相應？這一分真正要回答的，正是這個張力：相應之法，究竟應在什麼上頭相應？若在色上、在善法上、在佛法名相上求一個能與薩婆若「合攏」的東西，那還是取相、還是繫縛；唯有一路「不合」到底，把所有可攀可著之處都空掉，最後翻出來的那一個「空相應」，才是諸相應中的第一。
底下還壓著幾個難處，須一併交代。第一，經既層層說「不合」，論卻在中間插入一長段「不為般若、乃至不為五神通故行般若」——連做功德、發神通都說「不為」，那菩薩到底「為何」而行？第二，經許此菩薩得「常值諸佛、終不離見佛」的果，這分明是果報，何以又說是「相應」？第三，經說「不作是念有法與法若合若不合、若等若不等」，「合」「等」這兩個字究竟指什麼，何以連「合」與「等」都要遮？第四，全品最後歸到「法性」——不疾得法性、不見有法出法性、法性不分別諸法、法性不與空合——這一串「法性五問」層層剝到底，要人於最深處也不立一個「可得的法性」；而其中偏偏又引婆蹉梵志問善惡的公案，說「能如實分別善惡是入法性」，這與前面的「不分別」豈非相違？所以這一分從「不與三世合」起手，中間穿過離有無二見、不為諸法故行、五神通不作念、魔不能壞、常值諸佛、合等不等、法性五問，最後歸結到「空行菩薩不墮二地、空相應勝餘相應」——習相應品全品的實義，就結穴在這裡。
逐段解明
一、不與三世合——真妄不相入，念而不取相。 先看起手一段。經說薩婆若不與過去、未來、現在合，理由只有一句：「三世不可見」。論把這句拆開來看：三世是虛妄的、是生滅之相，薩婆若卻是真實、非生滅；用虛妄去合真實，本不同相。這裡有一句定義須單提出來——「薩婆若是十方三世諸佛真實智慧」，三世是從凡夫虛妄心生的，一真一妄，云何相合？論就此立一喻：「譬如真金不與弊鐵同相」，破鐵再多也比不上真金，虛妄的時間相再密，也攀不上真實的一切智。難處在於，隨喜的時候明明教人「憶念三世諸佛的功德而迴向」，這不就是把心繫在三世的薩婆若上嗎？論的回答是分寸所在：若用著心取相去念，那念就成了摻毒的美食——「初雖香美，後不便身」，不名迴向；不取相而念，則根本無「合」可說。至於自念「我當得薩婆若」，也只是憶想——那事未生、時節未至、因緣未會、都無處所，正如「明當服蘇，今已憶臭」，明天才要服的酥油，今天就先嫌它臭，全是虛構。論又補一則反例警之：像迦栴延弟子那樣，說「未來的菩提會對菩薩說：你若修好相好身，我就來安住其中」，如同「貴家女」先遣人告訴貧家子「你好好莊嚴房舍，我要來你家」——把還沒有的事講得煞有介事，論斷為「是不如法」。最後有一問收尾：法門那麼多，何以偏就「薩婆若」說不合？答得簡淨——「是薩婆若，菩薩所歸趣，深心欲得」，正因它是菩薩心心念念要得的歸宿，才特於此拈出「莫取相合」，把攀在時間上的期待整個抽空。
二、色乃至佛菩提，層層不合——把名相一一還為因緣假名。 其次是層層鋪開的「不合」。色乃至十二入不合，因為這些只是「事」——論以田喻之，如田「隨種皆生」，善種生善、惡種生惡，田本身垢淨未定，怎能與純是真實的薩婆若合。這裡經只舉五眾、十二入而未舉十八界、十二因緣，論並不含糊帶過：一半是「誦者忘失」的傳本問題，一半有義理——五眾等是「事」、是垢淨不定之田，六波羅蜜乃至一切種智才是「淨種」，此菩薩結使已薄、但集功德，所以不就垢邊說。六波羅蜜則有「世間、出世間」之別：世間的、漏結未盡的不合，出世間的本應合而菩薩未證故亦說不合，何況「六波羅蜜空，尚不可見，何況與薩婆若合」。三十七品也分兩路：一路「趣涅槃道」偏屬二乘，菩薩為佛道故不合；有人問〈摩訶衍品〉裡三十七品也是菩薩道何以不合，論答——有菩薩「以著心故」行三十七品、多迴向涅槃，就這一類人說不合。連佛十力乃至十八不共法也一併遮：論把十力判成三種——「菩薩所行」漸修未圓的、「佛所得而菩薩憶想分別求之」的、「佛心所得」的；上二種菩薩未證不應合，下一種雖可合而菩薩未得亦不合。最險的一問在此翻出：佛與菩提總該與薩婆若合了吧？論答得極利落——佛是人、薩婆若是法，人是假名、法是因緣，「得薩婆若故名為佛」，二者是和合而生、不得分先後，「離佛無薩婆若，離薩婆若無佛」；菩提是十力之智，薩婆若是第十一「如實智」，兩種智不在一心中同生。更進一層：十力等佛法及此「菩提」，在菩薩份上都還只是「憶想分別非實」，「唯佛所得薩婆若是實」，這心中虛妄未實的菩提，如何與真實的薩婆若合？經末更自下一轉語：「佛即是薩婆若，薩婆若即是佛；菩提即是薩婆若，薩婆若即是菩提」——先說不合、再說即是，正是要人於「不合」處識得「無二」，把每一個可能被當作「實有可合之物」的名相，一一還原為因緣假名。
三、離有無二見，行中道——連能破的「無常」也不許執。 轉入離二見一段，是這一分義理的樞紐。經說不習色有、不習色無，乃至常無常、苦樂、我非我、寂滅非寂滅、空非空、有相無相、有作無作，八對俱不習，連「我行般若、不行、非行非不行」也不作念。論點明：世間一切執著不出有、無二見——「順生死流者多著有，逆生死流者多著無」，我見多的著有、邪見多的著無。論更細分這著見的種種來路：四見多者著有、邪見多者著無，貪瞋二毒多者著有、無明多者著無，「不知五眾因緣集生」則著有、「不知集者」則著無，近惡知識、讀邪見外書而墮斷滅無罪福者著無；乃至有人謂「一切皆空」而心著此空，反成「無見」，有人謂「六根所知法皆有」而成「有見」，總歸「愛多者著有見，見多者著無見」。這兩種見都破壞中道，如人行狹道，一邊深水一邊大火，「二邊俱死」。論再用一串因緣拆二見之虛妄：若諸法定實有則無因緣可說，若從因緣和合生則無自性、無自性即是空；若說「無法是實」（一切都無），則無罪福、無縛無解、無諸法差別——可見著有著無兩頭都站不住。論又補兩層過患：有見無見「相違故有是非，是非故共諍，有諍故起結使、生業、開惡道門」，而「實相中無有相違、是非、鬪諍」；且著有者遇無常則生憂惱，著無者作諸罪業則死墮地獄，唯「不著有無者」無此過失。接著別破常見與無常見：若五眾是常則無生滅、無罪福，「世間如涅槃不壞相，如是妄語誰當信」——現見死亡啼哭是眾生無常，草木彫落是外物無常，大劫盡時一切都滅是「大無常」，故常不可得。破常之後隨手補一句「不應以無常為是」：若執念念皆滅，則「六情不能取六塵」、內心外塵俱無住、無修習因緣果報，故無常見亦不可得。至於苦樂、我非我、空實、有相無相、有作無作諸對，論說「如先處處說」，是指向前文已釋、此處不重。獨「五眾寂滅」一義是前所未說，論特為點出：五眾「因緣生故無性，無性故寂滅，寂滅故如涅槃」；卻又立四重「不寂滅」以防偏執——三毒熾然故不寂滅、無常火然故不寂滅、不著三毒實相故不寂滅、三毒各各分別相故不寂滅，正反並看，才不落死寂。這就是這一分最要緊的教法：相應不是黏上某一邊，而是離兩邊、行中道，乃至對「行般若」本身也不著——「菩薩不可得，般若不可得故」；連「不行」也不著，因為凡夫本不能如菩薩觀實相，何得言「我不行」；「行、不行」俱不著，二俱是過。
四、不為諸法故行般若——「為何而行」的正解。 經接著說一長串「不為」：不為般若、五波羅蜜，不為阿鞞跋致地、成就眾生、淨佛世界，不為十力四無畏十八不共法，不為內外空等十八空，不為如、法性、實際故行般若——理由是「不壞諸法相故」。有人便問：這些都是佛法，若都「不為」，還「為」什麼而行般若？論分兩路解開：一路是「諸法無有破壞者，不壞諸法相故」，行者不去分別「是檀、是慳，乃至是實際」，所以說「不為」——這是對那些「於善法深心繫著、以繫著故能生罪」的人說的，教他「莫生著，真菩薩不為是故行」；另一路，對「心無所著」的菩薩，經照樣說「為具足六波羅蜜、為教化眾生淨佛世界故行般若」。可見「不為」遮的是「著相而為」，並非叫人一事不辦。這一段正是「為何而行」的正解：不為可著之相，卻仍為利生之事，行而不著，才是這一分「不合」在行門上的落實。
五、五神通段——尚不見般若，何況見神通。 這一段最須補足。經說菩薩「不為如意神通、天耳、他心、宿命、天眼、漏盡」六通故行般若，因為「尚不見般若，何況見菩薩神通」。有人問：禪波羅蜜裡已說過五神通，何以重說？論答：彼處「總相說、不列名字」，此處「別相說」；且五神通是「功德果報」，菩薩得之「廣能利益眾生」，無此則「如鳥無兩翼不能高翔、如健人無器杖而入敵陣」——五通對利生極要，並非可廢。既如此，佛何以又說「莫為五神通故行般若」？論剖出病根：「多有無方便菩薩，得五神通，輕餘菩薩，心生憍高」，佛正為遮此憍高而說；何況「菩薩於般若諸佛之母尚不著，何況五神通」——連生身之母般若都不著，遑論其枝末的神通。經進而具陳其用心：菩薩「不作是念——我以如意神通飛到東方供養恒河沙諸佛」，也不作「我以天耳聞十方佛說法、以他心智知眾生心念、以宿命通知宿命所作、以天眼見死此生彼」之念。論釋其所以能不作此念：因已「拔我見根本、摧破憍慢山、善修三解脫門三三昧」——這裡有一則精要之喻：「佛身雖妙，亦入三解脫門；如熱金丸，雖見色妙，不可手觸」，佛身固然可敬可慕，但一經三解脫門照之，如燒紅的金丸，色相雖美而不可以手去觸、不可以取相心去攀。又「諸法如幻如化，無來無去、無近無遠、無有定相」，如幻化人「誰去誰來」，故不取神通、國土、彼此、遠近之相。末了論不落斷滅：菩薩「在佛前住禪定、變無量身、至十方供養諸佛而無所分別」，正因「已斷法愛」；乃至「變無量身、顯大神力，於十方三惡趣中度無量眾生」。可見「不作念」不是不發神通，是發而不取相、不自高——這正接住第四段「行而不為相」的一路。
六、魔不能壞——五利之根在「於法不著」與「普慈」。 魔不能壞一段，是這一分裡最見果德、也最當緊記的。經說能如是行般若的菩薩得五種利：「惡魔不能得其便、世間眾事所欲隨意、十方諸佛皆悉擁護令不墮聲聞辟支佛地、諸天不令有礙、重罪現世輕受」。論把「魔何以不得便」講得極透：菩薩行「畢竟不可得自相空」，於一切法都不著，「不著故無違錯，無違錯故魔不能得其便」，正如「人身不瘡，雖臥毒屑中毒亦不入」；反過來「若有小瘡則死無疑」。論又補兩層：菩薩「於諸佛中心不著、於諸魔中心不瞋」，故魔無從下手；又「深入忍波羅蜜、慈三昧故，一切外惡不能中傷」，水火刀兵等皆傷他不得。「世間眾事隨意」一句，論落到極平實處：資生所須——「治生諧偶、種蒔果樹、曠路作井、安立客舍」乃至「造立塔寺、作大施、說法教度」，大小諸事皆得如意；所以者何？此菩薩「世世集無量福德智慧」，又「於一切法心不著故結使薄，結使薄故能生深厚善根」，善根厚故所願如意，兼「諸大天敬念讚歎、諸龍鬼助成其事」。「諸佛偏念」一問，論答得最切：不是佛心不平等，而是「法應念是菩薩以勸進餘人」，又「不欲令墮聲聞辟支佛」——「譬如魚子，母念故得生，不念則壞」，菩薩賴佛念而不墮空無相無作之落處；諸天亦「效佛念」而擁護，且因菩薩「都無所著、不樂世樂、但欲教化眾生」而知其尊貴故念。「重罪輕受」一句，論設兩喻：如「重囚應死，有勢力者護則受鞭杖而已」，又如「王子雖作重罪，以輕罰除之」，只因生在王種——菩薩行般若即「入佛種中生」，故重罪現世輕受；又如「鐵器中空故在水能浮，中實則沒」，智慧心虛故不沉重罪，凡人無智故沉沒。而這五利的總根，佛自說是「普慈加眾生」。論會通「般若」與「慈」二說不相違：「能生無量福無過於慈，是慈因般若生」；細判之，「惡魔不得便、諸佛所念、重罪輕受是般若力，世間眾事隨意、諸天擁護是大慈力」；又「緣眾生則是慈、緣法則是行般若」，慈隨順般若教而生，故「說慈無咎」，二者本是一事。
七、常值諸佛——果中說因，念佛不離。 經說此菩薩「疾得諸陀羅尼門、諸三昧門，在所生處常值諸佛，乃至得菩提終不離見佛」。這一段整段須補教。「疾得」者，論釋為「福德因緣故心柔軟、行深般若故智慧心利」，兼前五功德所助，故能疾得。「所生處常值佛」者，關鍵在「除諸佛母般若之外，其餘一切眾事皆不愛著」——愛著什麼便隨之受生，論列四報以警之：常喜鬪諍者「生還活地獄、復執刀杖共相加害」，婬欲多者「常受胞胎、又作婬鳥」，瞋恚多者「還生毒獸蛇虺」，愚癡多者「如燈蛾赴火、地中隱蟲」；唯獨愛敬佛與實相般若、修念佛三昧者，所生處常得值佛。「終不離見佛」一句，論引一則極具警策的本生：「如毘婆尸佛時，王師婆羅門」雖得見佛及僧，卻「惡口毀呰」，說「此人等如畜生，不別好人，見我不起」——只為這一句惡口，「以是罪故，經九十一劫墮畜生中」——曾親見佛、親見僧，尚因輕慢之口墮落如此之久。可見一世見佛不足恃，惡口輕僧便可長劫失佛；反之，「深念佛、世世善修念佛三昧、作不離佛願、種值佛業緣相續不斷」的人，才真能終不離佛。有人問：常值佛是「果報事」，何以說作「與般若相應」？論答兩義：一是「般若相應故值佛，或時果中說因」——常值佛是果，而其因在般若相應，經於果上說因；二是相應本有二種——「心相應」，及「應菩薩行」（所謂「生好處、值遇諸佛、常聞法、正憶念」）；常值佛正屬後一種相應，故不違「與般若相應」之旨。
八、合等不等段——諸法無少分合，等不等俱不可得。 經說「不作是念：有法與法若合若不合、若等若不等」。這一整段亦須補足。先釋「合」：「一切法無有法與法共合者，諸法無少分合故」，論以二指相拄為喻——「二指有四方，其一方合，三方不合」，不合的方多，何以不叫「不合」？有人反問：既有一處相合，何以說不合？論答得極細：「合處不為指，是指分」，那相觸的一小分只是指的一部分，本身沒有一個獨立的「合法」；「以二指相近故假名為合，更無合法」。又進一解：色香味觸總名為指，其中「但觸有合力，餘三無合」，可見所謂「合」也不是全指在合。再立一則同類不合之理：「異類同處不名為合，相各異故」——地相在地中、水相在水中、火相在火中，「如是性異不名為合」，各守自相，並無一個混融處。再釋「等、不等」：一切法「一相故名等」——皆有相、皆無常相、皆苦相、皆空無我相、皆不生不滅相，就這「事無異」處名為「等」；「各各別相故」名不等——色相對無色相、堅相對濕相，各異不同。而菩薩「不見等與不等」，因為「一切法無、自性空故無法，無法故不可見，不可見故無等不等」——連「等」與「不等」這一對分別也一併遮盡。論末點出此段在全品的位置：「等與合是習相應，不合、不等是不相應」——原來一部習相應品，正繞著「合／不合、等／不等」四字轉，到此把四字一齊掃空，才見「相應」的究竟不在取一個可合可等之相——凡以為「我與某法合、我與某法等」，都還是安一個可攀的界相，唯合等不等俱不可得，才是無相可取的真相應。附帶一問：何以不把「相應」說完再讚歎果報？論答：「聽者厭懈，是故佛讚歎果報功德，令聞者心得悅樂」——是體貼聽者的方便安排。
九、法性五問——層層剝到「無一可得的法性」，而善惡宛然。 全品最後歸到「法性」，一連五問，逐層剝落，須逐問教清。第一問「不疾得法性」：論先立定義——「法性者諸法實相」，「除心中無明諸結使，以清淨實觀得諸法本性，名為法性」；「性名真實」，眾生「邪觀故縛、正觀故解」。既是實相，便「無相、無有遠近」，故不作「我疾得」之念，也不作「我久久當得」之念，因「法性無遲無久」——快慢遠近都是取相，於法性上一概不立。第二問「不見有法出法性」：「無明等煩惱入一切法中故失諸法自性」，自性一失便「邪曲不正」；聖人除卻無明，「諸法實性還得明顯」，論以「陰雲覆虛空清淨性，除陰雲則清淨性現」為喻。若真有一法「無明不入」，那才算出於法性，但「無有法出無明者」，故菩薩不見有法出法性；論更以三喻顯其無可外者——「眾流皆歸於海、粟散小王皆屬轉輪聖王、眾小明皆屬於日」。第三問「不作是念法性分別諸法」：何以不作此念？「為著法性、貴於法性，以是因緣生諸結使」，一旦把法性當作一個高於諸法、能分別諸法的實體去貴重，就又生執著。有人接著追問：法性既「空、一相無相」，又如何分別諸法？論的回答正是本段眼目——得法性、滅無明而「心清淨、智慧明了、知諸法實」之後，「隨法性者為善，不隨法性者為不善」；並引婆蹉梵志公案為證：婆蹉梵志問佛「天地間有善惡好醜不」，佛答「有」，並說「三種惡三種善、十種惡十種善」——「貪欲是惡除貪是善，瞋恚愚癡是惡除恚癡是善，殺生乃至邪見是惡除之是善」，末句尤重：「能如實分別善惡，是我弟子，入於法性，名為得道」。婆蹉本是外道梵志，久已歸命而求佛善說，佛不與他辯空之玄，卻直下指他「除貪、除恚癡、除殺乃至除邪見」即是善——可見入法性之門，正從如實斷惡修善處入，非撇開善惡別覓一玄空。這正解開「在問什麼」裡那一疑：所遮的「分別」是「貴著法性、以法性為能分別之實體」的妄分別，所立的「分別」是證法性後如實知善知惡的正智——空不礙善惡宛然，於畢竟空中善惡因果一絲不亂，這是佛法「不落斷滅」的關鍵教證。第四問「不作是念是法能得法性」：何謂「得法性」？「行八聖道分，得諸法實相所謂涅槃」，是名得法性；然更深一層——「性名諸法實相，法名般若」，般若與諸法性「二法無有異，皆畢竟空故」，既無二，便「云何以般若得達法性」，故不作「我以此法能得法性」之念。第五問「法性不與空合」：菩薩「不觀法性是空、不觀空是法性」，然而「行空得法性、緣法性得空」，二者「畢竟空故無異」——不即不離，故連「法性與空相合」這最後一重也遮去。
十、空相應為第一——結穴所在。 經一路「不合」，到眼界乃至意識界不與空合，忽然收成一句：「是空相應，名為第一相應。」這裡先補「眼界不與空合」的釋文：「眼是有、空是無，空有云何合」；且「散滅是眼，眼則空」，眼空只是「因本故有」的假名，空中並不分別「是眼空、是非眼空」，故眼不與空合；又「空不從眼因緣生」，二法本自空，更無相合之理。經此處只舉十八界不舉五眾，論一如前解：或誦寫忘失，或因「說十八界則攝一切法」，且有眾生「於心色中錯、心法中不錯，應聞十八界得度」。論釋「第一」極重：「空是十方諸佛深奧之藏、唯一涅槃門，更無餘門能破諸邪見戲論」，此相應「不可壞、不可破，故名第一」。緊接的長段經文，把全品義理一齊收攏：空行菩薩「不墮二地、能淨佛土成就眾生、疾得菩提」，於諸相應中「般若相應為最第一、最尊最勝最妙、為無有上」。論在此分判空有二種：「但空墮聲聞辟支佛地，不可得空則無處可墮」；又「無方便空墮二地，有方便空直至菩提」；又「本有深悲心入空則不墮，無大悲心則墮」——三重分判，皆為顯「入空而不墮」的關要在悲心與方便。「能淨佛土」一句，論補一問答：眾生行善則佛土淨，何須別說菩薩淨土？答曰「眾生雖行善，要須菩薩行願、迴向、方便力」乃成，「如牛力挽車，要須御者乃得到所至處」——牛雖有力，無御者則不成，故別說菩薩之功。又釋「空、般若、無相無作三相應有何差別」：立「般若空、非般若空」之分，恐人疑「一切空」而說「般若波羅蜜空」；又恐人疑「但空第一、無相無作非第一」，故說三者皆第一——「空則是無相，無相則是無作，如是為一、名字為別」。「尊、勝、妙」三字，論亦各有落處：「最上故言尊、破有故言勝、得是相應不復樂餘故言最妙」，如「眾生中佛無上、諸法中涅槃無上、有為法中善法習相應為無上」。
十一、「如受記無異」與「利益眾生如地不求報」。 對「如受記無異、若近受記」一句，論下一注腳最須辨清：這菩薩「新行道、肉身、未得無生法忍、未得般舟三昧」，只以智慧力便能「深入空」，佛讚其入空之德，故言「如受記無異」；並判「三種菩薩——得受記者、如受記者、近受記者」，此處說的是後二。有人問：既說第一無上，何以不即與受記？論答「餘功德、方便、禪定等未集，但有智慧」，故未受記；又「雖利根，餘功德未熟，聞現前受記或生憍慢」，所以先讚歎「以勸進其心」；總判之——「利根者行空相應如受記無異，鈍根者行空相應若近受記」。「作益厚（利益眾生）」一句，論亦展開：令眾生「常安隱、得涅槃」是名利益，復有二種（離苦、與樂）、二種（滅身苦、滅心苦）、三種（天樂、人樂、涅槃樂）、三種（離三界、入三乘）。而菩薩雖如此利益無量眾生，卻「無我心、無憍慢、不求功報」——論以「如地雖利物功重，不求其報」為喻，大地荷載萬物、功勞至重而不索一報，菩薩利生亦然，故不作「諸佛當受我記、我當淨佛土得道轉法輪」之念。
十二、眾生四句與「破慳而不破檀」——全品眼目。 末後「眾生」四句尤是全品眼目。論先答一問「何等法出法性」：「行般若者即是菩薩，知者見者即是眾生；法性中眾生變為法性」，既入法性則無一法在外，故菩薩「自不生高心、不從眾生求恩分、不見諸佛與受記」——如菩薩空、佛亦空，如行者空、得菩提者亦空。何以不生眾生相？佛自說因緣：「眾生畢竟不生，不生故不滅；若法不生不滅即是法性相，法性即是般若」，那又「云何般若行般若」——能所俱泯。四句逐字如是解：「不受眾生」，是「不受神（神我），但有虛妄計我」；「眾生空」，是「眾生法無所有」；「眾生不可得」，是「以實智求索不可得」；「眾生離」，是「一切法自相離」（如火離其熱相，一切法各離自相）。菩薩正因深入這眾生空、法空，才「憶本願度眾生」，見眾生「於空事中種種生著」而起大悲——「我雖知是事，餘者不知」，以教化故生大慈大悲。也才在同一個空裡「破慳而不破檀」：初發心菩薩「以六惡雜行故六度不增長」，今知諸法相、拔六惡根本——「知布施為善、慳心不善，能墮餓鬼貧窮」；慳貪之病在「自惜其身、著世間樂」，故「輕物能施、重物不能，外物能、內物不能」，皆因「著我、著受者、取相著財物」而「破檀波羅蜜，雖有所施而不清淨」。菩薩行空相應，「不見我、不見世間樂」，故不生此著。有人問：既不見我不見世樂而不破慳，那也該不見布施，如何行施？論答得妙：「雖不見布施，以清淨空心布施」，作念「是布施空無所有，眾生須故施與」——「如小兒以土為金銀，長者不見是金銀，便隨意與，竟無所與」，小兒把土當金來要，長者明知非金而隨手與之、其實無金可與；餘五度亦然。「雖同空，破慳而不破檀」——同一個空，破掉慳著卻不破壞布施之行，這正是空而不斷、悲智雙運的落處，也是「住是空相應中，能常不生慳、犯戒、瞋、懈怠、亂、無智六惡心」的實義。
不要讀錯
不要把這一分的「不合」讀成否定佛法、否定六度神通。經是先講習應、講相應，才講不合；「不合」針對的是取相執實那個「合」，不是要人棄捨薩婆若、棄捨佛與菩提。連佛、菩提都說不合，恰恰是要把最後一分「有實物可攀」的心也拔掉；而經末隨即說「佛即是薩婆若、菩提即是薩婆若」，正防人把「不合」讀成「二物隔絕」。
不要把「不為般若、乃至不為五神通故行般若」讀成叫人不修功德、不發神通。論說得明白：五神通「廣能利益眾生」，無之「如鳥無兩翼」，佛何嘗廢它；所遮的是「無方便菩薩得五通而輕人憍高」那個「為」。「不為」遮的是著相而為，不是叫人一事不辦——對心無所著者，經照樣說「為教化眾生、淨佛世界故行般若」。
不要把「離有無二見」讀成什麼都不許說、善惡因果一概抹平。論明明分判：著空成無見固然錯，而婆蹉梵志公案裡佛親說「有善有惡、能如實分別善惡是入法性名得道」。空所破的是「貴著法性、以之為實體」的妄分別，不破「證法性後如實知善知惡」的正智；於畢竟空中，善惡因果一絲不亂。破常之後也不許執「無常為是」——中道不是騎牆，是兩邊俱不著而事仍宛然。
不要把「合、等」讀作尋常的湊合與相似。論以二指為喻拆得極細：所謂「合」只是「二指相近假名為合，更無合法」，那相觸的一分「不為指，是指分」；「等」也只是「一相故名等」的施設，究其實「自性空故無法，無法故無等不等」。連「等與不等」這一對都要遮盡，方是「不相應」處的相應。
不要把「魔不能壞、諸佛擁護、重罪輕受、常值諸佛」當成外來的護佑獎賞。論說得清楚：魔不得便的根子在菩薩自身「於法不著故無違錯」，諸佛偏念的用意在「不令墮二乘」，常值佛的因在「除般若母外一切不愛著」——這都是空相應的功用，不是空相應之外另有靈驗。尤其毘婆尸佛時王師婆羅門一句惡口便九十一劫墮畜生，正反顯「終不離佛」全繫於自心的敬念與不著，非可僥倖。
最後，「如受記無異」不等於已受記。利根近受記而餘德未熟、未與記，讚歎只為勸進其心，不可讀成修空即刻成辦。而「破慳而不破檀」也不是「既空何必施」——菩薩「以清淨空心布施，如小兒以土為金、長者隨意與而竟無所與」，空掉的是慳著，不是布施之行。
修行作用
這一分可作一條驗心的準繩：凡覺得自己在某處「相應」了、與法「合」上了，便回頭問一句——我合上的是不是又一個取相的實物？念佛功德、持戒善法、乃至佇望「我當得道、當受記」，若心一取相、一繫著，便如以虛妄合真實、如摻毒之美食，愈精進愈成縛。這一分教的正解是反其道：一路「不合」下去，把三世的期待、善法的自矜、佛法名相的攀執、乃至神通定境的自高，一一還它因緣假名，直到只剩一個不可得的空——而這空裡自然生出大慈大悲，自然不生慳、犯戒、瞋、懈怠、亂、無智六惡心。
日用中最可取的是「不為相而仍為事」的同一機：動地分身也好、布施持戒也好，做時只念利益眾生、只歸向一切智，不落「我能、我得」。發一分神通、修一分定境，記取「熱金丸雖見色妙不可手觸」——境界再勝，一取相自高便成毒；唯不取相、不自高，才如佛身入三解脫門，色相雖妙而不可以取相心觸攀，於己於他俱無所礙。
面對毀辱橫逆，記取「魔不能壞」的根在無違錯：心不著佛、不瞋魔，則外惡如毒不入無瘡之身。而毘婆尸佛時婆羅門一句惡口九十一劫墮畜生，更是一面切近的鏡子——輕僧慢人的惡口，果報之重遠過想像；反之世世念佛、作不離佛願，才是「終不離見佛」的真因。想常值佛，先問自己除般若、除實相之外，還愛著什麼——愛著何處，便隨之受生。
法性五問給用功人一副最深的破執刀：連「我要快得法性」「我能得法性」「有個法性可分別諸法」的念頭都要照破。但破到底而不落斷滅——婆蹉梵志公案提醒：於畢竟空中，善仍是善、惡仍是惡，「如實分別善惡」正是入法性、名得道。空不廢善惡因果，這是修行最要緊的分寸。
而「利益眾生如地不求報」「破慳而不破檀」二處，最堪日用取法：利他而不索一報、如大地荷物；布施而不見有施、如長者與土而無所與。能在稱譏之際仍守這一味空、這一味慈，便是把「空相應為第一」修在了自己身上。
承衍
後來讀習相應品之餘下者，各就己所重取一節。有專拈「薩婆若不與三世合」以明真妄不相入、迴向不取相之旨的；有引「不習色有、不習色無」乃至八對俱不習，以顯離二邊、行中道之教的；有獨標「不為五神通故行般若」及「熱金丸不可手觸」喻，以誡發通而自高者的；有標「惡魔不能得便、諸佛擁護、現世輕受」五利，以勸行者深信般若功德、慈心加物的；有拈「常值諸佛、終不離見佛」及毘婆尸佛惡口墮畜生本生，以策念佛不離、不敢輕僧的；有取「二指假合、等不等俱不可得」一段，以顯諸法無少分合之理的；更有直取「法性五問」及婆蹉梵志問善惡公案，以立「空不廢善惡、如實分別善惡是入法性」之教的；而最堪守的，仍是卷末「空行菩薩不墮聲聞辟支佛地」「是空相應勝餘相應」及「眾生不受、眾生空、眾生不可得、眾生離」四句，並「破慳而不破檀」之收煞。這些取用各有偏重，並錄而不判高下；把它們帶回本分，最堪守的仍是經文一路「不合」到底、末後翻出的那一著——一切法皆不與薩婆若合，故不取一相；正因不取一相，才於畢竟不可得的空中，不墮二地、能淨佛土、生大慈悲，終成諸相應中之第一。
Practising in Accord, the Remainder, Last Part: All Dharmas Are Not Joined with Sarvajñā; Apart from the Two Views of Existence and Non-existence; Māra Cannot Destroy; Accord with Emptiness Is in the End Foremost
What Is Being Asked
The first two parts of the Chapter on Practising in Accord speak again and again of 「習應色空、與般若相應」 tr. "practising in accord with the emptiness of form, being in accord with prajñā"; on reaching this third part, the sūtra suddenly changes to a way of speaking that seems to be its opposite, and says “not joined” in one long string—sarvajñā, omniscience, is not joined with the three times, past, future, and present; is not joined with form and so on up to the eighteen elements; is not joined with the six perfections or the thirty-seven limbs of the path; is not joined with the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; and even the Buddha is not joined with sarvajñā, and awakening is not joined with sarvajñā. Just before, it was teaching people with earnest words to be in accord—how is it that here it says at every point “not in accord”? What this part truly sets out to answer is precisely this tension: the dharma of accord—on what, after all, should it be in accord? If one seeks, on form, on wholesome dharmas, or on the names and marks of the Buddha-dharma, some thing that can “close together” with sarvajñā, that is still grasping at marks, still bondage; only by going “not joined” all the way to the end, emptying every place that can be clung to or attached to, is that one “accord with emptiness” turned up at the last the foremost among all accords.
Beneath this lie several further difficulties, which must be accounted for together. First, since the sūtra says “not joined” layer upon layer, yet the treatise inserts in the middle a long passage on “not practising prajñā for the sake of prajñā, and so on up to not practising prajñā for the sake of the five supernormal powers”—even doing works of merit and bringing forth supernormal powers are said to be “not for the sake of”—then for the sake of what, after all, does the bodhisattva practise? Second, the sūtra grants this bodhisattva the fruit of 「常值諸佛、終不離見佛」 tr. "always meeting the buddhas, never being apart from seeing the Buddha"; this is plainly a fruit of recompense—why then is it also called “accord”? Third, the sūtra says 「不作是念有法與法若合若不合、若等若不等」 tr. "he does not form the thought that a dharma is joined or not joined with a dharma, equal or not equal"; what exactly do these two words, “joined” and “equal,” refer to, and why must even “joined” and “equal” be screened off? Fourth, the whole chapter returns at the last to “dharma-nature”—not quickly attaining dharma-nature, not seeing any dharma that goes outside dharma-nature, dharma-nature not discriminating dharmas, dharma-nature not joined with emptiness—this string of “five questions on dharma-nature” peels layer by layer down to the bottom, so that even at the deepest point one does not set up an “attainable dharma-nature”; and yet in the midst of it the case of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa asking about good and evil is cited, saying 「能如實分別善惡是入法性」 tr. "to be able to discriminate good and evil according to reality is to enter dharma-nature"—does this not contradict the “not discriminating” before it? So this part starts from “not joined with the three times,” passes in the middle through leaving the two views of existence and non-existence, not practising for the sake of dharmas, the five supernormal powers with no thought formed, Māra being unable to destroy, always meeting the buddhas, joined, equal and not equal, and the five questions on dharma-nature, and at the end concludes in “the bodhisattva who practises emptiness does not fall into the two stages; this accord with emptiness surpasses the other accords”—the real meaning of the whole Chapter on Practising in Accord comes to its knot here.
Passage by Passage
1. Not joined with the three times—the true and the false do not enter one another; recollecting without grasping at marks. First look at the opening passage. The sūtra says that sarvajñā is not joined with the past, the future, or the present, and the reason is just one sentence: 「三世不可見」 tr. "the three times cannot be seen." The treatise takes this sentence apart: the three times are false, marks of arising and ceasing, whereas sarvajñā is real and not arising and ceasing; to join the false with the real—they are from the start not of the same mark. Here one definition must be singled out: 「薩婆若是十方三世諸佛真實智慧」 tr. "sarvajñā is the real wisdom of all the buddhas of the ten directions and the three times"; the three times arise from the false mind of ordinary people—one true, one false, how can they be joined? On this the treatise sets up a simile: 「譬如真金不與弊鐵同相」 tr. "just as true gold does not share a mark with base iron"—however much broken iron there is, it cannot match true gold; however dense the false marks of time, they cannot reach up to the real omniscience. The difficulty lies here: in rejoicing, people are plainly taught to “recollect the merits of the buddhas of the three times and dedicate them”—is this not tying the mind to a sarvajñā within the three times? The treatise’s answer is where the proportion lies: if one recollects by grasping at marks with an attached mind, that recollection becomes fine food mixed with poison—「初雖香美，後不便身」 tr. "though fragrant and delicious at first, afterwards it does not agree with the body"—and is not called dedication; if one recollects without grasping at marks, there is at root no “joining” to speak of. As for thinking to oneself “I shall attain sarvajñā,” this too is only recollection and imagining—that matter has not yet arisen, its time has not yet arrived, its causes and conditions have not yet come together, and it has no place at all, just as 「明當服蘇，今已憶臭」 tr. "tomorrow one is to take ghee, and today one already recalls its stench"—the ghee one is only to take tomorrow, one already finds rank today—all of it fabrication. The treatise further adds a counter-example as a warning: like those disciples of Kātyāyana who say, “the future awakening will say to the bodhisattva: if you cultivate well a body with the marks and minor marks, I shall come and dwell in it,” just as “a girl of a noble family” first sends someone to tell a poor man’s son, “adorn your house well; I am coming to your home”—speaking of something that does not yet exist as though it were solidly so; the treatise judges this “not in accordance with the Dharma.” Finally, a question closes it: there are so many Dharma-gates—why is “not joined” said precisely of sarvajñā? The answer is brief and clean: 「是薩婆若，菩薩所歸趣，深心欲得」 tr. "this sarvajñā is what the bodhisattva returns to and tends toward, what he wishes with a deep mind to attain"—precisely because it is the destination the bodhisattva wishes to attain in thought after thought, “do not grasp at marks and join” is picked out specially here, emptying out entirely the expectation that clings to time.
2. From form up to the Buddha and awakening, not joined layer upon layer—returning names and marks one by one to provisional names of causes and conditions. Next comes the “not joined” spread out layer upon layer. Form and so on up to the twelve sense-fields are not joined, because these are only “things”—the treatise likens them to a field: as a field “grows whatever is sown,” good seed yielding good and evil seed yielding evil, the field itself not yet settled as defiled or pure, how could it be joined with sarvajñā, which is purely real? Here the sūtra names only the five aggregates and the twelve sense-fields and does not name the eighteen elements or the twelve causes and conditions, and the treatise does not pass over this vaguely: half is a question of the transmitted text—“the reciters forgot and lost it”—and half has doctrinal meaning: the five aggregates and the rest are “things,” a field undecided between defiled and pure, whereas the six perfections and so on up to omniscience of all kinds are the “pure seed”; this bodhisattva’s fetters are already thin and he only gathers merit, so it is not spoken from the defiled side. The six perfections, then, have the distinction of “worldly and world-transcending”: the worldly ones, whose outflows and fetters are not yet exhausted, are not joined; the world-transcending ones should by rights be joined, yet because the bodhisattva has not yet realised them they too are said to be not joined—how much more so, since 「六波羅蜜空，尚不可見，何況與薩婆若合」 tr. "the six perfections are empty and cannot even be seen—how much less are they joined with sarvajñā." The thirty-seven limbs of the path likewise divide into two roads: one road, “the path tending to nirvāṇa,” belongs chiefly to the two vehicles, and because the bodhisattva is for the path of buddhahood it is not joined; someone asks: in the Mahāyāna chapter the thirty-seven limbs are also the bodhisattva path, so why are they not joined? The treatise answers—there are bodhisattvas who practise the thirty-seven limbs 「以著心故」 tr. "because of an attached mind," mostly dedicating them to nirvāṇa, and it is of this kind of person that “not joined” is said. Even the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas are screened off together: the treatise judges the ten powers to be of three kinds—those “practised by the bodhisattva,” cultivated gradually and not yet complete; those “attained by the Buddha and sought by the bodhisattva through recollection, imagining, and discrimination”; and those “attained in the Buddha’s mind”; the first two the bodhisattva has not realised, and they should not be joined; the last, though it could be joined, the bodhisattva has not attained, and so it too is not joined. The most perilous question turns up here: surely the Buddha and awakening, at least, must be joined with sarvajñā? The treatise answers with the utmost sharpness—the Buddha is a person and sarvajñā is a dharma; the person is a provisional name, the dharma is causes and conditions; 「得薩婆若故名為佛」 tr. "because he has attained sarvajñā he is called the Buddha"; the two arise from coming together and cannot be divided into first and after—「離佛無薩婆若，離薩婆若無佛」 tr. "apart from the Buddha there is no sarvajñā; apart from sarvajñā there is no Buddha"; awakening is the knowledge of the ten powers, while sarvajñā is the eleventh, “knowledge according to reality,” and two kinds of knowledge do not arise together in one mind. One layer further: the ten powers and the other Buddha-dharmas, together with this “awakening,” are on the bodhisattva’s side all still only “recollection, imagining, and discrimination, not real”; 「唯佛所得薩婆若是實」 tr. "only the sarvajñā the Buddha has attained is real"—how could this awakening, false and not yet real in the mind, be joined with the real sarvajñā? At the end the sūtra itself sets down a turning phrase: 「佛即是薩婆若，薩婆若即是佛；菩提即是薩婆若，薩婆若即是菩提」 tr. "the Buddha is precisely sarvajñā, sarvajñā is precisely the Buddha; awakening is precisely sarvajñā, sarvajñā is precisely awakening"—first saying “not joined,” then saying “is precisely,” is exactly to make one recognise “non-duality” at the place of “not joined,” returning every name and mark that might be taken for “a really existing thing that can be joined,” one by one, to a provisional name of causes and conditions.
3. Leaving the two views of existence and non-existence, walking the Middle Way—not even the “impermanence” that does the refuting may be clung to. Turning to the passage on leaving the two views: this is the pivot of the doctrine of this part. The sūtra says: he does not practise form as existent, does not practise form as non-existent, and so on through permanent and impermanent, suffering and happiness, self and not-self, quiescent and not quiescent, empty and not empty, with signs and signless, with action and without action—none of the eight pairs is practised—and he does not form even the thought “I practise prajñā, I do not practise, I neither practise nor do not practise.” The treatise makes clear: all the attachments of the world do not go beyond the two views of existence and non-existence—「順生死流者多著有，逆生死流者多著無」 tr. "those who go with the stream of birth and death are mostly attached to existence; those who go against the stream of birth and death are mostly attached to non-existence"; those with much view of self are attached to existence, those with much wrong view are attached to non-existence. The treatise further distinguishes finely the various origins of this attachment to views: those with much of the four views are attached to existence, those with much wrong view to non-existence; those with much of the two poisons of greed and anger to existence, those with much ignorance to non-existence; “not knowing that the five aggregates arise from the gathering of causes and conditions” leads to attachment to existence, and “not knowing the gathering” to attachment to non-existence; those who draw near evil friends and read the outside books of wrong views, falling into an annihilation with no offence and no merit, are attached to non-existence; and further, some say “all is empty” and the mind attaches to this emptiness, which turns instead into “the view of non-existence,” while some say “the dharmas known by the six faculties all exist” and so form “the view of existence”; in sum, 「愛多者著有見，見多者著無見」 tr. "those with much craving are attached to the view of existence; those with much view are attached to the view of non-existence." Both these views destroy the Middle Way, as when a person walks a narrow path with deep water on one side and a great fire on the other—「二邊俱死」 tr. "at both edges alike is death." The treatise again uses a string of causes and conditions to take apart the falsity of the two views: if dharmas definitely really existed, there would be no causes and conditions to speak of; if they arise from the coming together of causes and conditions, they are without own-nature, and being without own-nature is emptiness; if one says “non-existence is real” (that everything is non-existent), then there is no offence and no merit, no bondage and no release, no differences among dharmas—so it can be seen that attachment to existence and attachment to non-existence both fail to stand. The treatise further adds two layers of fault: the view of existence and the view of non-existence—「相違故有是非，是非故共諍，有諍故起結使、生業、開惡道門」 tr. "because they oppose each other there is right and wrong; because of right and wrong there is contention together; because there is contention, fetters arise, karma is produced, and the gates of the evil paths are opened," whereas 「實相中無有相違、是非、鬪諍」 tr. "in the real mark there is no opposition, no right and wrong, no strife"; moreover, one attached to existence, meeting impermanence, gives rise to grief and vexation, and one attached to non-existence commits all kinds of offence and at death falls into hell; only “one not attached to existence or non-existence” is free of these faults. Next it refutes separately the view of permanence and the view of impermanence: if the five aggregates were permanent there would be no arising and ceasing, no offence and no merit—「世間如涅槃不壞相，如是妄語誰當信」 tr. "the world would be like nirvāṇa, of an indestructible mark—who would believe such a lie?"—we see now that death and weeping are the impermanence of beings, the withering of grass and trees is the impermanence of outer things, and when the great kalpa ends and everything perishes, that is “the great impermanence”; so permanence cannot be found. After refuting permanence it adds at once a sentence, “one should not take impermanence as right”: if one clings to everything perishing moment by moment, then 「六情不能取六塵」 tr. "the six faculties cannot take up the six objects," neither the inner mind nor the outer objects abide, and there are no causes and conditions of cultivation, no fruit and recompense—so the view of impermanence also cannot be found. As for the pairs of suffering and happiness, self and not-self, empty and real, with signs and signless, with action and without action, the treatise says “as has been said before in many places,” pointing to what has already been explained in the earlier text and is not repeated here. Only the one meaning, “the five aggregates are quiescent,” has not been spoken of before, and the treatise specially points it out: the five aggregates are 「因緣生故無性，無性故寂滅，寂滅故如涅槃」 tr. "without nature because they arise from causes and conditions; quiescent because without nature; like nirvāṇa because quiescent"; yet it also sets up a fourfold “not quiescent” to guard against one-sided clinging—not quiescent because the three poisons blaze; not quiescent because the fire of impermanence burns; not quiescent because of not being attached to the real mark of the three poisons; not quiescent because of the separately distinguished marks of each of the three poisons—only by looking at the positive and the negative together does one not fall into a dead stillness. This is the most essential teaching of this part: accord is not sticking to one side, but leaving both sides and walking the Middle Way, and even not being attached to “practising prajñā” itself—「菩薩不可得，般若不可得故」 tr. "because the bodhisattva cannot be found, and prajñā cannot be found"; not being attached even to “not practising,” because ordinary people cannot in the first place contemplate the real mark as a bodhisattva does, so how could one say “I do not practise”; “practising and not practising” are both not attached to, the two alike being faults.
4. Not practising prajñā for the sake of dharmas—the right understanding of “for the sake of what one practises.” The sūtra then states a long string of “not for the sake of”: not for the sake of prajñā or the five perfections; not for the sake of the stage of avaivartika, the bringing of beings to maturity, or the purifying of the buddha-world; not for the sake of the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the eighteen unshared dharmas; not for the sake of the eighteen emptinesses, inner and outer emptiness and the rest; not for the sake of suchness, dharma-nature, or the limit of reality does he practise prajñā—the reason being 「不壞諸法相故」 tr. "because he does not destroy the marks of dharmas." Someone then asks: these are all Buddha-dharmas; if all are “not for the sake of,” for the sake of what then does one practise prajñā? The treatise unties it along two roads: one road is 「諸法無有破壞者，不壞諸法相故」 tr. "dharmas have no destroyer, because he does not destroy the marks of dharmas"—the practitioner does not discriminate “this is giving, this is stinginess, and so on up to this is the limit of reality,” and so it is said “not for the sake of”—this is said to those who “are bound with a deep mind to wholesome dharmas, and because of that binding are able to produce offence,” teaching them: 「莫生著，真菩薩不為是故行」 tr. "do not give rise to attachment; a true bodhisattva does not practise for the sake of these"; along the other road, to bodhisattvas “whose minds have nothing to which they are attached,” the sūtra says just the same, “he practises prajñā in order to fulfil the six perfections, in order to teach and transform beings and purify the buddha-world.” It can be seen that “not for the sake of” screens off “doing for the sake of while attached to marks,” and does not tell one to do nothing at all. This passage is precisely the right understanding of “for the sake of what one practises”: not for the sake of marks that can be attached to, yet still for the sake of the work of benefiting beings; practising without attachment—only this is the realisation, in the gate of practice, of this part’s “not joined.”
5. The passage on the five supernormal powers—not even seeing prajñā, how much less seeing supernormal powers. This passage most needs to be filled out. The sūtra says the bodhisattva does not practise prajñā “for the sake of” the six powers—the supernormal power of going at will, the divine ear, the knowledge of others’ minds, the knowledge of past lives, the divine eye, and the exhaustion of the outflows—because 「尚不見般若，何況見菩薩神通」 tr. "he does not even see prajñā—how much less does he see the bodhisattva’s supernormal powers." Question: the five supernormal powers were already spoken of under the perfection of meditation—why speak of them again? The treatise answers: there they were “spoken of by their general mark, without listing their names”; here they are “spoken of by their particular marks”; moreover the five supernormal powers are “the fruit and recompense of merit,” and when the bodhisattva obtains them he “is able to benefit beings widely”; without them he is “like a bird without two wings that cannot soar high, like a strong man entering the enemy’s ranks without weapons”—the five powers are of the utmost importance for benefiting beings, and are not something to be discarded. That being so, why does the Buddha nevertheless say “do not practise prajñā for the sake of the five supernormal powers”? The treatise lays bare the root of the illness: 「多有無方便菩薩，得五神通，輕餘菩薩，心生憍高」 tr. "there are many bodhisattvas without skilful means who, having obtained the five supernormal powers, look down on other bodhisattvas, and their minds grow arrogant and lofty"; it is precisely to screen off this arrogance that the Buddha says it; what is more, 「菩薩於般若諸佛之母尚不著，何況五神通」 tr. "the bodhisattva is not attached even to prajñā, the mother of the buddhas—how much less to the five supernormal powers"—not attached even to prajñā, the mother who gives birth, let alone to the supernormal powers that are its branches and tips. The sūtra goes on to set out his intention in full: the bodhisattva “does not form the thought—I will fly by the supernormal power of going at will to the east to make offerings to buddhas as many as the sands of the Ganges,” nor the thought “I hear with the divine ear the buddhas of the ten directions teaching the Dharma, know with the knowledge of others’ minds the thoughts of beings, know by the power of knowing past lives what was done in past lives, see with the divine eye dying here and being born there.” The treatise explains why he is able not to form these thoughts: because he has already “pulled up the root of the view of self, broken down the mountain of pride, and cultivated well the three gates of liberation, the three samādhi”—here there is an essential simile: 「佛身雖妙，亦入三解脫門；如熱金丸，雖見色妙，不可手觸」 tr. "though the Buddha’s body is wondrous, it too enters the three gates of liberation; like a red-hot golden ball, though its colour is seen to be wondrous, it cannot be touched with the hand"—the Buddha’s body is certainly to be revered and longed for, but once it is illumined by the three gates of liberation it is like a golden ball burned red: its colour and form beautiful, yet not to be touched with the hand, not to be clung to with a mind that grasps at marks. Further, “all dharmas are like an illusion, like a conjuration, without coming, without going, without near, without far, without fixed mark”; as with an illusory, conjured person, “who goes and who comes?”—so he does not grasp at marks of supernormal powers, of lands, of this and that, of far and near. At the end the treatise does not fall into annihilation: the bodhisattva “abides in meditative concentration before the buddhas, transforms himself into immeasurable bodies, goes to the ten directions to make offerings to the buddhas, and yet discriminates nothing,” precisely because he 「已斷法愛」 tr. "has already cut off love of the Dharma"; and he even “transforms himself into immeasurable bodies, displays great spiritual power, and in the three evil destinies of the ten directions liberates immeasurable beings.” It can be seen that “not forming the thought” is not failing to bring forth supernormal powers; it is bringing them forth without grasping at marks and without exalting oneself—and this picks up exactly the line of the fourth passage, “practising without doing it for the sake of marks.”
6. Māra cannot destroy—the root of the five benefits lies in “not being attached to dharmas” and in “universal kindness.” The passage on Māra being unable to destroy is the one in this part where the virtue of the fruit shows most, and the one that should most be firmly remembered. The sūtra says that a bodhisattva who can practise prajñā in this way obtains five kinds of benefit: 「惡魔不能得其便、世間眾事所欲隨意、十方諸佛皆悉擁護令不墮聲聞辟支佛地、諸天不令有礙、重罪現世輕受」 tr. "the evil Māra cannot get his opportunity; in the many affairs of the world, what he wishes goes as he intends; all the buddhas of the ten directions protect him and keep him from falling into the stage of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha; the gods do not let him meet obstruction; grave offences are received lightly in this present life." The treatise explains “why Māra does not get his opportunity” most thoroughly: the bodhisattva practises “the emptiness of specific marks, ultimately unfindable,” and is attached to no dharma at all; 「不著故無違錯，無違錯故魔不能得其便」 tr. "because he is not attached he has no transgression or error; because he has no transgression or error, Māra cannot get his opportunity," just as 「人身不瘡，雖臥毒屑中毒亦不入」 tr. "if a person’s body has no sores, even lying in poisonous dust, the poison does not enter"; conversely, “if there is a small sore, death is beyond doubt.” The treatise adds two further layers: the bodhisattva “is not attached in mind among the buddhas, and is not angry in mind among the māras,” so Māra has nowhere to lay hands on him; again, “because he has deeply entered the perfection of patience and the samādhi of loving-kindness, no outer evil can wound him”—water, fire, sword, weapons and the like cannot harm him. The phrase “the many affairs of the world go as he intends” the treatise brings down to the very plainest level: what is needed for livelihood—“managing livelihood and arranging marriages, sowing and planting fruit trees, digging wells on open roads, setting up lodging-houses for travellers,” up to “building stūpas and monasteries, making great gifts, teaching the Dharma and liberating others”—all matters great and small go as he wishes; why so? This bodhisattva “has gathered immeasurable merit and wisdom life after life,” and moreover “because his mind is not attached to any dharma his fetters are thin, and because his fetters are thin he is able to produce deep and thick roots of goodness”; his roots of goodness being thick, what he vows goes as he wishes, and in addition “the great gods revere him, keep him in mind and praise him, and the dragons and spirits help accomplish his affairs.” To the question of “the buddhas’ special mindfulness,” the treatise answers most pointedly: it is not that the Buddha’s mind is unequal, but that 「法應念是菩薩以勸進餘人」 tr. "by the Dharma it is fitting to keep this bodhisattva in mind so as to encourage others to advance," and again that he “does not wish to let him fall into the śrāvaka or the pratyekabuddha”—「譬如魚子，母念故得生，不念則壞」 tr. "just as fish-roe live because their mother keeps them in mind, and perish if she does not"—the bodhisattva relies on the buddhas’ mindfulness and so does not fall into the resting-place of emptiness, signlessness, and non-action; the gods too “imitate the buddhas’ mindfulness” and protect him, and moreover keep him in mind because they know his nobility, since the bodhisattva “is attached to nothing at all, takes no delight in worldly pleasures, and wishes only to teach and transform beings.” For the phrase “grave offences received lightly,” the treatise sets up two similes: like “a serious prisoner who ought to die, but if someone with power protects him he receives only whip and staff,” and again like “a king’s son who, though he commits a grave offence, is cleared with a light punishment,” only because he was born of royal lineage—the bodhisattva practising prajñā is “born into the lineage of the buddhas,” and so his grave offences are received lightly in this present life; and again, like “an iron vessel that floats on water because it is hollow inside, and sinks if it is solid inside,” the mind of wisdom, being empty, does not sink under grave offences, while ordinary people, having no wisdom, sink. And the overall root of these five benefits the Buddha himself states as 「普慈加眾生」 tr. "extending universal kindness to beings." The treatise reconciles the two accounts, “prajñā” and “kindness,” as not contradicting each other: 「能生無量福無過於慈，是慈因般若生」 tr. "nothing surpasses kindness in producing immeasurable merit, and this kindness arises from prajñā"; distinguishing more finely, 「惡魔不得便、諸佛所念、重罪輕受是般若力，世間眾事隨意、諸天擁護是大慈力」 tr. "the evil Māra not getting his opportunity, the buddhas keeping him in mind, and grave offences received lightly are the power of prajñā; the many affairs of the world going as he intends and the protection of the gods are the power of great kindness"; again, 「緣眾生則是慈、緣法則是行般若」 tr. "taking beings as object is kindness; taking dharmas as object is practising prajñā," and kindness arises in accord with the teaching of prajñā, so “to speak of kindness is without fault”—the two are at root one matter.
7. Always meeting the buddhas—speaking of the cause within the fruit; recollecting the Buddha without separation. The sūtra says this bodhisattva “quickly obtains the dhāraṇī gates and the samādhi gates, in every place he is born always meets the buddhas, and until he attains awakening is never apart from seeing the Buddha.” This whole passage needs to be taught in full. “Quickly obtains”: the treatise explains it as “because of the causes and conditions of merit his mind is supple, and because he practises deep prajñā his mind of wisdom is sharp,” helped as well by the five merits above, so that he can obtain them quickly. “In every place he is born always meets the buddhas”: the key lies in 「除諸佛母般若之外，其餘一切眾事皆不愛著」 tr. "apart from prajñā, the mother of the buddhas, he loves and is attached to none of all the other many affairs"—whatever one loves and is attached to, one is born following it, and the treatise lists four recompenses as a warning: those who always delight in strife “are born in the Reviving Hell, and again take up swords and staves to harm one another”; those with much sexual desire “always undergo the womb, and further become lustful birds”; those with much anger “are born again as venomous beasts, snakes and vipers”; those with much delusion “are like moths rushing into the lamp-flame, or insects hidden in the earth”; only those who love and revere the Buddha and the real-mark prajñā and cultivate the samādhi of recollecting the Buddha always meet the Buddha wherever they are born. For the phrase “never apart from seeing the Buddha,” the treatise cites a jātaka of the sharpest warning: “as in the time of Vipaśyin Buddha, the brahmin who was the king’s teacher,” though he was able to see the Buddha and the Saṅgha, “reviled them with evil speech,” saying “these people are like animals; they do not distinguish good people; seeing me, they do not rise”—for this one sentence of evil speech alone, 「以是罪故，經九十一劫墮畜生中」 tr. "because of this offence, for ninety-one kalpas he fell among the animals"—one who had seen the Buddha in person and the Saṅgha in person still fell for so long through a mouth of contempt. It can be seen that seeing the Buddha in one life is not to be relied on; a single evil word slighting the Saṅgha can lose the Buddha for long kalpas; conversely, only those who “deeply recollect the Buddha, cultivate well the samādhi of recollecting the Buddha life after life, make the vow not to be apart from the Buddha, and plant the karmic conditions for meeting the Buddha continuously without break” can truly never be apart from the Buddha. Question: always meeting the Buddha is “a matter of fruit and recompense”—why is it called “being in accord with prajñā”? The treatise answers in two senses: one is 「般若相應故值佛，或時果中說因」 tr. "because of accord with prajñā he meets the Buddha; or at times the cause is spoken of within the fruit"—always meeting the Buddha is the fruit, while its cause lies in accord with prajñā, and the sūtra speaks of the cause upon the fruit; the other is that accord is from the start of two kinds—“accord of mind,” and “according with the bodhisattva’s practice” (namely “being born in a good place, meeting the buddhas, always hearing the Dharma, right recollection”); always meeting the Buddha belongs precisely to the latter kind of accord, so it does not go against the purport of “being in accord with prajñā.”
8. The passage on joined, equal and not equal—dharmas have not the least part joined; equal and not equal alike cannot be found. The sūtra says “he does not form the thought: a dharma is joined or not joined with a dharma, equal or not equal.” This whole passage too needs to be filled out. First, “joined” is explained: 「一切法無有法與法共合者，諸法無少分合故」 tr. "among all dharmas there is no dharma that joins together with a dharma, because dharmas have not the least part joined"; the treatise takes as simile two fingers pressed against each other—「二指有四方，其一方合，三方不合」 tr. "two fingers have four sides; one side is joined, three sides are not joined"—the sides not joined are more; why not call it “not joined”? Someone asks in return: since there is one place joined, why say not joined? The treatise answers most finely: 「合處不為指，是指分」 tr. "the joined place is not the finger; it is a part of the finger"—the small portion that touches is only a part of the finger, and has in itself no independent “dharma of joining”; 「以二指相近故假名為合，更無合法」 tr. "because the two fingers are near each other it is provisionally named ‘joined’; there is no further dharma of joining." A further explanation: form, smell, taste and touch are together named “finger,” and among them “only touch has the power of joining; the other three have no joining”—so even what is called “joining” is not the whole finger joining. Again it sets up a principle of non-joining of the same sort: 「異類同處不名為合，相各異故」 tr. "different kinds in the same place are not called joined, because their marks each differ"—the mark of earth is in earth, the mark of water is in water, the mark of fire is in fire, “differing in nature in this way, they are not called joined”; each keeps its own mark, and there is no place where they fuse together. Next “equal and not equal” are explained: all dharmas are “called equal because of their one mark”—all have marks, all have the mark of impermanence, all the mark of suffering, all the mark of emptiness and not-self, all the mark of not arising and not ceasing; at this point where “the things are not different” they are called “equal”; “because each has its separate mark” they are called not equal—the mark of form over against the mark of the formless, the mark of hardness over against the mark of wetness, each different and not the same. And the bodhisattva “does not see equal and not equal,” because 「一切法無、自性空故無法，無法故不可見，不可見故無等不等」 tr. "all dharmas are non-existent; because empty of own-nature there is no dharma; because there is no dharma it cannot be seen; because it cannot be seen there is no equal and not equal"—even this pair of discriminations, “equal” and “not equal,” is screened off entirely. At the end the treatise points out this passage’s place in the whole chapter: 「等與合是習相應，不合、不等是不相應」 tr. "equal and joined are practising in accord; not joined and not equal are not in accord"—so the whole Chapter on Practising in Accord turns precisely around the four words “joined / not joined, equal / not equal,” and here, with all four swept away together, one first sees that the ultimate of “accord” does not lie in grasping a mark that can be joined or made equal—whoever supposes “I am joined with some dharma, I am equal with some dharma” is still setting up a boundary-mark to cling to; only where joined, equal and not equal alike cannot be found is there the true accord with no mark to grasp. An additional question: why not finish speaking of “accord” before praising the fruit and recompense? The treatise answers: 「聽者厭懈，是故佛讚歎果報功德，令聞者心得悅樂」 tr. "the listeners grow weary and slack; therefore the Buddha praises the merit of the fruit and recompense, so that the hearers’ minds obtain joy"—a skilful arrangement considerate of the listeners.
9. The five questions on dharma-nature—peeling layer by layer down to “no dharma-nature that can be found at all,” while good and evil remain distinct. The whole chapter returns at the last to “dharma-nature,” five questions in a row, peeling away layer by layer, and each question must be taught clearly. The first question, “not quickly attaining dharma-nature”: the treatise first sets up the definition—「法性者諸法實相」 tr. "dharma-nature is the real mark of all dharmas"; 「除心中無明諸結使，以清淨實觀得諸法本性，名為法性」 tr. "removing the fetters of ignorance in the mind, and by pure, real contemplation attaining the original nature of dharmas—this is called dharma-nature"; “nature means real”; beings “are bound because of wrong contemplation, and released because of right contemplation.” Since it is the real mark, it is “without marks, without far or near,” so he does not form the thought “I will quickly attain,” nor the thought “I shall attain after a long, long time,” because 「法性無遲無久」 tr. "dharma-nature has neither slowness nor length of time"—fast and slow, far and near are all grasping at marks, and none of them is set up upon dharma-nature. The second question, “not seeing any dharma that goes outside dharma-nature”: “afflictions such as ignorance enter into all dharmas, and so dharmas lose their own-nature”; once own-nature is lost they are “crooked and not right”; the sages remove ignorance, and “the real nature of dharmas becomes clearly manifest again”; the treatise takes as simile 「陰雲覆虛空清淨性，除陰雲則清淨性現」 tr. "dark clouds cover the pure nature of empty space; when the dark clouds are removed, the pure nature appears." If there were truly a dharma that “ignorance does not enter,” that alone would count as going outside dharma-nature; but “there is no dharma that goes outside ignorance,” so the bodhisattva does not see any dharma that goes outside dharma-nature; the treatise further uses three similes to show that there is nothing outside it—“the many streams all return to the sea; the millet-scattered petty kings all belong to the wheel-turning sage king; the many small lights all belong to the sun.” The third question, “not forming the thought that dharma-nature discriminates dharmas”: why not form this thought? 「為著法性、貴於法性，以是因緣生諸結使」 tr. "because one becomes attached to dharma-nature and values dharma-nature, and by this cause and condition gives rise to fetters"—once dharma-nature is taken as an entity higher than dharmas and able to discriminate dharmas, and is prized as such, attachment arises again. Someone then presses further: since dharma-nature is “empty, of one mark, signless,” how then does it discriminate dharmas? The treatise’s answer is exactly the eye of this passage—after attaining dharma-nature and extinguishing ignorance, when “the mind is pure, wisdom is clear, and one knows the reality of dharmas,” then 「隨法性者為善，不隨法性者為不善」 tr. "what follows dharma-nature is good; what does not follow dharma-nature is not good"; and it cites the case of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa as evidence: the brahmin ascetic Vatsa asked the Buddha, “Between heaven and earth, are there good and evil, fair and foul?” The Buddha answered “There are,” and spoke of “three kinds of evil and three kinds of good, ten kinds of evil and ten kinds of good”—“greed is evil, removing greed is good; anger and delusion are evil, removing anger and delusion is good; killing and so on up to wrong view are evil, removing them is good”; the last sentence is especially weighty: 「能如實分別善惡，是我弟子，入於法性，名為得道」 tr. "one who can discriminate good and evil according to reality is my disciple, has entered dharma-nature, and is called one who has attained the path." Vatsa was originally a brahmin ascetic of the outsiders' paths, who had long since taken refuge and sought the Buddha’s good teaching; the Buddha did not debate the mysteries of emptiness with him, but pointed straight at “removing greed, removing anger and delusion, removing killing and so on up to removing wrong view” as the good—it can be seen that the gate into dharma-nature is entered precisely at the place of cutting off evil and cultivating good according to reality, and not by setting good and evil aside to look for some separate mysterious emptiness. This is exactly what resolves that doubt in “What Is Being Asked”: the “discrimination” that is screened off is the false discrimination that “prizes and is attached to dharma-nature, taking dharma-nature as an entity able to discriminate”; the “discrimination” that is established is the right knowledge, after realising dharma-nature, that knows good and knows evil according to reality—emptiness does not hinder good and evil from remaining distinct; within ultimate emptiness the cause and effect of good and evil are not disordered by a single thread; this is the key teaching and proof that the Buddha-dharma “does not fall into annihilation.” The fourth question, “not forming the thought that this dharma can attain dharma-nature”: what is meant by “attaining dharma-nature”? “Practising the limbs of the eightfold noble path and attaining the real mark of dharmas, namely nirvāṇa”—this is called attaining dharma-nature; yet one layer deeper—「性名諸法實相，法名般若」 tr. "‘nature’ means the real mark of dharmas; ‘dharma’ means prajñā"; prajñā and the nature of dharmas are “two dharmas without difference, because both are ultimately empty”; since they are not two, then “how could one reach dharma-nature by means of prajñā?”—so he does not form the thought “by this dharma I can attain dharma-nature.” The fifth question, “dharma-nature is not joined with emptiness”: the bodhisattva “does not contemplate dharma-nature as emptiness, does not contemplate emptiness as dharma-nature,” and yet “practising emptiness he attains dharma-nature; taking dharma-nature as object he attains emptiness”; the two 「畢竟空故無異」 tr. "are without difference, because ultimately empty"—neither identical nor separate, and so even this last layer, “dharma-nature joined with emptiness,” is screened off.
10. Accord with emptiness is foremost—where the knot is tied. The sūtra goes “not joined” all the way, up to the eye-element and so on up to the mind-consciousness-element not being joined with emptiness, and suddenly gathers it into one sentence: 「是空相應，名為第一相應。」 tr. "This accord with emptiness is called the foremost accord." Here first the explanation of “the eye-element is not joined with emptiness” is supplied: 「眼是有、空是無，空有云何合」 tr. "the eye is existent, emptiness is non-existent—how can emptiness and existence be joined?"; moreover, “scattered and perished, this is the eye; the eye then is empty”; the emptiness of the eye is only a provisional name “existing because of its root,” and within emptiness there is no discriminating “this is the emptiness of the eye, this is not the emptiness of the eye,” so the eye is not joined with emptiness; further, “emptiness does not arise from the causes and conditions of the eye”; the two dharmas are empty of themselves from the start, and there is no principle by which they could be joined. Here the sūtra names only the eighteen elements and not the five aggregates, and the treatise explains as before: either the reciters and copyists forgot and lost it, or because “to speak of the eighteen elements gathers in all dharmas,” and moreover there are beings who “err concerning mind and form, but do not err concerning mental dharmas, and ought to be liberated by hearing of the eighteen elements.” The treatise explains “foremost” with great weight: 「空是十方諸佛深奧之藏、唯一涅槃門，更無餘門能破諸邪見戲論」 tr. "emptiness is the profound treasury of the buddhas of the ten directions, the one and only gate of nirvāṇa; there is no other gate that can break through wrong views and idle discourse"; this accord “cannot be destroyed, cannot be broken, and so is called foremost.” The long passage of sūtra that immediately follows gathers the doctrine of the whole chapter together at once: the bodhisattva who practises emptiness “does not fall into the two stages, can purify buddha-lands and bring beings to maturity, and quickly attains awakening”; among all accords, “accord with prajñā is the very foremost, the most honoured, the most excellent, the most wondrous, and unsurpassed.” Here the treatise distinguishes two kinds of emptiness: 「但空墮聲聞辟支佛地，不可得空則無處可墮」 tr. "mere emptiness falls into the stage of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha; the emptiness of the unfindable has nowhere to fall"; and 「無方便空墮二地，有方便空直至菩提」 tr. "emptiness without skilful means falls into the two stages; emptiness with skilful means goes straight to awakening"; and “one who from the start has a mind of deep compassion does not fall on entering emptiness; one without a mind of great compassion falls”—three layers of distinction, all to show that the crux of “entering emptiness without falling” lies in the compassionate mind and in skilful means. For the phrase “can purify buddha-lands,” the treatise supplies a question and answer: when beings practise good, the buddha-land is pure—why need one speak separately of the bodhisattva purifying the land? The answer: “though beings practise good, it is accomplished only through the bodhisattva’s practice and vows, dedication, and the power of skilful means,” 「如牛力挽車，要須御者乃得到所至處」 tr. "as an ox by its strength pulls a cart, yet a driver is needed for it to reach its destination"—the ox has strength, yet without a driver nothing is accomplished; therefore the bodhisattva’s work is spoken of separately. It further explains “what difference there is among the three accords—emptiness, prajñā, and signlessness and non-action”: it sets up the distinction between “the emptiness of prajñā” and “emptiness that is not prajñā,” saying “prajñāpāramitā is empty” lest people doubt that “all is empty”; and again, lest people doubt that “only emptiness is foremost, and signlessness and non-action are not foremost,” it says all three are foremost—「空則是無相，無相則是無作，如是為一、名字為別」 tr. "emptiness is signlessness; signlessness is non-action; thus they are one, differing only in name." For the three words “honoured, excellent, wondrous,” the treatise also gives each its place: “called honoured because it is supreme; called excellent because it breaks existence; called most wondrous because one who obtains this accord no longer delights in anything else”—as “among beings the Buddha is unsurpassed, among dharmas nirvāṇa is unsurpassed, among conditioned dharmas the good dharma of practising in accord is unsurpassed.”
11. “No different from one who has received a prediction,” and “benefiting beings like the earth, seeking no return.” On the phrase “no different from one who has received a prediction, or near to receiving a prediction,” the note the treatise sets down most needs to be discerned clearly: this bodhisattva is “newly practising the path, in a body of flesh, has not yet attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, has not yet attained the pratyutpanna samādhi,” and only by the power of wisdom is able to “enter deeply into emptiness”; the Buddha praises his virtue of entering emptiness, and so says “no different from one who has received a prediction”; and it distinguishes “three kinds of bodhisattva—those who have received a prediction, those who are as if they had received a prediction, and those near to receiving a prediction”; what is spoken of here are the latter two. Question: since it is called foremost and unsurpassed, why not give the prediction at once? The treatise answers: “his other merits, skilful means, meditative concentrations and the rest have not yet been gathered; he has only wisdom,” so he has not yet received the prediction; and again, “though of sharp faculties, his other merits are not yet ripe, and hearing a prediction given before him he might give rise to pride,” so he is first praised “in order to encourage his mind to advance”; in sum—「利根者行空相應如受記無異，鈍根者行空相應若近受記」 tr. "one of sharp faculties who practises accord with emptiness is no different from one who has received a prediction; one of dull faculties who practises accord with emptiness is near to receiving a prediction." The phrase “doing abundant benefit (benefiting beings)” the treatise also unfolds: to let beings “always be at peace and attain nirvāṇa” is called benefit; there are further two kinds (leaving suffering, giving happiness), two kinds (extinguishing bodily suffering, extinguishing mental suffering), three kinds (heavenly happiness, human happiness, the happiness of nirvāṇa), three kinds (leaving the three realms, entering the three vehicles). And though the bodhisattva benefits immeasurable beings in this way, he “has no mind of self, no pride, and seeks no reward for his work”—the treatise takes as simile 「如地雖利物功重，不求其報」 tr. "as the earth, though its work in benefiting things is heavy, seeks no return for it"—the great earth bears up the ten thousand things, its labour most heavy, yet it asks not a single return; the bodhisattva’s benefiting of beings is likewise; so he does not form the thought “the buddhas will give me a prediction; I shall purify a buddha-land, attain the path, and turn the wheel of the Dharma.”
12. The four statements on beings, and “breaking stinginess without breaking giving”—the eye of the whole chapter. The last four statements on “beings” are above all the eye of the whole chapter. The treatise first answers a question, “what dharma goes outside dharma-nature?”: 「行般若者即是菩薩，知者見者即是眾生；法性中眾生變為法性」 tr. "the one who practises prajñā is the bodhisattva; the knower and the seer are beings; within dharma-nature beings turn into dharma-nature"; once they have entered dharma-nature, not one dharma lies outside, so the bodhisattva “himself does not give rise to a lofty mind, does not seek favour or due from beings, does not see the buddhas giving him a prediction”—as the bodhisattva is empty, so the Buddha too is empty; as the practitioner is empty, so the one who attains awakening is also empty. Why does he not give rise to the mark of beings? The Buddha himself states the cause and condition: 「眾生畢竟不生，不生故不滅；若法不生不滅即是法性相，法性即是般若」 tr. "beings are ultimately unarisen; because unarisen, they do not cease; if a dharma neither arises nor ceases, that is the mark of dharma-nature, and dharma-nature is prajñā"—then again, “how does prajñā practise prajñā?”—the one who acts and what is acted on both vanish. The four statements are explained word by word thus: “not accepting beings” is “not accepting a soul (the soul-self); there is only the false reckoning of a self”; “beings are empty” is “the dharma of beings has nothing whatever”; “beings cannot be found” is “when sought with real knowledge they cannot be found”; “beings are apart” is “all dharmas are apart from their own marks” (as fire is apart from its mark of heat, all dharmas are each apart from their own marks). It is precisely because the bodhisattva has entered deeply into this emptiness of beings and emptiness of dharmas that he “remembers his original vow to liberate beings,” and seeing beings “give rise to all kinds of attachment in empty things,” he arouses great compassion—“though I know this matter, others do not know it”—and for the sake of teaching and transforming them he gives rise to great kindness and great compassion. And it is in that same emptiness that he “breaks stinginess without breaking giving”: the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind, “because the six evils are mixed into his practice, does not increase the six perfections”; now he knows the marks of dharmas and pulls up the root of the six evils—“knowing that giving is good, and that the stingy mind is not good and can make one fall among the hungry ghosts and into poverty”; the illness of stinginess and greed lies in “cherishing one’s own body and being attached to worldly pleasure,” so that “one can give light things but not heavy things, outer things but not inner things,” all because “being attached to self, attached to the receiver, grasping at marks and attached to wealth and things” “breaks the perfection of giving; though there is something given, it is not pure.” The bodhisattva who practises accord with emptiness “does not see a self, does not see worldly pleasure,” and so does not give rise to this attachment. Question: since he sees no self and no worldly pleasure and so is not broken by stinginess, he should also not see giving—how then does he practise giving? The treatise answers wonderfully: 「雖不見布施，以清淨空心布施」 tr. "though he does not see giving, he gives with a pure, empty mind," forming the thought “this giving is empty and has nothing whatever; beings need it, so I give it”—「如小兒以土為金銀，長者不見是金銀，便隨意與，竟無所與」 tr. "as a small child takes earth for gold and silver; the elder does not see it as gold and silver, gives freely as the child wishes, and in the end gives nothing"—the small child asks for earth as though it were gold, and the elder, knowing clearly it is not gold, gives it off-hand, and in truth there is no gold to give; the other five perfections are likewise. 「雖同空，破慳而不破檀」 tr. "though alike empty, it breaks stinginess and does not break giving"—the one same emptiness breaks the attachment of stinginess without destroying the practice of giving; this is exactly where emptiness that does not cut off, with compassion and wisdom operating together, comes to rest, and it is also the real meaning of 「住是空相應中，能常不生慳、犯戒、瞋、懈怠、亂、無智六惡心」 tr. "abiding in this accord with emptiness, one can always not give rise to the six evil minds of stinginess, breaking the precepts, anger, laziness, distraction, and lack of wisdom."
Do Not Misread
Do not read this part’s “not joined” as negating the Buddha-dharma, or negating the six perfections and the supernormal powers. The sūtra first speaks of practising in accord and of accord, and only then speaks of not joined; “not joined” is aimed at that “joining” which grasps at marks and clings to them as real, not at making one abandon sarvajñā or abandon the Buddha and awakening. To say that even the Buddha and awakening are not joined is exactly to pull out the last remnant of the mind that “has a real thing to cling to”; and at the end of the passage the sūtra at once says “the Buddha is precisely sarvajñā; awakening is precisely sarvajñā,” precisely to guard against reading “not joined” as “two things cut off from each other.”
Do not read “not practising prajñā for the sake of prajñā, and so on up to not for the sake of the five supernormal powers” as telling people not to cultivate merit or bring forth supernormal powers. The treatise says it plainly: the five supernormal powers “are able to benefit beings widely,” and without them one is “like a bird without two wings”—when did the Buddha ever discard them? What is screened off is the “for the sake of” of “bodhisattvas without skilful means who obtain the five powers and look down on others in arrogance.” “Not for the sake of” screens off doing for the sake of while attached to marks; it does not tell one to do nothing at all—to one whose mind has nothing to which it is attached, the sūtra says just the same, “he practises prajñā in order to teach and transform beings and purify the buddha-world.”
Do not read “leaving the two views of existence and non-existence” as nothing being allowed to be said, with the cause and effect of good and evil levelled flat. The treatise distinguishes plainly: to attach to emptiness and so form the view of non-existence is certainly wrong, and in the case of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa the Buddha himself says “there is good and there is evil; to be able to discriminate good and evil according to reality is to enter dharma-nature and is called attaining the path.” What emptiness breaks is the false discrimination that “prizes and is attached to dharma-nature, taking it as an entity”; it does not break the right knowledge, “after realising dharma-nature, of knowing good and knowing evil according to reality”; within ultimate emptiness, the cause and effect of good and evil are not disordered by a single thread. After refuting permanence, one is also not allowed to cling to “impermanence is right”—the Middle Way is not sitting on the fence; it is not being attached to either side while things remain distinctly as they are.
Do not read “joined” and “equal” as ordinary fitting together and resemblance. The treatise takes them apart most finely with the simile of two fingers: what is called “joined” is only “because the two fingers are near each other it is provisionally named joined; there is no further dharma of joining,” and the touching portion “is not the finger; it is a part of the finger”; “equal” too is only the designation “called equal because of one mark,” and examined to its reality, “because empty of own-nature there is no dharma; because there is no dharma there is no equal and not equal.” Only when even the pair “equal and not equal” is screened off entirely is there accord at the place of “not in accord.”
Do not take “Māra cannot destroy, the buddhas protect, grave offences received lightly, always meeting the buddhas” as protection and reward coming from outside. The treatise says it clearly: the root of Māra not getting his opportunity lies in the bodhisattva’s own “having no transgression or error because he is not attached to dharmas”; the intention of the buddhas’ special mindfulness lies in “not letting him fall into the two vehicles”; the cause of always meeting the Buddha lies in “loving and being attached to nothing apart from prajñā, the mother”—these are all the workings of accord with emptiness, not some separate miraculous efficacy outside accord with emptiness. Above all, the brahmin who was the king’s teacher in the time of Vipaśyin Buddha, who for a single evil word fell among the animals for ninety-one kalpas, shows by contrast that “never apart from the Buddha” rests wholly on the reverent recollection and non-attachment of one’s own mind, and cannot be had by luck.
Finally, “no different from one who has received a prediction” does not equal having already received a prediction. One of sharp faculties is near to receiving a prediction, but his other virtues are not yet ripe and it has not been given; the praise is only to encourage his mind to advance, and must not be read as accomplishment the moment one cultivates emptiness. And “breaking stinginess without breaking giving” is also not “since all is empty, why give?”—the bodhisattva “gives with a pure, empty mind, as a small child takes earth for gold, and the elder gives freely and in the end gives nothing”; what is emptied is the attachment of stinginess, not the practice of giving.
Bearing on Practice
This part can serve as a plumb-line for testing the mind: whenever you feel that somewhere you have come into “accord,” have “joined” with the Dharma, turn back and ask—is what I have joined with just another real thing grasped as a mark? Recollecting the merits of the Buddha, keeping precepts and wholesome dharmas, even gazing ahead to “I shall attain the path, I shall receive a prediction”—once the mind grasps a mark, once it is tied, it is like joining the false with the real, like fine food mixed with poison, and the more vigorous one is, the more it becomes bondage. The right understanding this part teaches is to go the opposite way: going “not joined” all the way down, returning one by one to provisional names of causes and conditions the expectation laid on the three times, the self-regard of wholesome dharmas, the clinging to the names and marks of the Buddha-dharma, even the self-exaltation of supernormal powers and meditative states, until only an emptiness that cannot be found remains—and from within this emptiness great kindness and great compassion arise of themselves, and the six evil minds of stinginess, breaking the precepts, anger, laziness, distraction, and lack of wisdom of themselves do not arise.
What is most worth taking up in daily life is the single mechanism of “not for the sake of marks, yet still for the sake of the work”: whether shaking the earth and dividing the body, or giving and keeping precepts, while doing it keep in mind only the benefit of beings, turn only toward omniscience, and do not fall into “I can, I have attained.” When you bring forth a measure of supernormal power or cultivate a measure of meditative state, remember 「熱金丸雖見色妙不可手觸」 tr. "the red-hot golden ball, though its colour is seen to be wondrous, cannot be touched with the hand"—however excellent the state, once one grasps its mark and exalts oneself it becomes poison; only by not grasping at marks and not exalting oneself is it like the Buddha’s body entering the three gates of liberation, its colour and form, though wondrous, not to be touched or clung to with a mind that grasps at marks, and there is no obstruction for oneself or for others.
Facing slander, insult and adversity, remember that the root of “Māra cannot destroy” is having no transgression or error: when the mind is not attached to the buddhas and not angry at Māra, outer evil is like poison that does not enter a body without sores. And the brahmin in the time of Vipaśyin Buddha, who for one evil word fell among the animals for ninety-one kalpas, is a still more intimate mirror—the recompense of evil speech that slights the Saṅgha and looks down on others is far heavier than one imagines; conversely, recollecting the Buddha life after life and making the vow not to be apart from the Buddha is the true cause of “never apart from seeing the Buddha.” If you wish always to meet the Buddha, first ask yourself what, apart from prajñā and apart from the real mark, you still love and are attached to—wherever you love and are attached, there you are born following it.
The five questions on dharma-nature give the one who applies effort the deepest blade for breaking attachment: even thoughts such as “I want to attain dharma-nature quickly,” “I can attain dharma-nature,” “there is a dharma-nature that can discriminate dharmas” must be illumined through and broken. Yet breaking to the bottom does not fall into annihilation—the case of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa reminds us: within ultimate emptiness, good is still good and evil is still evil, and 「如實分別善惡」 tr. "discriminating good and evil according to reality" is precisely entering dharma-nature, and is called attaining the path. Emptiness does not abolish the cause and effect of good and evil—this is the most essential proportion in practice.
And the two places, “benefiting beings like the earth, seeking no return” and “breaking stinginess without breaking giving,” are most worth taking as a model in daily life: benefiting others without asking a single return, like the great earth bearing things; giving without seeing that there is giving, like the elder who gives earth and yet gives nothing. To be able, amid praise and blame, still to keep this one flavour of emptiness and this one flavour of kindness is to have cultivated “accord with emptiness is foremost” in one’s own person.
Further Resonances
Later readers of the remainder of the Chapter on Practising in Accord each took up a section according to what they valued. Some singled out “sarvajñā is not joined with the three times” to make clear the purport that the true and the false do not enter one another and that dedication does not grasp at marks; some cited “not practising form as existent, not practising form as non-existent,” and on through all eight pairs not practised, to show the teaching of leaving the two edges and walking the Middle Way; some singled out “not practising prajñā for the sake of the five supernormal powers,” together with the simile of “the red-hot golden ball that cannot be touched with the hand,” to warn those who bring forth powers and exalt themselves; some marked out the five benefits—“the evil Māra cannot get his opportunity, the buddhas protect him, received lightly in this present life”—to encourage practitioners to trust deeply in the merit of prajñā and to extend a mind of kindness to things; some took up “always meeting the buddhas, never apart from seeing the Buddha,” together with the jātaka of the evil speech in the time of Vipaśyin Buddha and the fall among the animals, to spur recollection of the Buddha without separation and not daring to slight the Saṅgha; some took the passage “two fingers provisionally joined; equal and not equal alike cannot be found” to show the principle that dharmas have not the least part joined; and some went straight to “the five questions on dharma-nature” and the case of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa asking about good and evil, to establish the teaching that “emptiness does not abolish good and evil; discriminating good and evil according to reality is entering dharma-nature”; and what is most worth keeping is still, at the end of the fascicle, “the bodhisattva who practises emptiness does not fall into the stage of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha,” “this accord with emptiness surpasses the other accords,” and the four statements “beings are not accepted, beings are empty, beings cannot be found, beings are apart,” together with the closing “breaking stinginess without breaking giving.” These uses each have their own emphasis; they are recorded side by side without judging which is higher. Brought back to this part, what is most worth keeping is still that one move by which the sūtra goes “not joined” all the way to the end and turns up at the last—all dharmas are not joined with sarvajñā, and so not a single mark is grasped; and precisely because not a single mark is grasped, within an emptiness ultimately unfindable one does not fall into the two stages, can purify buddha-lands, gives rise to great kindness and compassion, and in the end accomplishes what is foremost among all accords.
習相應品 · 承衍Practising in Accord · Further Resonances
全文五層 →Full five layers →承衍
〈習相應品〉的義脈，前有所承，後有所啟。所承者是前之〈報應品〉：彼品末已說空，本品緊接著發問——既已說空，今何以重說。可見〈習相應品〉不是另起爐灶，而是把前品所立的「空」再往深處推一層，逼出法空之外並說眾生空的答案——修行人觀外法盡空，卻常暗許能觀空者不空，故須再說觀者亦空；由此開出全品之眼，即品末所結的空相應為第一相應。所啟者，則是其後之〈往生品〉：本品既已把「習應」收於眾生畢竟不生不滅、空相應能生大慈大悲，度生之事便自然成為下一問的去向——往生品開篇即承此追問，既已說無菩薩、無般若、無去來，今何故又說有菩薩往生、有從何處終而來生此間。前品說空、此品說二空並觀、後品說無來去而遍往生，三品是同一條般若之路的次第深化。
後來古德讀本品，最著眼的正是這條「二空並說、空相應第一」的樞紐。吉藏《大品經義疏》直呼「大智論」而逐字牒引本品，以「故大智論釋習應品云」引出本品開篇「前已明生法二空，今何故復辨生空」的問答，正取本疏〈總說〉所拈出的法空眾生空並說一節；其《中觀論疏》又兩處以本品科判為據，判本品初正說菩薩習應波若、次明得益，見古德自有一套與本帙經論相間之科段不同軸的分判。慧遠《大乘義章》一處直引本品所立七空之數，列性空、相空、諸法空、不可得空、無法空、有法空等目，與本品七空全同而次序略異；另一處引本品十六神我之義，判其出於大品習相應品。元康《肇論疏》兩處引本品「非色異空、非空異色，色即是空、空即是色」一段為肇論注腳，見本品此句在後世般若注疏中的分量。湛然《法華玄義釋籤》引本品「一日修智慧」句以顯般若如日照世，其《止觀輔行傳弘決》又直釋「習應」之名——如是修習使得相應，正與本品舍利弗問「云何習應般若、與般若相應」相應。此處僅誌錄諸家所引段落與本品的對應關係，以見各家如何讀本品，不判其詮釋高下，亦不取一家判釋以定本品之義。
把這一路承衍帶回本品，最值得保存的不是一張更繁複的習應分類，而是它對「相應」二字的改寫。凡夫式的相應，以有一套實有觀法可精熟、有一個能相應者去與所相應之法相合為實事；本品則反過來，愈是深達法空與眾生空並觀的不可得，愈能於一切相應相中不取一相——習應色空乃至七空，卻不見色若相應若不相應；行空得法性，卻連空與法性都不相合；直至十八界不與空合，而說空相應為第一。每一種習應相，都是同一件事的深淺不同：無法可觀而遍觀諸法，無相應相可取而遍與般若相應。
因此，〈習相應品〉最終不是教人習熟一套與般若相合的觀法，而是留下一條可反覆使用的問路法：我此刻所執的相應，是又一重能觀所觀的取著，還是連能合所合都已放於不可得？我所觀的空，是暗許了一個不空的觀者，還是法空眾生空一時並觀？能否既不把相應當作實有可取，又不因畢竟空而廢度眾之慈悲？在每一個當下答好這幾問，便已走在不取相應相而遍與般若相應的空相應之路上。
Further Resonances
The vein of meaning in the chapter on Practising in Accord has something it inherits before it and something it opens after it. What it inherits is the preceding chapter, Recompense: at the end of that chapter emptiness had already been spoken, and this chapter follows at once with a question—since emptiness has already been spoken, why is it spoken again now? One can see that Practising in Accord does not start over from nothing; rather, it pushes the “emptiness” established in the preceding chapter one layer deeper, forcing out the answer that, beyond the emptiness of dharmas, the emptiness of beings is taught alongside it—the practitioner contemplates outer dharmas as entirely empty, yet often tacitly allows that the one who contemplates emptiness is not empty, and so it must be taught further that the contemplator too is empty; from this opens the eye of the whole chapter, namely what the end of the chapter concludes: that accord with emptiness is the foremost accord. What it opens is the chapter that comes after, Rebirth: since this chapter has already gathered “practising in accord” into the ultimate neither-arising-nor-ceasing of beings, and accord with emptiness can give rise to great kindness and great compassion, the work of carrying beings across naturally becomes where the next question goes—the chapter on Rebirth, at its opening, takes up exactly this pressing question: since it has already been said that there is no bodhisattva, no prajñā, no going and coming, why is it now said again that there is a bodhisattva who is reborn, that there is a place from which one ends and comes to be born here? The preceding chapter speaks of emptiness, this chapter speaks of contemplating the two emptinesses together, the following chapter speaks of no coming and going and yet being reborn everywhere: the three chapters are the successive deepening of one and the same path of prajñā.
When later ancient masters read this chapter, what they fixed their eyes on most was precisely this hinge of “the two emptinesses taught together, accord with emptiness foremost.” Jizang, in his Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, calls it outright the “Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa” and cites this chapter word for word: with “therefore the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, explaining the chapter on Practising in Accord, says,” he brings out the question and answer at this chapter’s opening, 「前已明生法二空，今何故復辨生空」 tr. "The twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas has already been made clear before; why now discuss the emptiness of beings again?"—taking up exactly the section, drawn out in this exposition’s Overview, in which the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings are taught together. In his Commentary on the Middle Treatise he further, in two places, takes this chapter’s division into sections as his basis, judging that this chapter first directly teaches the bodhisattva’s practising in accord with prajñā, and next makes clear the benefit gained—showing that the ancient master had his own scheme of division, not on the same axis as the sectioning of this collection, in which sūtra and treatise alternate. Jingying Huiyuan, in his Compendium of Mahāyāna Doctrines, in one place directly cites the number of the seven emptinesses established in this chapter, listing such headings as emptiness of nature, emptiness of marks, emptiness of all dharmas, emptiness of the unfindable, emptiness of non-existent dharmas, and emptiness of existent dharmas—entirely the same as this chapter’s seven emptinesses, though slightly different in order; in another place he cites this chapter’s teaching of the sixteen names for the self, judging that it comes from the chapter on Practising in Accord of the Larger Sūtra. Yuankang, in his Commentary on the Zhaolun, in two places cites this chapter’s passage 「非色異空、非空異色，色即是空、空即是色」 tr. "Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form; form is emptiness, emptiness is form" as a gloss on the Zhaolun, showing the weight this sentence of the chapter carries in later commentaries on the prajñā literature. Zhanran, in his Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus, cites this chapter’s line 「一日修智慧」 tr. "to cultivate wisdom for a single day" to show prajñā as the sun illuminating the world; and in his Supporting Practice and Broad Resolution of Calming and Contemplation he further directly explains the name “practising in accord”—practising in this way so as to attain accord—which answers exactly to Śāriputra’s question in this chapter, 「云何習應般若、與般若相應」 tr. "How does one practise in accord with prajñā, and come into accord with prajñā?" Here only the correspondence between the passages the various masters cite and this chapter is recorded, to show how each of them read this chapter; their interpretations are not judged higher or lower, nor is one master’s judgement taken to settle the meaning of this chapter.
Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a still more intricate classification of the kinds of practising in accord, but its rewriting of the word “accord.” Accord in the ordinary person’s manner takes it as a real matter that there is a set of really existent methods of contemplation that can be mastered, and that there is one who accords who goes and unites with the dharma accorded with; this chapter reverses that: the more deeply one penetrates the unfindability of contemplating the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings together, the more one can, amid every mark of accord, not grasp a single mark—practising in accord with the emptiness of form, up to the seven emptinesses, and yet not seeing form as either in accord or not in accord; practising emptiness and attaining dharma-nature, and yet even emptiness and dharma-nature do not unite; until the eighteen elements do not unite with emptiness, and accord with emptiness is declared foremost. Each mark of practising in accord is the same one matter at a different depth: with no dharma to contemplate, contemplating all dharmas everywhere; with no mark of accord to grasp, according everywhere with prajñā.
Therefore, the chapter on Practising in Accord in the end does not teach people to grow practised in a set of methods of contemplation that unite with prajñā; rather, it leaves behind a way of questioning that can be used again and again: is the accord I am holding to at this moment one more layer of grasping at a contemplator and a contemplated, or have even the one who unites and the thing united with been let go into the unfindable? Does the emptiness I contemplate tacitly allow a contemplator who is not empty, or are the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of beings contemplated together at once? Can I neither take accord as something really existent to be grasped, nor, because of ultimate emptiness, abandon the kindness and compassion of carrying beings across? To answer these few questions well in each present moment is already to be walking the path of accord with emptiness, which grasps no mark of accord and yet accords everywhere with prajñā.
往生品Rebirth
全文五層 →Full five layers →總說
〈往生品〉開篇，舍利弗問了兩個看似平常的問題：與般若相應的菩薩，是從哪裡命終、來生此間？又從此間命終，將往生何處？佛先以三處答其來——或從他方佛國、或從兜率天上、或從人道中；再就其去廣分別，鋪陳種種往生之相。全品因此環繞一個「生」字，卻不是問一個實在的我如何在三界間搬移，而是問：一個深知眾生畢竟不可得的菩薩，憑什麼仍有來、有去、有往生度眾生之事？
這一問，論主在開篇即點出樞紐。既然般若之中眾生畢竟不可得，壽者、命者乃至知者、見者諸名皆空無實，連菩薩也但有名字而無實法，那麼「從何所來，去至何所」豈非戲論？論主的答覆是佛法二諦：為世諦故說有眾生，為第一義諦故說眾生無所有。二諦不是兩套互相取消的言說，而是同一實相的兩面——世諦上有菩薩、有往生、有度眾生之事可說，第一義諦上無眾生、無來去、無一法可得。所以問往生，其實就是問菩薩的行處；而菩薩的行處，正落在無我無往來、卻不捨眾生往生的這一不二之地。全品所列種種往生相，都須放回這個樞紐來讀：離了第一義，往生只成輪迴的續篇；離了世諦，度生便成空談。
論主還從另一面補足這個樞紐：舍利弗以天眼明見六道生死，於此本無所疑，所疑者唯是他方無量世界來生、與此間終而生他方佛國者，天眼所不能見，故問；又因聲聞人見菩薩久住生死、漏未盡而輕愍之，舍利弗欲令眾生於菩薩起敬心，故問。可見「往生」之問不是好奇一個去處，而是要顯出菩薩與凡夫、二乘往生之別——別不在有無往來，而在往來之中是否常值諸佛、是否以念佛三昧與般若疾疾相應、是否得法性生身而變化身入三界以度眾生。品中「隨業生」與「得法性身」兩種菩薩之分，正是這一別的骨幹：前者隨業受身而根鈍，後者不以結業受身，遍現三界而不受業繫。
全品依三卷分作三分弧。之上（卷三十八）立問而奠基：先以二諦答「畢竟空何以問往來」，再分別三處來、去處廣說，鋪出種種往生相——長壽天與欲界之不隨方便、方便入禪而不隨禪生、梵天勸請轉法輪、兜率一生補處、六神通遊戲十方、初發意即得諸禪定；末以乘羊、乘馬、乘神通三喻與阿彌陀佛先世法藏比丘的公案，顯利根久集福德者初發心即入菩薩位、淨其國土。這一分的重心，是把「往生」從業報之流，改寫為禪定方便力所導的度生行處。
之中（卷三十九）把方便與定慧往深處收。先明超越定——菩薩以方便力能於諸禪與滅盡定之間逆順自在，非小乘定法「超不過二」之限所能量；繼而說菩薩不取四果，卻以八聖道令眾生得須陀洹乃至辟支佛道，並直指一切阿羅漢、辟支佛的果與智，在菩薩份上只是無生法忍的一角。其後歷數種種菩薩相，並把淨業與麁業的判準由外相轉入內裡：取一切法相即是罪業，法不可得乃名淨佛道。分末轉入五眼——肉眼、天眼求見於外，慧眼破虛誑而見諸法實相，行於中道而無法不見。定慧至此已不是自證的高處，而是能不受占有地運作於度生之中。
之下（卷四十）以五眼圓成收束全品。法眼分別眾生隨信行、隨法行，斷三結而成須陀洹乃至辟支佛，並開出菩薩十九種法眼，知眾生退不退、受記未受記、到地未到地；佛眼則入金剛三昧得一切種智，具十力四無畏，而般若正是能生五眼之本，學五眼者得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。神通波羅蜜隨後展開，六神通一一自性空、自性離，皆除為薩婆若心而修；六度各住畢竟空，如金剛山四面來風而心無增減。末以一切眾生中生等心、得一切諸法等，現世為十方諸佛所念作結，並記三百比丘捨衣發心、佛微笑授記六十一劫後成佛號大相、生阿閦佛國，十千人願生淨土號莊嚴王——業因緣果報相續，不可思議。往生之路，至此歸於等心等法與淨願往生的實證。
本品的說法有經、論兩層。經文多先設一種往生相或一種眼，再由舍利弗發問，佛以三處、以不可得、以自性空作答；論釋則追問為何如此答、為何別說某處而不說某處、前後相如何銜接，又以牛足比丘、六牙白象、乘羊乘馬乘神通、法藏比丘等故事與譬喻顯出行法的重量。若只讀經列，往生種種相容易變成一串名目；若只讀論中的故事，又容易失去每則故事所回答的那一項難題。最穩妥的讀法，是先認出該段要顯的是「往生之別」的哪一面，再看經文如何以不可得淨化它，最後看論釋如何把它落回二諦、因緣與行動。
因此讀每一段往生相時，至少可問三層。其一，這一相所往之處與所以往之力是什麼——是隨業，還是法性生身的方便化現？其二，經文所說的不可得，究竟在清除哪一個能往、所往或往生果的執取相？其三，論釋用哪個問難，防止讀者把「無往來」讀成斷滅、或把「有往生」讀成實我流轉？本品的問答常先承認質疑有力，再以二諦、以因緣、以語義限定之——正是這種不草率抹平兩邊的方式，使往生既不是一個實我的旅程，也不是可以取消的方便說。順著這條二諦之路讀下去，全品種種往生相自會落定為同一件事：無眾生可得而遍生度眾，無來去可執而常值諸佛。
依原論次序讀下去
Overview
At the opening of the “Rebirth” chapter, Śāriputra asks two questions that seem ordinary: a bodhisattva in accord with prajñā—from where does his life end, so that he comes to be born here? And when his life ends here, where will he go to be reborn? The Buddha first answers his coming by three places—he comes either from the buddha-lands of other quarters, or from the Tuṣita Heaven above, or from the human destiny; then, concerning his going, he distinguishes broadly and lays out the many marks of rebirth. The whole chapter therefore revolves around the single word “birth,” yet it is not asking how a real self moves about among the three realms; it asks rather: a bodhisattva who knows deeply that beings are ultimately unfindable—on what ground does he still have a coming, a going, and the work of being reborn to liberate beings?
This question the treatise-author points out as the pivot at the very opening. Since within prajñā beings are ultimately unfindable, the names “one who lives long,” “one who has life,” up to “one who knows” and “one who sees” are all empty and without reality, and even the bodhisattva has only a name and no real dharma—then is not 「從何所來，去至何所」 tr. "from where does he come, and where does he go" idle discourse? The treatise-author’s reply is the Buddha-Dharma’s two truths: for the sake of worldly truth it is said that there are beings; for the sake of the truth of the highest meaning it is said that beings have no existence. The two truths are not two sets of discourse that cancel each other, but two faces of one real mark—in worldly truth there are a bodhisattva, rebirth, and the work of liberating beings that can be spoken of; in the truth of the highest meaning there are no beings, no coming and going, not a single dharma to be obtained. So to ask about rebirth is in fact to ask about the bodhisattva’s place of practice; and the bodhisattva’s place of practice falls precisely on this non-dual ground of no self and no going and coming, yet not abandoning beings and rebirth. All the many marks of rebirth that the chapter lists must be read by being set back upon this pivot: apart from the highest meaning, rebirth becomes only a sequel of saṃsāra; apart from worldly truth, liberating beings becomes empty talk.
The treatise-author also completes this pivot from another side: Śāriputra, with the divine eye, clearly sees the dying and being born of the six destinies, and about these he has no doubt at all; what he doubts is only those who come to be born here from the immeasurable worlds of other quarters, and those whose lives end here and who are born in the buddha-lands of other quarters—these the divine eye cannot see, and so he asks. Further, because śrāvakas, seeing that bodhisattvas dwell long in birth and death with their outflows not yet exhausted, look down on them and pity them, Śāriputra wishes to make beings give rise to a reverent mind toward bodhisattvas, and so he asks. It can be seen that the question of “rebirth” is not curiosity about a destination, but aims to show the difference between the rebirth of the bodhisattva and that of ordinary people and of the two vehicles—a difference that lies not in whether there is going and coming, but in whether, within going and coming, he constantly meets the buddhas, whether by the samādhi of recollecting the Buddha he swiftly comes into accord with prajñā, and whether he obtains the body born of the dharma-nature and with a transformation body enters the three realms to liberate beings. The chapter’s division between two kinds of bodhisattva, 「隨業生」 tr. "born according to karma" and 「得法性身」 tr. "having obtained the dharma-nature body", is the very backbone of this difference: the former receives a body according to karma and is of dull faculties; the latter does not receive a body through the karma of the fetters, and appears everywhere in the three realms without being bound by karma.
The whole chapter, following its three fascicles, forms an arc of three divisions. The first division (fascicle thirty-eight) sets up the question and lays the foundation: it first answers by the two truths “why, if all is ultimately empty, ask about going and coming,” then distinguishes the three places of coming and speaks broadly of the places of going, laying out the many marks of rebirth—not following the long-lived gods and the desire realm without skilful means; entering the meditations by skilful means yet not being born according to the meditations; the Brahmā god’s request to turn the wheel of the Dharma; the one who succeeds after one more birth in the Tuṣita Heaven; roaming at play through the ten directions with the six supernormal powers; obtaining the meditative concentrations at the very first arousing of intent; at its close, by the three similes of riding a goat, riding a horse, and riding supernormal power, together with the case of Amitābha Buddha in a former life as the bhikṣu Dharma Treasury, it shows that one of sharp faculties who has long accumulated merit enters the bodhisattva stage at the first arousing of the mind and purifies his land. The centre of gravity of this division is to rewrite “rebirth” from a stream of karmic recompense into the place of practice for liberating beings, guided by the power of skilful means in meditation.
The middle division (fascicle thirty-nine) draws skilful means, concentration, and wisdom further into the depths. It first makes clear the leaping absorption—the bodhisattva, by the power of skilful means, can move freely in reverse and forward order among the meditations and the attainment of cessation, which cannot be measured by the limit of the lesser vehicle’s method of concentration, 「超不過二」 tr. "the transcending does not pass over more than two"; it then says that the bodhisattva does not take the four fruits, yet by the noble eightfold path causes beings to obtain the path of the srota-āpanna and so on up to that of the pratyekabuddha, and points directly to the fact that the fruits and knowledge of all arhats and pratyekabuddhas are, in the bodhisattva’s share, only one corner of the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. After that it recounts one by one the many marks of the bodhisattva, and turns the criterion of pure karma and coarse karma from outward marks inward: grasping the marks of all dharmas is itself sinful karma; dharmas being unfindable is what is called the pure path of the Buddha. At the end of the division it turns to the five eyes—the fleshly eye and the divine eye seek to see outward; the wisdom eye breaks through the empty and deceptive and sees the real mark of all dharmas, practising the middle way, so that there is no dharma it does not see. Concentration and wisdom here are no longer a height of self-realisation, but something that can operate within the liberating of beings without being possessed.
The last division (fascicle forty) closes the whole chapter with the perfecting of the five eyes. The dharma eye distinguishes beings who follow by faith and who follow by the Dharma, who cut off the three fetters and become srota-āpannas and so on up to pratyekabuddhas, and it opens out the bodhisattva’s nineteen kinds of dharma eye, knowing whether beings will retrogress or not, have received the prediction or not, have reached the ground or not; the buddha eye enters the vajra samādhi and obtains the omniscience of all kinds, complete with the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses; and prajñā is precisely the root that can give birth to the five eyes—one who trains in the five eyes obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The perfection of supernormal powers then unfolds: each of the six supernormal powers is empty of own-nature and apart from own-nature, and all are cultivated solely for the sake of the mind of sarvajñā; each of the six perfections abides in ultimate emptiness, like a vajra mountain with winds coming from its four sides while the mind neither increases nor decreases. It concludes with giving rise to an even mind among all beings and obtaining the equality of all dharmas, so that in this very life one is held in mind by the buddhas of the ten directions; and it records that three hundred bhikṣus offered up their robes and aroused the mind, that the Buddha smiled and predicted that after sixty-one kalpas they would become buddhas named Great Mark and be born in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha, and that ten thousand people vowed to be born in the pure land and were named Adornment King—karmic causes and conditions and their fruits and recompense continue on, inconceivable. The path of rebirth here comes home to the actual realisation of an even mind, the equality of dharmas, and rebirth by pure vows.
The teaching of this chapter has two layers, sūtra and treatise. The sūtra text mostly first sets out one mark of rebirth or one eye, then Śāriputra asks, and the Buddha answers by the three places, by unfindability, by emptiness of own-nature; the treatise’s commentary then presses on why the answer is so, why one place is spoken of separately and another not, how the earlier and later marks join together, and further, by stories and similes such as the bhikṣu Ox-Foot, the six-tusked white elephant, riding a goat, riding a horse, riding supernormal power, and the bhikṣu Dharma Treasury, brings out the weight of the practice. Read only the sūtra’s list, and the many marks of rebirth easily become a string of names; read only the stories in the treatise, and one easily loses the particular difficulty each story answers. The surest way of reading is first to recognise which face of ‘the difference in rebirth’ a given passage is meant to show, then to see how the sūtra text purifies it by unfindability, and finally to see how the treatise’s commentary brings it back down to the two truths, to causes and conditions, and to action.
Therefore, in reading each mark of rebirth, one can ask at least three layers. First, what is the place gone to by this mark, and the power by which one goes there—is it following karma, or the skilful-means transformation of the body born of the dharma-nature? Second, the unfindability of which the sūtra text speaks—which grasped mark of the one who goes, the place gone to, or the fruit of rebirth is it clearing away? Third, by which challenge does the treatise’s commentary keep the reader from reading ‘no going and coming’ as annihilation, or reading ‘there is rebirth’ as the transmigration of a real self? The questions and answers of this chapter often first acknowledge that the doubt has force, and then qualify it by the two truths, by causes and conditions, by limits of meaning—it is precisely this way of not hastily levelling both sides that makes rebirth neither the journey of a real self nor an expedient saying that could be cancelled. Read on along this two-truth path, and the many marks of rebirth throughout the chapter will of themselves settle into one and the same matter: with no beings to be obtained, yet born everywhere to liberate beings; with no coming and going to be clung to, yet constantly meeting the buddhas.
Reading On in the Order of the Treatise
往生品之上Rebirth, Part 1 of 3
全文五層 →Full five layers →往生品之上：畢竟空中，為何仍說菩薩有來有去
在問什麼
舍利弗的問題看似平常：修般若、與般若相應的菩薩，是從哪裡命終來、又往哪裡去。可是這一問正落在前面幾品的刀口上——前品才反覆說眾生畢竟不可得、菩薩但有名字而無實法，如今卻問『從何處來、去至何處』，豈不是自相矛盾？往生品之上的全部張力就在這裡：一邊是「無來無去」的畢竟空，一邊是佛廣說種種菩薩由何處受生、往何處成佛的『有來有去』。若把兩邊看成互相取消，這一品便無法成立；能不能在不動搖畢竟空的前提下，如實安立生死往來與修行進趣，正是這一分要回答的。
逐段解明
一、發問本身要先被安頓——二諦與四對根機。 論主不急著答菩薩從哪來，而先問舍利弗為什麼還能這樣問。答案是佛法有二諦：「為世諦」故說有眾生，「說眾生無所有」是為第一義諦。這不是兩套真理打對台，而是同一法的兩種說法場合。論更把受法的人分作四對來配這二諦：知不知名字相、初習與久習、著與不著、知不知他意——譬如「軍立密號」，同在一軍而有知號、不知號之別。對不知名字相、初習而執著、不知他意的人說「無眾生」，替他拔除實我；對知名字相、久習而不執著、知他意的人說「有眾生」，讓他不落斷滅。四對不是四種資格，而是同一句話對不同心地各說一半：說無、說有，都是應病。論又補一層：舍利弗以天眼見六道生死本無所疑，他真正不知道的，是那些從他方無量世界來、或往他方佛國去的大菩薩，天眼照不到，所以問；更因有小乘人憐憫又輕看久住生死的菩薩，舍利弗身為聲聞法將，要令眾生對菩薩生敬心，才代眾發問。發問於是不是懷疑空義，而是替眾生問一條路。
二、為何獨舉三處、不列惡道——一條判準三重不說。 佛答菩薩或從他方佛國、或從兜率天、或從人道來。論分別『為何不列惡道』時，給出一個貫穿全段的判準：從惡道來的，受苦因緣使心鈍，不堪按次第直趣佛道。縱有牛足比丘「五百世牛中生」、末後得人身而足猶似牛卻「得阿羅漢道」，又有摩偷婆尸他比丘五百世生獼猴中而證三明六神通，這等從畜生身出而得道的舊例，論也不諱——只是判其為「先世深種涅槃善根，小有謬錯」才墮惡道，「償罪既畢，涅槃善根熟」才成道果，數少不足為常法，故說惡道來者「不任次第得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」。這判準再往上推，便有三重「不說」：天中所以獨舉兜率，是因下三天結使利而深、上二天結使深而不利，唯兜率「結使不深不利」而常有菩薩說法；色界諸天，得道者不復下、未得道者著禪味而不下，著味則智慧亦鈍，故不說；阿修羅同下二天，亦不說。三重不說的尺度始終是同一把——心能不能承接般若，不是出身的貴賤。
三、三處來者的根利根鈍，全繫於離不離佛。 同一判準落到三處：他方佛國來者從諸佛前來生，因除無量劫罪、遇佛隨心教導（「如刀得好石則利」）、常誦正憶念般若而諸根猛利；人中來者雖集諸功德、堪受般若，卻「以不見現在佛故心鈍」。經文特別點出他方來者「諸深法要皆現在前」，正是根利與常值諸佛的具體樣子。至於兜率何以「但說一生補處」不說二生三生，論答得妙：人身是罪結煩惱處，唯大菩薩處之不染，「如鵝入水，水不令濕」；佛自說其因緣是「不失六波羅蜜」、諸陀羅尼三昧門疾現在前，此菩薩應在此界利眾，其餘則分布十方，故獨舉一生補處。又何以「人中死人中生者，不如上二處」？論指出關要在身：「以人身地大多故，身重心鈍」，心心數法隨身強弱而轉。他方與兜率二處來者是法身菩薩變身無量以度眾生，人道中來者則皆是肉身——這也解了一疑：阿毘跋致菩薩不以結業受身，何以仍歸人道中說？答在「未捨肉身」四字：他來生此間得阿毘跋致而尚未捨肉身，故根鈍、三昧門不疾現前。分身之利鈍，不在地位高下，只在離佛近遠、捨身與否。
四、「常值諸佛」是這一分反覆迴響的主題句。 佛答後世時說，與般若相應的菩薩從一佛國至一佛國、常值諸佛、終不離佛。論解釋這不是空話：因「般若波羅蜜攝一切法」如大海無所不容，又因修念佛三昧等善法而生值諸佛，更因深入大悲、得無量福德而世世值佛。值佛不是果報的獎賞，而是不離般若之行自然的延伸——離佛則般若之緣易斷，值佛則相應之力相續。這也回應了發問時的隱憂：往生不是我這個實體在佛國之間搬移，而是相應之流不斷佛緣。
五、佛何以前世三答、後世卻廣分別。 論設一問：舍利弗前世後世並問，佛為何前世只三種答、後世反廣說？答有三層。其一，人以肉眼不見過去未來而生邪疑，然未來世終將受報，故須廣分別；譬如「已滅之火，不復求救」，卻要多方防範未生之火，治病亦然，已癒者不再治而專治將發之病——過去已定，未來可救，故詳於後。其二，佛辯才無量，少問而廣答，如貧者從「大富好施者乞」，所乞雖少而所與甚多。其三，般若中多說空法，有新發意者取著空相，於生死業因緣中生疑——『若一切法畢竟空，無來無去，云何死而有生』——為斷這一種著空之疑，佛才種種因緣廣說有死有生。這第三層要緊：後世之廣說，正是為對治『執空而撥無因果』這一顛倒，不是退回實有。
六、破斷滅見——不從玄理反駁，只舉可驗的事相。 有人主張人死如灰、如糞、如土，別無一物去受後身，不見故知無。論不與之爭玄，只列身邊可驗之事：小兒初生便「或啼或笑」，是先世習憂喜；「犢子生知趣乳」、猪羊生知牝牡、同胞子女而好醜貧富聰鈍各異，非先世因緣不能解釋。又破其『不見去者』之執：人身非獨眼能見，「六情各有所知」，可聞之法尚不可見，何況可知者；有生有死之法肉眼不見而天眼了了，如見人「從一房出，入一房」，捨此身至後身亦然——若肉眼便能見，何用求天眼。再正面立因果相續：雖無來去之實我，而煩惱不盡，身情意相續更生身情意，如「乳中著毒」，乳變酪、酪變酥，前者非後者而毒相續不失，此身亦「行業相續不異」而受後報；又如冬木未有花葉，一「得時節會，則次第而出」。論更疊舉五證：現世有知宿命者，如人疲極睡臥「覺已，憶所經由」；「一切聖人內外經書，皆說後世」；起不善法則「身則枯悴，顏色不悅」、生善法則心悅身軟「顏色和適」，既有苦樂善不善之驗，故知必有後世，如「藥師為王療病，王密為起宅」而藥師不知，歸見方悔；聖人說現在事實可信故說後世亦可信，如人「夜行嶮道，導師授手」，知可信則隨之。層層都不是思辨，而是把『死後有無』拉回可以印證的經驗與聖言。這一整段最深的一著，是把『無我』與『業不失』同時立住：斷滅見所以生，正因把「無來去者」誤讀成『一切斷滅』；論則指出無來去之實我與有相續之果報本不相礙——毒不是乳、酪、酥中任一實體，卻貫穿三者而不失，五眾亦無一物橫渡三世，而行業之勢相續受報。中觀於此不落常、不落斷：說常則有實我遷流，說斷則撥無因果，唯「相續不異」四字兩邊俱遮。這正是後文『畢竟空不遮往生』的地基——先在事相上立住不斷不常，空義才不致被誤解成斷滅。
七、畢竟空何以不遮往生——不斷不常。 論在此立一精確之語：佛法中「諸法畢竟空，而亦不斷滅」，「生死雖相續，亦不是常」，無量劫業因緣雖過去而能生果報不滅——這是微妙難知處。若諸法都空則不應說往生，若死生實有則不應說畢竟空；其實畢竟空只為除愛著邪見顛倒而說，「不為破後世故說」。論引《中論》之偈以顯此相，謂涅槃與世間之際皆真，「涅槃世無別，小異不可得」，是為畢竟空相——空而不遮生死業因緣，故說往生。執空者於空法中取相，反成新顛倒，論以「以刀斫空，終無所傷」點破：真無所著的人連空也不著，才不容兩邊之難。又答一疑：般若若一相無相，何以能與相應而常值諸佛？答般若攝一切法如海，且汝於無相中取相為難即已自違；更以「慈父見子為無所直物故死」一喻顯大悲——諸佛知法畢竟空而眾生不知、於空法中深著墮於大苦，故深入大悲、得無量福德而世世值佛。空與悲在此接榫：正因畢竟空，才有這無緣的大悲。
八、佛國之量、二種受生身。 論釋「佛國」之量：「十方如恒河沙等諸三千大千世界，是名一佛土」；諸佛神力雖普遍自在，所度眾生仍有分限。接著明二種菩薩身：一者隨業受生，二者得法性身變化自在生於三界。此下所說入禪不隨禪生的，論斷為「業因緣生身」——正因是業生，才須仗方便力不隨禪生，法身則變化自在不大須方便。這一分別是全段『有方便無方便』的根柢。
九、無方便墮長壽天、長壽天四釋、二十二根之鈍根。 無方便者入禪只著禪味、不念眾生，慈悲薄、功德少，被禪果牽生「長壽天」。長壽天論列四釋並存不判：一謂「非有想非無想處，壽八萬大劫」；一謂一切無色定通名長壽，無形不可化故不任得道；一謂無想天名長壽；一謂從初禪至四禪除淨居天皆名長壽，以著味邪見不受道。此處著味則善心難生，故經以甲頭土地土為喻——天上命終「還生人中者，如甲頭土」，墮地獄者如地土，反顯上生之難、著味之險。論又答一則細問：所謂鈍根，是「二十二根中何者是」？並列諸家：或謂慧根能觀諸法而以久著禪味故鈍；或謂信等五根助道而受報著味故鈍；或謂菩薩清淨福智故「十八根皆利」、「罪故則鈍」——如命根者「命根不為老、病、貧、窮等所惱」而安隱受樂為利，喜樂等五根了了覺知、受樂而知無常不生貪為利，信根牢堅難信能信為利，「男根淨者，得陰藏相」不著細滑知欲為過為利；又「三善根利，故名為利」，菩薩或於「三無漏根不證實際故利」，與利相違即鈍。這一長段訓根，是把『利鈍』從籠統的稱謂拆成一根一根可指的實義，並錄諸說而不強判一是。
十、第三、第四菩薩——捨禪之無方便與具足之方便。 第三菩薩既能捨禪，何以仍名無方便？論答：他命終時「入不善心，捨諸禪定方便」，或以欲界善心無記心捨禪、入慈悲念眾生而下生。「生欲界者，有十處」——四天下人與六欲天，而「三惡道，菩薩所不生」。第四菩薩才是真方便：入位得菩薩道，「修三十七品，能住十八空乃至大慈大悲」，以此方便力不隨禪、無量心、無色定而生，願生現在佛國續與般若相應。上二菩薩但有禪定直行六度，故無方便；第四菩薩以道品十八空慈悲為方便，這才把禪定從「著味」轉成『度生』的舟航。
十一、跋陀劫的全義——劫喻、四劫小劫、善劫之相。 論借「佛自說跋陀劫中菩薩」而詳釋劫義，這一長段須整段教明，不可略過。何謂劫？佛以喻解：方百由旬城溢滿芥子，長壽人百歲取一粒，「芥子都盡，劫猶不澌」；又方百由旬石，百歲以輕軟疊衣一拂，石盡而劫猶不澌。時之最短者「六十念中之一念」，最長者名劫。劫有大小：大劫如上喻，劫盡時眾生自然樂遠離、次第入四禪唱離五欲，三惡道亦得善心生人中，末後二日乃至七日出而三千界燒盡；又一說四大中三大動作故有火、水、風三劫，各壞至初禪、二禪、三禪之處。小劫亦三：外三大發故世界滅，內三毒發故眾生滅，即「飢餓、刀兵、疾病」；又一說時節歲數名小劫，如經說舍利弗作佛時「正法住世二十小劫，像法住世二十小劫」，眾小劫和合名大劫。「劫簸」者「秦言分別時節」，「跋陀」者秦言善——何以名善？有千萬劫過去空無有佛，而此一劫有千佛興世，淨居天歡喜故名善劫；淨居天何以預知？前劫盡已廓然都空，後有大水，水底涌出「千枚七寶光明蓮華，是千佛之相」，因是知之。這整段是本分義理最厚、最易被跳過的一節，教明之後，『此劫得菩提』一句才有分量。
十二、以方便還生欲界人天、作梵王。 此菩薩既捨禪，何以不生他方清淨世界而生欲界？論答諸菩薩行各不同，迴心生欲界正如於禪轉心生他方。順帶辨他方佛國之淨穢：雜惡不淨者即名欲界，清淨者則「無三惡道、三毒」乃至「亦無二乘之名，亦無女人」，「一切人皆有三十二相」、無量光明常照、一念作無量身度恒沙眾生——這樣的界在地上而非色界、無欲而非欲界、有形而非無色界，是大菩薩清淨業別得、出於三界者。至於生人中何以正生剎利等大家：「生剎利，為有勢力」、生婆羅門為有智慧、「生居士家，為大富故」，皆為能利眾生，貧則自不能利何能益人。生欲界諸天亦然：諸天著五欲難化，而菩薩方便力大，如三十三天上「須浮摩樹林」有聖天化度、兜率常有補處說法、「密迹金剛力士」在四天王天，皆隨處教化。生梵天作大梵王者，雖隨初禪生而不著味、念佛道憶本願，故是方便；何以必作梵王？以菩薩集福德大「世世常為物主」，乃至「生鹿中，亦為其王」，且本願要勸請諸佛轉法輪，不應作散天。
十三、三生補處菩薩何以仍修諸行、何以要生佛前。 三生菩薩已在十住地具足功德，何以還修四禪三昧諸行？論列四重：心未入涅槃要有所行；於天人中示行人法修道；雖在十住猶有煩惱習、於諸法猶有所不知；雖行深行而猶未取證。更以一喻收之：雖是大菩薩，於佛猶小，如大聚火雖能照而「於日則不現」，如《放鉢經》彌勒語文殊，設有恒沙文殊亦「不知我舉足下足事」——故雖十住猶應修行。又何以不廣度眾生而要生佛前？答其「所度已多」、垂欲成佛，且非但度生得成佛，「諸佛深法，應當聽聞」，故當在佛前。
十四、迦葉佛前的惡口、六年苦行、食馬麥——皆方便非實。 這是本分最重、也最須照論直說而不軟化的一節。有問：若為諮佛事而在佛前，何以釋迦文佛作菩薩時在迦葉佛前惡口毀呰？論答此是法身菩薩以變化身行人法，除諸重罪外飢渴憎愛讚呵皆現。其本事：釋迦文菩薩爾時為迦葉佛弟、「名欝多羅」，兄智熟不好多語、弟好論議而時人謂弟勝；兄後成佛號迦葉，弟為閻浮提王師，有五百弟子以婆羅門書教授而不好佛法。有陶師難提婆羅，是迦葉佛五戒弟子、已「得三道」，與欝多羅為善友。一日欝多羅乘金車「駕四白馬」出城，難提婆羅相迎報其兄已成佛、邀共覲佛；欝多羅恐弟子疑其為親屬愛而不隨、破其見佛因緣，遂住實相智入無上方便慧，口出惡言「此禿頭人，何能得菩提道」。難提婆羅為如瞋狀捉頭挽之曰「汝不得止」，欝多羅遂與師徒俱行詣佛，見光相心淨、聞法而得無量陀羅尼三昧門，五百弟子還發菩提心，欝多羅求出家佛言善來即成沙門。論斷曰：這是以方便故現惡言、非是實有；「虛空可破，水可作火，火可作水」，三生菩薩於凡夫尚不起瞋，何況於佛。——教到這裡須守住論意：惡口是度眾的方便權現，不是菩薩真起瞋。
十五、第八罪報與食馬麥，何以仍說——大小乘之異與方便之通。 承上更問：若惡口是方便，佛何以受第八罪報六年苦行？論答二因緣，皆非實罪。其一，小乘法與大乘法異，小乘多說斷結取涅槃、不說法身祕奧，故若佛不現受報，則諸天神仙龍鬼長壽者見有惡業而不受報，將謂無業報因緣，故雖無惡業而示現受報。其二有今世因緣：外道信著苦行，佛若不苦行，人將謂王子串樂不能苦行，而外道苦行至極不過三月半歲一歲，無能「日食一麻一米」六年者，故佛六年苦行令其信入正道。既皆方便，何以知非實罪？以諸佛「斷一切不善法、成就一切善法」，若實受罪報則此語不成。論又以食馬麥一事印證方便：釋迦文佛於毘婆尸佛時作大婆羅門，見佛眾僧食而發惡言「如是人輩，應食馬麥」，因此墮黑繩地獄受無量苦，餘罪雖成佛道「而三月食馬麥」——然聲聞法自說佛過三阿僧祇劫「常識宿命，常不墮三惡道中」，從毘婆尸佛來九十一劫，依其自法九十劫不應墮惡道、何況末後一劫，故知食馬麥亦方便說。有難者謂「百劫不墮惡道」乃阿毘曇鞞婆沙論議師說、非佛語，論答阿毘曇本是佛說、隨之論議為鞞婆沙不應有錯，又如薄拘盧「以一訶梨勒果施僧」九十一劫不墮惡道，何況菩薩無量世布施而以小罪墮獄。更以初生七步為證：菩薩初生行七步自說「我所以生者，為度眾生故」，乳哺三年不行不語，一切嬰孩本漸長乃能行語、豈有初生能而後反不能者，可知是方便力；受此方便則一切佛語皆通，不受則成「一實一虛」。這一節的骨眼始終是一句：佛菩薩的受罪報之相，是為小心眾生、為顯業報不虛而權現，不是佛實有可墮之罪。
十六、何以生兜率不生餘處——太子登位之喻。 三生菩薩何以但生兜率？論列諸不可：他方來則諸天龍鬼求其來處不知而疑為幻化；人中死人中生然後作佛則人起輕慢、天不信，法應天化人不應人化天；無色界無形不能說法；色界深著禪味不能大利眾生；下三欲天結使厚而麁心錯亂、上二天結使厚而心軟不利——唯「兜率天上，結使薄，心軟利」，常是菩薩住處。譬如太子將登王位「先於靜室七日齋潔」然後受位，補處菩薩亦以兜率如齋處，末後受天樂、壽終下生末後受人樂便成正覺。無量諸天何以「咸皆侍送」？以此是末後天身不復更來生天，故諸天送別、發願下生為菩薩檀越，又欲常侍衛菩薩以防「百億魔怨」惱亂。
十七、六神通菩薩——生身法身之別、遊戲神通所至。 論釋此段標出二種菩薩之神通分位：法身菩薩「斷結使，得六神通」，生身菩薩「不斷結使，或離欲得五神通」。得六神通者不生三界、遊諸世界供養十方佛；遊戲神通者到十方度眾生雨七寶、所至皆一乘清淨壽命無量。又問：菩薩應度眾生，何以但至清淨無量壽世界？論分二種菩薩：一者「有慈悲心，多為眾生」，故至無佛法處讚三寶之音；二者「多集諸佛功德」，故至一乘清淨無量壽世界。二者非有優劣，只是願之所偏，各成其行。
十八、三種初發意菩薩——三喻與即位不疑。 論以乘羊、乘馬、乘神通三喻收束：罪多福少者如乘羊久久或到或不到，福多罪少者如乘馬必有所到，但行清淨福德者如乘神通發意頃便到。三喻不為分等級，而是說明『初發意即得阿鞞跋致』並非跳階，而是宿世久集福德、利根心堅、又從佛聞法的自然結果——正如神通之相，不應疑其「發意間云何得到」。三種發心之外，論又別出二菩薩：一者初發心即得菩提、轉法輪度眾、入無餘涅槃而「留化佛度眾生」，其法住一劫或減一劫、所度不少；一者發心即與般若相應、得六神通，與無量眾生共觀十方淨土而自莊嚴其國。之上即以阿彌陀佛先世為法藏比丘、蒙佛導遍十方選取淨國作結，把前面的往生、值佛、方便、進趣，收攏到一個具體的願——淨佛世界。
不要讀錯
不要把『往生品說有來去』讀成佛退回了實我。全分的每一處「有」，背後都壓著一句『無所得』：說有眾生是世諦門，說眾生無所有是第一義門，兩門同時成立才是二諦。也不要把「常值諸佛」讀成一種好運或福利；它是不離般若、深入大悲的必然伴隨，一旦離佛、斷般若之緣，值佛之相即失。更不要把兩種菩薩、有無方便讀成資格審查——論分業生與法性身、有方便與無方便，是要人看清自己此刻靠的是禪味還是慈悲、是取相還是相應，而不是急著自認屬於哪一等。畢竟空不遮往生，反過來，往生也從不動搖畢竟空。
最要緊的一處，是讀迦葉佛前惡口、六年苦行、食馬麥這幾段本事時，切不可把它讀成佛菩薩真有可墮之罪、真起過瞋心。論的斷語一路明白：欝多羅的惡言是「住諸法實相智中，入無上方便慧」而權現，「非是實也」，三生菩薩於凡夫尚不起瞋、何況於佛；六年苦行與食馬麥是為長壽天神不見業報者、為信著苦行的外道、為小心眾生而示現受報，「非實罪也」，以諸佛「斷一切不善法、成就一切善法」，若實受罪則此語不成。這些段落是本論教「方便」義的正面教材，讀者的本分是如實傳其所說的因緣與判語，既不替菩薩諱其惡口之相、也不把示現之報坐實成真罪——論怎麼說，便怎麼領。至於古來大小乘於此的往復問難，論已並錄其詞、標明其為方便，此處亦只誌其問答，不別判是非。
修行作用
之上可作一面照心的鏡子。修定時可問：我是在著禪味，還是念佛道、入慈心，讓禪與悲智和合？遇順逆生死時可問：我是把它當實我的流轉而生斷常之見，還是看作因緣相續、業報不失而不取一物？發心求進時可問：我是在比昨日更高處自得，還是老實久集福德、不離般若與眾生？三問若答得住，便是在「無來去」中真能「往生」——不動空義，而念念不離佛、不離眾生。
承衍
後來古德讀這一分，最先被取用的正是開篇二諦一段。有判教者以本品『有菩薩往生』與前品『無菩薩』對觀，判為凡聖二諦、彼此不相違，並把它與中觀『畢竟空不遮生死』的論法繫在一處；也有依此段問答架構，列出具說二諦、但說第一義、但說世諦三種說法之型。這些讀法各有其脈絡，此處只誌其取徑、不判其高下。把它們帶回本品，最值得保留的不是一張更細的往生分類表，而是這一分對「來去」的改寫：真正的往生，不是一個實我在佛國之間遷移，而是願與般若相續不斷佛緣；每一次受生，都不是為自己換一個更好的去處，而是為不離眾生、不離佛而受生。之上之末以法藏比丘選取淨國作結，恰好把『從何處來、往何處去』這一問，交還給一個可反覆自省的願——我此生所趣，是否仍向一切智與一切眾生。
Rebirth, First Part: Within Ultimate Emptiness, Why Is It Still Said That the Bodhisattva Comes and Goes?
What Is Being Asked
Śāriputra’s question looks ordinary: a bodhisattva who practises prajñā and is in accord with prajñā—from where does he come when his life ends, and to where does he go? Yet this question lands right on the blade’s edge of the preceding chapters—the chapter before has only just said again and again that beings are ultimately unfindable and that a bodhisattva has only a name and no real dharma, and now it is asked ‘from where does he come, and to where does he go’—is this not self-contradictory? The whole tension of the First Part of the chapter on rebirth lies right here: on one side, the ultimate emptiness of “neither coming nor going”; on the other, the Buddha’s wide-ranging account of the ‘coming and going’ of every kind of bodhisattva—from where he takes birth, and to where he goes to become a buddha. If the two sides are seen as cancelling each other out, this chapter cannot stand; whether it is possible, without shaking ultimate emptiness, to establish truly the coming and going of birth and death and the advance of practice—this is precisely what this part sets out to answer.
Passage by Passage
1. The question itself must first be settled—the two truths and four pairs of capacities. The treatise-author is in no hurry to answer where the bodhisattva comes from; he first asks why Śāriputra is still able to ask this at all. The answer is that the Buddha’s Dharma has two truths: “for the sake of worldly truth” it is said that there are beings, and “saying that beings have no existence” is for the sake of the truth of the highest meaning. This is not two sets of truth set against each other, but two occasions of speaking for one and the same Dharma. The treatise further divides those who receive the Dharma into four pairs to match these two truths: those who know and those who do not know the marks of names; those who have trained briefly and those who have trained long; those who are attached and those who are not attached; those who know and those who do not know the speaker’s intent—like “an army setting a secret password,” where within one and the same army some know the password and some do not. To those who do not know the marks of names, who are beginners and attached, and who do not know the speaker’s intent, it is said that “there are no beings,” to pull out their real self for them; to those who know the marks of names, who have trained long and are not attached, and who know the speaker’s intent, it is said that “there are beings,” so that they do not fall into annihilation. The four pairs are not four kinds of qualification, but one and the same saying told half to each of different grounds of mind: saying “there are none” and saying “there are” are both medicine suited to the illness. The treatise adds one more layer: with his divine eye Śāriputra sees the birth and death of the six destinies and has no doubt about them at all; what he truly does not know are the great bodhisattvas who come from immeasurable worlds in other directions or go to buddha-lands in other directions—these his divine eye cannot reach, and so he asks; and further, because there are people of the Small Vehicle who both pity and look down on bodhisattvas who dwell long in birth and death, Śāriputra, as a Dharma-general of the śrāvakas, wishes to make beings give rise to a mind of reverence toward bodhisattvas, and so he asks on behalf of the assembly. The asking, then, is not doubt about the meaning of emptiness, but asking about a road on behalf of beings.
2. Why only three places are named and the evil destinies are not listed—one criterion and three levels of “not speaking.” The Buddha answers that a bodhisattva comes either from a buddha-land in another direction, or from the Tuṣita Heaven, or from the human destiny. Where the treatise distinguishes ‘why the evil destinies are not listed,’ it gives a criterion that runs through the whole passage: for those who come from the evil destinies, the causes and conditions of suffering make the mind dull, and it cannot bear to head straight for the Buddha-path in due sequence. Even though there is the bhikṣu Ox-foot, who was “born among oxen for five hundred lives” and, when at last he obtained a human body, still had feet like an ox’s and yet “attained the path of the arhat,” and again the bhikṣu Motouposhita, who was born among monkeys for five hundred lives and realised the three clarities and six supernormal powers—such old precedents of attaining the path after coming out of an animal body the treatise does not conceal either—it only judges that they had 「先世深種涅槃善根，小有謬錯」 tr. "in former lives deeply planted roots of goodness for nirvāṇa, with a slight error," and so fell into the evil destinies, and that 「償罪既畢，涅槃善根熟」 tr. "once the repayment of the offence was finished, the roots of goodness for nirvāṇa ripened," and only then did they attain the fruit of the path; such cases are few and do not suffice as a standing rule, and so it says that those who come from the evil destinies 「不任次第得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」 tr. "are not fit to attain in due sequence the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Pushed further upward, this criterion yields three levels of “not speaking”: among the heavens only Tuṣita is named, because in the three lower heavens the fetters are sharp and deep, and in the two upper heavens the fetters are deep but not sharp, while Tuṣita alone has 「結使不深不利」 tr. "fetters neither deep nor sharp," and there are always bodhisattvas teaching the Dharma there; among the gods of the form realm, those who have attained the path do not come down again, and those who have not attained the path are attached to the flavour of meditation and do not come down, and being attached to flavour their wisdom too is dull, so they are not spoken of; the asuras are the same as the two lower heavens, and they too are not spoken of. The measure of the three levels of not speaking is always one and the same rule—whether the mind can receive prajñā, not whether one’s origin is noble or base.
3. Whether those who come from the three places have sharp or dull faculties depends entirely on whether they are apart from the Buddha or not. The same criterion falls upon the three places: those who come from a buddha-land in another direction come to birth from the presence of the buddhas, and because the offences of immeasurable kalpas have been removed, because they meet a buddha who teaches and guides them according to their minds (“as a knife that finds a good whetstone becomes sharp”), and because they constantly recite and rightly recollect prajñā, their faculties are fierce and sharp; those who come from among humans, though they have gathered every kind of merit and are fit to receive prajñā, are nonetheless 「以不見現在佛故心鈍」 tr. "dull of mind because they do not see a present buddha." The sūtra text specially points out that for those who come from other directions “all the deep essentials of the Dharma appear before them,” and this is precisely the concrete form of sharp faculties and constantly meeting the buddhas. As for why of Tuṣita it “speaks only of the one-birth successor” and does not speak of two births or three, the treatise’s answer is fine: the human body is a place of offences, bonds and afflictions, and only a great bodhisattva can dwell in it without being stained, 「如鵝入水，水不令濕」 tr. "as a goose enters the water, and the water does not make it wet"; the Buddha himself states the cause and condition of this as “not losing the six perfections,” with all the gates of dhāraṇī and samādhi swiftly appearing before him; this bodhisattva ought to benefit beings in this world, while the others are distributed through the ten directions, and so only the one-birth successor is named. And why is it that “one who dies among humans and is born among humans is not equal to the two places above”? The treatise points out that the crux lies in the body: 「以人身地大多故，身重心鈍」 tr. "because in the human body the earth element is abundant, the body is heavy and the mind dull"; mind and mental factors turn according to the strength or weakness of the body. Those who come from the two places, other directions and Tuṣita, are dharma-body bodhisattvas who transform their bodies without measure to liberate beings, whereas those who come from within the human destiny all have bodies of flesh—and this also resolves a doubt: an avaivartika bodhisattva does not receive a body through the karma of the bonds, so why is he still spoken of under the human destiny? The answer lies in the four characters 「未捨肉身」 tr. "has not yet relinquished the body of flesh": having come from elsewhere and been born here, he attains the avaivartika stage but has not yet relinquished the body of flesh, and so his faculties are dull and the gates of samādhi do not swiftly appear before him. The sharpness or dullness of the division lies not in whether one’s stage is high or low, but only in whether one is near to or far from the Buddha, and whether one has relinquished the body or not.
4. “Constantly meeting the buddhas” is the theme sentence that echoes again and again through this part. Answering about later lives, the Buddha says that a bodhisattva in accord with prajñā goes from one buddha-land to another buddha-land, constantly meets the buddhas, and never departs from the Buddha. The treatise explains that this is not empty talk: because 「般若波羅蜜攝一切法」 tr. "the prajñāpāramitā gathers in all dharmas," like the great ocean that has nothing it does not contain; again, because he cultivates the samādhi of recollecting the Buddha and other wholesome dharmas, he is born where he meets the buddhas; and further, because he deeply enters great compassion and gains immeasurable merit, he meets the Buddha life after life. Meeting the Buddha is not a reward handed out as recompense, but the natural extension of the practice that does not depart from prajñā—apart from the Buddha, the condition of prajñā is easily cut off; meeting the Buddha, the power of accord continues. This also answers the hidden worry at the time of the question: rebirth is not this real entity that is ‘I’ moving house between buddha-lands, but a stream of accord that does not cut off the condition of the Buddha.
5. Why the Buddha gives three answers about former lives but distinguishes at length about later lives. The treatise sets up a question: Śāriputra asked about former lives and later lives together—why did the Buddha give only three kinds of answer about former lives, yet on the contrary speak at length about later lives? The answer has three layers. First, people with the eye of flesh do not see past and future and give rise to wrong doubts, yet in the future world they will in the end receive recompense, so it must be distinguished at length; as, “with a fire already put out, one no longer seeks rescue,” yet one must guard in many ways against a fire not yet arisen, and healing illness is the same: one who has already recovered is no longer treated, and treatment is concentrated on the illness about to break out—the past is already fixed, the future can still be rescued, and so the account is detailed about what comes after. Second, the Buddha’s eloquence is measureless; asked a little, he answers widely, as when a poor man begs from “a very rich man fond of giving”—what is begged is little, but what is given is very much. Third, prajñā speaks much of the dharma of emptiness, and there are those newly setting their minds who grasp at the mark of emptiness and give rise to doubt about the causes and conditions of the karma of birth and death—‘if all dharmas are ultimately empty, without coming or going, how is it that one dies and there is birth?’—it is to cut off this one kind of doubt of those attached to emptiness that the Buddha speaks at length, with every kind of cause and condition, of there being death and there being birth. This third layer is crucial: the wide account of later lives is precisely to counteract the inversion of ‘clinging to emptiness and denying cause and effect,’ not a retreat into real existence.
6. Refuting the view of annihilation—not by rebutting with abstruse principle, but by citing verifiable matters and marks. There are those who maintain that a person at death is like ashes, like dung, like earth, with no further thing at all that goes on to receive a later body—not seeing it, they know it is not there. The treatise does not contend with them over the abstruse; it only lists verifiable matters close at hand: a small child just born will “now cry, now laugh,” which is the habit of sorrow and joy from former lives; “a calf at birth knows to go for the milk,” pigs and sheep at birth know male and female, and children born of the same womb differ in looks, wealth, and intelligence—none of which can be explained except by causes and conditions from former lives. It further refutes their fixation on ‘not seeing the one who goes’: the human body is not seen by the eye alone—“each of the six sense-faculties has what it knows”; dharmas that can be heard still cannot be seen, how much less dharmas that can be known; the dharma of there being birth and there being death is not seen by the eye of flesh but is seen clearly by the divine eye, as one sees a person “come out of one room and enter another room”—abandoning this body and arriving at the later body is likewise—if the eye of flesh could see it, what need would there be to seek the divine eye? Then it positively establishes the continuity of cause and effect: though there is no real self that comes and goes, yet while the afflictions are not exhausted, body, faculties and mind continue and give rise again to body, faculties and mind, as with “poison put into milk”: milk turns into curds and curds into butter, the earlier is not the later, yet the poison continues and is not lost; this body too is 「行業相續不異」 tr. "a continuity of actions and karma, not different," and receives later recompense; again, as a tree in winter has no flowers or leaves yet, but once it “meets the right season, they come forth in due order.” The treatise further piles up five proofs: in the present world there are those who know their past lives, as a person exhausted and fallen asleep, “having woken, remembers what he passed through”; 「一切聖人內外經書，皆說後世」 tr. "the scriptures of all sages, inner and outer, all speak of later lives"; when one gives rise to unwholesome dharmas “the body then withers and the complexion is unhappy,” and when one gives rise to wholesome dharmas the mind is glad, the body supple and “the complexion harmonious and at ease”—since there is this evidence of suffering and joy, wholesome and unwholesome, it is known that there must be later lives, as when “a physician treats the king’s illness, and the king secretly has a house built for him” while the physician does not know, and on returning and seeing it he regrets; the sages speak truly and credibly of present matters, so what they say of later lives is also credible, as when a person “walking a perilous road at night has a guide give him a hand”—knowing him credible, he follows. Layer upon layer, none of it is speculation; it all pulls ‘whether there is anything after death’ back to experience and holy words that can be verified. The deepest move in this whole passage is to establish at the same time both ‘no-self’ and ‘karma is not lost’: the view of annihilation arises precisely because “there is no one who comes and goes” is misread as ‘everything is annihilated’; the treatise points out that there being no real self that comes and goes and there being continuous fruits of recompense do not obstruct each other in the first place—the poison is not any real entity among milk, curds and butter, yet it runs through all three and is not lost; the five aggregates likewise have no single thing that crosses the three times, yet the momentum of actions and karma continues and receives recompense. Here the Middle Way falls neither into permanence nor into annihilation: to speak of permanence is to have a real self that migrates; to speak of annihilation is to deny cause and effect; only the four characters 「相續不異」 tr. "continuous, not different" screen off both sides at once. This is exactly the foundation of the later ‘ultimate emptiness does not screen off rebirth’—only when non-annihilation and non-permanence are first established in matters and marks will the meaning of emptiness not be misunderstood as annihilation.
7. Why ultimate emptiness does not screen off rebirth—neither annihilation nor permanence. Here the treatise sets down precise words: in the Buddha’s Dharma, 「諸法畢竟空，而亦不斷滅」 tr. "all dharmas are ultimately empty, and yet they are not annihilated"; 「生死雖相續，亦不是常」 tr. "though birth and death continue, they are not permanent either"; though the causes and conditions of the karma of immeasurable kalpas are past, they can give rise to fruits of recompense and are not extinguished—this is the subtle place, hard to know. If all dharmas were simply empty, rebirth ought not to be spoken of; if death and birth were really existent, ultimate emptiness ought not to be spoken of; in fact ultimate emptiness is spoken only to remove craving, attachment, wrong views and inversions, and is 「不為破後世故說」 tr. "not spoken in order to demolish later lives." The treatise cites a verse of the Middle Treatise to reveal this mark, saying that the limit of nirvāṇa and the limit of the world are both true: 「涅槃世無別，小異不可得」 tr. "nirvāṇa and the world have no distinction; not the slightest difference can be found"—this is the mark of ultimate emptiness: empty, yet not screening off the causes and conditions of the karma of birth and death, and so rebirth is spoken of. One who clings to emptiness grasps a mark within the dharma of emptiness and on the contrary produces a new inversion; the treatise exposes this with 「以刀斫空，終無所傷」 tr. "hacking at empty space with a knife, in the end nothing is wounded": a person who is truly without attachment is not attached even to emptiness, and only then does he not admit the difficulties of the two sides. It also answers a doubt: if prajñā is of one mark, which is no mark, how can one be in accord with it and constantly meet the buddhas? The answer is that prajñā gathers in all dharmas like the ocean, and moreover, your raising a difficulty by grasping a mark within the signless already contradicts itself; and it further reveals great compassion with a simile, “a loving father seeing his son die for the sake of a worthless thing”—the buddhas know that dharmas are ultimately empty, but beings do not know it, and, deeply attached within the dharma of emptiness, fall into great suffering; therefore the bodhisattva deeply enters great compassion, gains immeasurable merit, and meets the Buddha life after life. Here emptiness and compassion are joined: precisely because of ultimate emptiness there is this great compassion without object.
8. The measure of a buddha-land; the two kinds of body by which one receives birth. The treatise explains the measure of a “buddha-land”: 「十方如恒河沙等諸三千大千世界，是名一佛土」 tr. "the three-thousand great-thousand worlds of the ten directions, as many as the sands of the Ganges—this is called one buddha-land"; though the spiritual power of the buddhas pervades everywhere freely, the beings they liberate still have their limits. Next it makes clear the two kinds of bodhisattva body: the first receives birth according to karma; the second has attained the body of dharma-nature and is born into the three realms by free transformation. The one spoken of below, who enters meditation but is not born according to that meditation, the treatise judges to be 「業因緣生身」 tr. "a body born of the causes and conditions of karma"—precisely because it is born of karma, it must rely on the power of skilful means not to be born according to meditation, whereas the dharma-body transforms freely and has little need of skilful means. This distinction is the root of the whole passage on ‘having skilful means and lacking skilful means.’
9. Lacking skilful means and falling into the heavens of long life; four explanations of the heavens of long life; the dull faculties among the twenty-two faculties. One who lacks skilful means, on entering meditation, is attached only to the flavour of meditation and does not keep beings in mind; his kindness and compassion are thin and his merit little, and he is drawn by the fruit of meditation to be born among “the heavens of long life.” For the heavens of long life the treatise lists four explanations side by side without judging between them: one says it is 「非有想非無想處，壽八萬大劫」 tr. "the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, with a lifespan of eighty thousand great kalpas"; one says all the formless concentrations are in common called long life, because being formless they cannot be converted and so are not fit to attain the path; one says the heaven without perception is called long life; one says that from the first meditation to the fourth meditation, excepting the heavens of the Pure Abodes, all are called long life, because with attachment to flavour and wrong views they do not receive the path. In such places, being attached to flavour, a wholesome mind is hard to give rise to, and so the sūtra uses the simile of the earth on a fingernail and the earth of the ground—of those whose lives end in the heavens, “those who are born again among humans are like the earth on a fingernail,” and those who fall into the hells are like the earth of the ground, which shows by contrast how hard it is to be born upward and how dangerous attachment to flavour is. The treatise further answers a fine question: what are called dull faculties—“which among the twenty-two faculties are these?” It sets the various masters side by side: some say it is the faculty of wisdom, which can contemplate all dharmas but is dulled by long attachment to the flavour of meditation; some say it is the five faculties of faith and the rest, which assist the path but are dulled because in receiving recompense one is attached to flavour; some say that because a bodhisattva’s merit and wisdom are pure, 「十八根皆利」 tr. "all eighteen faculties are sharp," and 「罪故則鈍」 tr. "because of offences, they are dull"—for example, of the life faculty, “the life faculty is not troubled by old age, illness, poverty, want and the like,” and to be at ease and receive happiness is sharpness; the five faculties of joy, pleasure and the rest are sharp when they perceive clearly, and receiving pleasure yet knowing it is impermanent do not give rise to greed; the faculty of faith is sharp when it is firm and can believe what is hard to believe; “one whose male faculty is pure attains the mark of the sheathed organ,” and is sharp in not being attached to smoothness and knowing desire to be a fault; further, “the three wholesome roots are sharp, and therefore are called sharp,” and the bodhisattva is sometimes sharp in 「三無漏根不證實際故利」 tr. "the three undefiled faculties: they are sharp because he does not realise the limit of reality"; what runs contrary to sharpness is dullness. This long passage glossing the faculties takes ‘sharp and dull’ apart from a vague appellation into real meanings that can be pointed to one faculty at a time, and records the various accounts side by side without forcing a judgement on which one is right.
10. The third and fourth bodhisattvas—the lack of skilful means in relinquishing meditation, and the skilful means that is complete. Since the third bodhisattva can relinquish meditation, why is he still called lacking skilful means? The treatise answers: at the end of his life he 「入不善心，捨諸禪定方便」 tr. "enters an unwholesome mind and relinquishes the skilful means of the meditations and concentrations," or relinquishes meditation with a wholesome mind of the desire realm or a neutral mind, and enters kindness and compassion, keeping beings in mind, and so is born downward. “For those born in the desire realm there are ten places”—the humans of the four continents and the six heavens of desire—while “the three evil destinies are where a bodhisattva is not born.” Only the fourth bodhisattva has true skilful means: entering the stage, he attains the bodhisattva path, 「修三十七品，能住十八空乃至大慈大悲」 tr. "cultivates the thirty-seven limbs of the path and is able to abide in the eighteen emptinesses, up to great kindness and great compassion," and by this power of skilful means is not born according to the meditations, the immeasurable minds, or the formless concentrations, but vows to be born in a buddha-land where a buddha is now present and to continue in accord with prajñā. The two bodhisattvas above have only meditation and concentration and practise the six perfections directly, and so they lack skilful means; the fourth bodhisattva takes the limbs of the path, the eighteen emptinesses, kindness and compassion as his skilful means, and only this turns meditation and concentration from “attachment to flavour” into a boat for ‘liberating beings.’
11. The full meaning of the Bhadrakalpa—the similes of the kalpa, four kinds of kalpa and small kalpas, the mark of the good kalpa. Taking up “the Buddha himself speaking of the bodhisattvas in the Bhadrakalpa,” the treatise explains the meaning of the kalpa in detail; this long passage must be taught as a whole passage and may not be skipped over. What is a kalpa? The Buddha explains it by simile: a city a hundred yojanas square is filled to overflowing with mustard seeds, and a long-lived person takes one seed every hundred years; 「芥子都盡，劫猶不澌」 tr. "when the mustard seeds are all gone, the kalpa is still not exhausted"; again, a stone a hundred yojanas square is brushed once every hundred years with light, soft cotton cloth, and when the stone is gone the kalpa is still not exhausted. The shortest of times is “one thought among sixty thoughts,” and the longest is called a kalpa. Kalpas are great and small: the great kalpa is as in the similes above; when the kalpa comes to its end, beings naturally delight in withdrawal and enter the four meditations in order, proclaiming the abandonment of the five desires, and those in the three evil destinies too gain a wholesome mind and are born among humans; at the last two suns and up to seven suns come out, and the three-thousand world is burnt up; again, one account says that because three of the four great elements become active there are the three kalpas of fire, water, and wind, which destroy up to the places of the first meditation, the second meditation, and the third meditation respectively. The small kalpas are also three: when the outer three great elements break out, the world perishes; when the inner three poisons break out, beings perish—that is, “famine, sword and war, and pestilence”; again, one account says that seasons and the count of years are called small kalpas, as the sūtra says that when Śāriputra becomes a buddha “the true Dharma will abide in the world for twenty small kalpas, and the semblance Dharma will abide in the world for twenty small kalpas,” and many small kalpas joined together are called a great kalpa. Kalpa means “in the language of Qin, distinguishing seasons”; bhadra in the language of Qin means good—why is it named good? For thousands of myriads of kalpas in the past there were empty kalpas with no buddha, yet in this one kalpa a thousand buddhas arise in the world, and the gods of the Pure Abodes rejoice, and so it is named the good kalpa; how did the gods of the Pure Abodes know in advance? When the previous kalpa had ended, all was vast and utterly empty; afterwards there was a great water, and from the bottom of the water there welled up 「千枚七寶光明蓮華，是千佛之相」 tr. "a thousand shining lotus flowers of the seven jewels—the sign of the thousand buddhas," and from this they knew it. This whole passage is the section of this part thickest in doctrinal meaning and the most easily skipped; only once it has been taught does the phrase ‘attains awakening in this kalpa’ carry its weight.
12. By skilful means he is born again among humans and gods of the desire realm, and becomes the Brahmā king. Since this bodhisattva has relinquished meditation, why is he not born in a pure world of another direction but born in the desire realm? The treatise answers that the practices of bodhisattvas each differ; turning the mind to be born in the desire realm is just like turning the mind from meditation to be born in another direction. In passing it distinguishes the purity and impurity of the buddha-lands of other directions: one that is mixed with evil and impure is called the desire realm, while in a pure one there are “no three evil destinies and no three poisons,” up to 「亦無二乘之名，亦無女人」 tr. "there is not even the name of the two vehicles, and there are no women either"; “all people have the thirty-two marks,” immeasurable light shines constantly, and in a single thought one makes immeasurable bodies to liberate beings as many as the Ganges’ sands—such a realm is on the ground and so is not the form realm, is without desire and so is not the desire realm, has form and so is not the formless realm; it is obtained separately by the pure karma of great bodhisattvas and lies beyond the three realms. As for why, when born among humans, he is born precisely into great families such as the kṣatriyas: “he is born a kṣatriya in order to have power,” he is born a brahmin in order to have wisdom, “he is born into a householder’s family in order to be greatly rich”—all in order to be able to benefit beings; if poor, he cannot benefit even himself, so how could he help others? Being born among the gods of the desire realm is likewise: the gods are attached to the five desires and hard to convert, but the bodhisattva’s power of skilful means is great, as in the Heaven of the Thirty-three there is “the Xufumo grove” where holy gods convert and liberate, in Tuṣita there is always the successor teaching the Dharma, and “the Vajra Strongman of Secret Traces” is in the Heaven of the Four Heavenly Kings—all teaching and converting wherever they are. One who is born in the Brahmā heaven and becomes the Great Brahmā king, though he is born according to the first meditation, is not attached to its flavour, keeps the Buddha-path in mind and recollects his original vow, and so this is skilful means; why must he become the Brahmā king? Because the merit a bodhisattva gathers is great, he “in every life is always the lord of creatures,” even “when born among deer, he is their king too”; and his original vow is to entreat the buddhas to turn the wheel of the Dharma, so he ought not to be a scattered, ordinary god.
13. Why the bodhisattva of three births to succession still cultivates all the practices, and why he must be born in the presence of a buddha. The bodhisattva of three births has already completed his merit on the ten abodes—why does he still cultivate the four meditations, samādhi and the other practices? The treatise lists four layers: his mind has not entered nirvāṇa, so he must have something to practise; among gods and humans he displays practising the path in the manner of human practice; though on the ten abodes, he still has the residual habits of the afflictions, and still has something he does not know of all dharmas; though he practises deep practices, he has not yet taken realisation. It gathers these up further with a simile: though a great bodhisattva, in comparison with the Buddha he is still small, as a great heap of fire, though it can illuminate, “before the sun does not appear”; as in the Sūtra of Setting Down the Bowl, where Maitreya says to Mañjuśrī that even if there were Mañjuśrīs as many as the Ganges’ sands, they would “not know the matter of my lifting my foot and setting down my foot”—therefore, though on the ten abodes, he should still cultivate practice. And why does he not liberate beings widely but must be born in the presence of a buddha? The answer is that “those he has liberated are already many” and he is about to become a buddha; moreover, it is not only by liberating beings that one becomes a buddha: “the deep Dharma of the buddhas ought to be heard,” and so he should be in the presence of a buddha.
14. The harsh speech before Kāśyapa Buddha, the six years of austerities, the eating of horse-barley—all skilful means, not real. This is the weightiest section of this part, and also the one that most requires speaking straight according to the treatise without softening it. There is a question: if one is in the presence of a buddha in order to consult the Buddha on matters, why was it that the Buddha Śākyamuni, when he was a bodhisattva, abused and disparaged Kāśyapa Buddha to his face with harsh speech? The treatise answers that this is a dharma-body bodhisattva who, by a body of transformation, acts in the manner of humans; apart from the grave offences, hunger and thirst, hatred and love, praise and blame all appear. The story: the bodhisattva Śākyamuni was at that time Kāśyapa Buddha’s younger brother, “named Uttara”; the elder brother was mature in wisdom and did not like much talk, while the younger brother liked debate, and the people of the time said the younger brother was superior; the elder brother later became a buddha named Kāśyapa, while the younger brother became the teacher of the king of Jambudvīpa, with five hundred disciples whom he taught with the books of the brahmins, and he did not like the Buddha’s Dharma. There was a potter, Nandipāla, a five-precept disciple of Kāśyapa Buddha, who had already “attained the three paths,” and was a good friend of Uttara. One day Uttara rode out of the city in a golden carriage “drawn by four white horses,” and Nandipāla came to meet him and told him that his elder brother had already become a buddha, inviting him to go together to see the Buddha; Uttara, fearing that his disciples would suspect him of acting out of love for a kinsman and would not follow, destroying their conditions for seeing the Buddha, therefore abode in the knowledge of the real mark, entered unsurpassed wisdom of skilful means, and uttered harsh words: 「此禿頭人，何能得菩提道」 tr. "this bald-headed man—how could he attain the path of awakening?" Nandipāla, putting on an appearance of anger, seized him by the head and pulled him, saying, “you may not stop”; Uttara then went together with his disciples to the Buddha, saw his radiant marks, and his mind became pure; hearing the Dharma, he attained immeasurable gates of dhāraṇī and samādhi, the five hundred disciples in turn aroused the mind of awakening, and Uttara asked to leave home; the Buddha said “welcome,” and at once he became a śramaṇa. The treatise judges: this was harsh speech displayed by skilful means, not something real; 「虛空可破，水可作火，火可作水」 tr. "empty space can be broken, water can be made into fire, fire can be made into water"—a bodhisattva of three births does not give rise to anger even toward ordinary people, how much less toward a buddha. ——Taught to this point, the treatise’s meaning must be held fast: the harsh speech is a provisional manifestation of skilful means for liberating beings, not the bodhisattva truly giving rise to anger.
15. Why the eighth recompense of offence and the eating of horse-barley are still spoken of—the difference between the Great and Small Vehicles, and the pervasiveness of skilful means. Following on from this, it is further asked: if the harsh speech was skilful means, why did the Buddha receive the eighth recompense of offence, six years of austerities? The treatise answers with two causes and conditions, neither of them a real offence. First, the dharma of the Small Vehicle differs from the dharma of the Great Vehicle: the Small Vehicle mostly speaks of cutting off the bonds and taking nirvāṇa and does not speak of the hidden depths of the dharma-body; so if the Buddha did not display receiving recompense, then the gods, spirit-immortals, nāgas, ghosts and long-lived beings, seeing that there was evil karma and yet no recompense received, would say that there are no causes and conditions of karmic recompense; therefore, though there was no evil karma, he displayed receiving recompense. Second, there is a cause and condition in this present world: those of the outside paths believe in and are attached to austerities; if the Buddha did not practise austerities, people would say that a prince, accustomed to pleasure, could not practise austerities; yet the outside paths’ austerities at their utmost go no further than three months, half a year, or a year, and none of them could 「日食一麻一米」 tr. "eat one sesame seed and one grain of rice a day" for six years; so the Buddha practised austerities for six years to make them believe and enter the right path. Since both are skilful means, how is it known that they are not real offences? Because the buddhas 「斷一切不善法、成就一切善法」 tr. "have cut off all unwholesome dharmas and accomplished all wholesome dharmas"; if they really received the recompense of offence, these words would not hold. The treatise further confirms skilful means with the matter of eating horse-barley: the Buddha Śākyamuni, in the time of Vipaśyin Buddha, was a great brahmin who, seeing the Buddha and the assembly of monks eating, uttered evil words: 「如是人輩，應食馬麥」 tr. "people of this sort ought to eat horse-barley"; because of this he fell into the Black-Rope Hell and underwent immeasurable suffering, and of the remaining offence, though he attained the Buddha-path, “yet for three months he ate horse-barley”—yet the śrāvaka dharma itself says that the Buddha, through three asaṃkhyeya kalpas, 「常識宿命，常不墮三惡道中」 tr. "always knew his past lives and never fell into the three evil destinies"; from Vipaśyin Buddha until now is ninety-one kalpas, and by their own dharma for ninety kalpas he ought not to fall into the evil destinies, how much less in the last kalpa; so it is known that the eating of horse-barley too is spoken as skilful means. A critic objects that “not falling into the evil destinies for a hundred kalpas” is said by the debaters of the Abhidharma Vibhāṣā and is not the Buddha’s word; the treatise answers that the Abhidharma was originally spoken by the Buddha, and the Vibhāṣā, which debates in accordance with it, ought not to be in error; and further, as Bakula, “by giving one harītakī fruit to the Saṅgha,” did not fall into the evil destinies for ninety-one kalpas, how much less would a bodhisattva who has given for immeasurable lives fall into hell for a small offence. It further takes the seven steps at birth as proof: the bodhisattva, when first born, walked seven steps and said of himself, 「我所以生者，為度眾生故」 tr. "the reason I am born is in order to liberate beings," yet for three years while being nursed he neither walked nor spoke; all infants come to walk and speak only as they gradually grow, so how could there be one who could do so at first birth and afterwards on the contrary could not? From this it can be known that it was the power of skilful means; if this skilful means is accepted, all the Buddha’s words are consistent; if it is not accepted, they become 「一實一虛」 tr. "one true and one false." The pivot of this section is from beginning to end a single sentence: the appearance of buddhas and bodhisattvas receiving the recompense of offence is a provisional manifestation made for beings of small mind, to show that karmic recompense is not empty, not that the Buddha really has offences by which he could fall.
16. Why he is born in Tuṣita and not elsewhere—the simile of the crown prince ascending the throne. Why is the bodhisattva of three births born only in Tuṣita? The treatise lists all the impossibilities: if he came from another direction, the gods, nāgas and ghosts, seeking where he came from and not knowing it, would suspect him to be an illusory conjuration; if he died among humans, was born among humans, and then became a buddha, humans would give rise to contempt and gods would not believe, for by right it is gods who ought to convert humans, not humans who ought to convert gods; the formless realm has no form and cannot teach the Dharma; the form realm is deeply attached to the flavour of meditation and cannot greatly benefit beings; in the three lower heavens of desire the fetters are thick and the coarse mind confused, and in the two upper heavens the fetters are thick and the mind soft but not sharp—only 「兜率天上，結使薄，心軟利」 tr. "in the Tuṣita Heaven the fetters are thin, and the mind soft and sharp," and it is always the dwelling-place of bodhisattvas. It is like a crown prince about to ascend the throne, who “first fasts and purifies himself for seven days in a quiet chamber” and then receives the throne; the successor bodhisattva likewise takes Tuṣita as his place of fasting, lastly receives heavenly pleasure, and when his life there ends is born below, lastly receives human pleasure, and then attains right awakening. Why do the countless gods “all attend and escort him”? Because this is his last heavenly body and he will not come to be born in the heavens again, so the gods take leave of him and vow to be born below as the bodhisattva’s donors, and also wish to guard the bodhisattva constantly, to prevent the harassment of “a hundred koṭi of Māra-enemies.”
17. The bodhisattva of the six supernormal powers—the difference between the body of birth and the dharma-body, and where the play of supernormal powers reaches. In explaining this passage the treatise marks out the stations of the supernormal powers of two kinds of bodhisattva: the dharma-body bodhisattva 「斷結使，得六神通」 tr. "has cut off the fetters and attained the six supernormal powers," while the birth-body bodhisattva 「不斷結使，或離欲得五神通」 tr. "has not cut off the fetters, or, being free of desire, attains the five supernormal powers." Those who have attained the six supernormal powers are not born in the three realms, and roam all the worlds making offerings to the buddhas of the ten directions; those who play with the supernormal powers go to the ten directions to liberate beings and rain down the seven jewels, and wherever they arrive all is the one vehicle, pure, with immeasurable lifespan. It is further asked: a bodhisattva ought to liberate beings, so why does he go only to pure worlds of immeasurable lifespan? The treatise distinguishes two kinds of bodhisattva: the first 「有慈悲心，多為眾生」 tr. "has a mind of kindness and compassion and acts mostly for beings," and so goes to places without the Buddha’s Dharma, where he praises the sound of the Three Jewels; the second 「多集諸佛功德」 tr. "mostly gathers the merits of the buddhas," and so goes to pure worlds of the one vehicle and immeasurable lifespan. The two are not superior and inferior; it is only where the vow leans, each accomplishing its own practice.
18. The three kinds of bodhisattva who first set their minds—three similes, and not doubting immediate attainment of the stage. The treatise draws this together with three similes of riding a sheep, riding a horse, and riding supernormal power: one whose offences are many and merit little is like riding a sheep—after a long, long time he may arrive or may not; one whose merit is much and offences few is like riding a horse—he will certainly arrive somewhere; one who practises only pure merit is like riding supernormal power—in the moment of setting his mind he arrives. The three similes are not meant to divide grades, but to make clear that ‘attaining avaivartika at the first setting of the mind’ is not skipping steps, but the natural result of merit gathered long in past lives, sharp faculties and a firm mind, and further of hearing the Dharma from a buddha—just as with the mark of supernormal power, one should not doubt “how one can arrive in the space of setting the mind.” Beyond these three kinds of arousing the mind, the treatise separately brings out two further bodhisattvas: one attains awakening at the first arousing of the mind, turns the wheel of the Dharma, liberates beings, enters nirvāṇa without remainder, and yet “leaves a conjured buddha to liberate beings,” whose Dharma abides for a kalpa or somewhat less than a kalpa, and those liberated are not few; one is in accord with prajñā as soon as he arouses the mind, attains the six supernormal powers, together with immeasurable beings contemplates the pure lands of the ten directions, and adorns his own land. The First Part concludes with Amitābha Buddha, who in a former life was the bhikṣu Dharma Treasury and, guided by a buddha, surveyed the ten directions everywhere and chose a pure land—gathering the rebirth, the meeting of the buddhas, the skilful means and the advance spoken of before into one concrete vow: purifying the buddha-world.
Do Not Misread
Do not read ‘the chapter on rebirth speaks of coming and going’ as the Buddha retreating to a real self. Behind every “there is” in this whole part there presses a sentence of ‘nothing to be attained’: saying there are beings is the gate of worldly truth, saying beings have no existence is the gate of the highest meaning, and only when both gates hold at once are there the two truths. Nor read “constantly meeting the buddhas” as a kind of good luck or benefit; it is the necessary accompaniment of not departing from prajñā and deeply entering great compassion, and once one departs from the Buddha and cuts off the condition of prajñā, the mark of meeting the Buddha is lost. Still less read the two kinds of bodhisattva, and having or lacking skilful means, as an examination of qualifications—the treatise distinguishes the karma-born and the body of dharma-nature, having skilful means and lacking skilful means, so that one may see clearly whether what one relies on at this moment is the flavour of meditation or compassion, grasping marks or accord—not so that one hurries to assign oneself to some grade. Ultimate emptiness does not screen off rebirth; conversely, rebirth never shakes ultimate emptiness.
The most important point is that, when reading the stories of the harsh speech before Kāśyapa Buddha, the six years of austerities and the eating of horse-barley, one must never read them as the buddhas and bodhisattvas truly having offences by which they could fall, or as their truly having given rise to anger. The treatise’s judgements are clear all the way through: Uttara’s harsh words were a provisional manifestation made while 「住諸法實相智中，入無上方便慧」 tr. "abiding in the knowledge of the real mark of all dharmas, entering unsurpassed wisdom of skilful means," and 「非是實也」 tr. "this was not real"; a bodhisattva of three births does not give rise to anger even toward ordinary people, how much less toward a buddha; the six years of austerities and the eating of horse-barley were displays of receiving recompense made for the gods and spirits of long life who do not see karmic recompense, for those of the outside paths who believe in and are attached to austerities, and for beings of small mind—「非實罪也」 tr. "they are not real offences"—because the buddhas 「斷一切不善法、成就一切善法」 tr. "have cut off all unwholesome dharmas and accomplished all wholesome dharmas," and if they really received offences, these words would not hold. These passages are this treatise’s direct teaching material on the meaning of “skilful means,” and the reader’s duty is to transmit faithfully the causes and conditions and the judgements it states—neither concealing on the bodhisattva’s behalf the appearance of his harsh speech, nor turning the displayed recompense into real offence. As the treatise says it, so one takes it. As for the back-and-forth questioning of old between the Great and Small Vehicles on this matter, the treatise has already recorded their words side by side and marked them as skilful means; here too only their questions and answers are noted, without separately judging right and wrong.
Bearing on Practice
The First Part can serve as a mirror in which to look at the mind. When cultivating concentration, one can ask: am I attached to the flavour of meditation, or am I keeping the Buddha-path in mind and entering a mind of kindness, letting meditation join with compassion and wisdom? When meeting favourable or adverse births and deaths, one can ask: am I treating them as the migration of a real self and giving rise to views of annihilation and permanence, or seeing them as the continuity of causes and conditions, in which karmic recompense is not lost and yet not a single thing is grasped? When arousing the mind to seek progress, one can ask: am I pleased with myself at standing higher than yesterday, or honestly gathering merit over a long time, not departing from prajñā and from beings? If one can stand firm in answering these three questions, then within “no coming and going” one can truly be “reborn”—not moving the meaning of emptiness, and yet in thought after thought not departing from the Buddha, not departing from beings.
Further Resonances
When later ancient masters read this part, what was taken up first was precisely the passage on the two truths at the opening. One who classified the teachings set this chapter’s ‘there are bodhisattvas who are reborn’ against the preceding chapter’s ‘there is no bodhisattva,’ judging them to be the two truths of the ordinary and the holy, not contradicting each other, and tied this to the Middle Way’s method of argument that ‘ultimate emptiness does not screen off birth and death’; another, following the question-and-answer structure of this passage, listed three types of teaching: speaking of the two truths together, speaking only of the highest meaning, and speaking only of worldly truth. These readings each have their own context; here only their approach is recorded, without judging which is higher. Brought back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a finer classification table of rebirth, but this part’s rewriting of “coming and going”: true rebirth is not a real self migrating between buddha-lands, but vow and prajñā continuing so that the condition of the Buddha is not cut off; each taking of birth is not changing to a better destination for oneself, but taking birth in order not to depart from beings and not to depart from the Buddha. The First Part closes with the bhikṣu Dharma Treasury choosing a pure land, which fittingly hands the question ‘from where does one come, and to where does one go’ back to a vow that can be reflected on again and again—whether what I tend toward in this life still faces omniscience and all beings.
往生品之中 · 卷三十九Rebirth, Part 2 of 3
全文五層 →Full five layers →之中（卷39）：一面遍能，一面不得——方便力與畢竟空的雙軌
在問什麼
這一卷仍在數說菩薩的種種相：能在諸定裡逆順超越，能不取二乘果卻令眾生得果，能作賢劫菩薩、一生補處、鈍根久修者，能斷三惡道、以布施安樂眾生、變身如佛入地獄說法、遍十方採取淨土、成三十二相、作轉輪聖王、以法照明，最後淨於五眼。經文一路鋪陳，讀者容易只當作一張『菩薩能做多少事』的清單。可是這一卷真正要問的不是能力有多大，而是：一位菩薩既能遍入諸定、遍取諸生、遍度眾生，他憑什麼不被這些成就綁住？佛給的答案，藏在每一段末尾反覆出現的「不得」「不取相」「畢竟空」裡。經文自身把它點破：菩薩淨佛道時，「不得身、不得口、不得意，不得檀波羅蜜乃至不得般若波羅蜜，不得聲聞、辟支佛，不得菩薩，不得佛」，所謂佛道，就是「一切諸法不可得」。所以這一卷是雙軌並行：一軌是方便力所成的遍能，一軌是般若所照的不可得；兩軌不相礙，才是往生諸相的骨幹。
底下壓著幾處難讀：超越定何以凡夫進不去而菩薩能逆順越層？既作轉輪聖王，是否一切菩薩都要作？佛既已答「除三惡、三麁」即是淨佛道，何以又更問淨佛道？五眼一段最長，肉眼有九層遠近、慧眼列了十家異說、慧眼與佛眼之別又借四大河入海為喻——這些都須一一交代，不能只當它是能力的鋪排。
逐段解明
一、超越定：力大而不著，故能逆順越層。 先看超越定。菩薩能「從初禪起入滅盡定」，又從滅盡定起入四禪、入虛空處、乃至入非有想非無想處，順逆往返於諸定之間。問者的疑正是常人的疑：凡夫連滅盡定都進不去，怎能這樣跳越？論主指出，那種『不能過二、必須挨次』的規矩，出於《阿毘曇鞞婆沙》等小乘論書，「非佛三藏說」；此處只點明兩家講法之別，並不評斷高下。它給的正面理由是力量與不著並用：一般人也有定法，只是「力少故，不能遠超」；菩薩以無量福德智慧深入禪定，而心又不著定味，所以遠近隨意。六牙白象雖中毒箭，猶憐憫射它的怨賊——這是本段自帶的譬喻，用來說這種慈悲之力連阿羅漢都沒有；畜生身尚且如此，何況菩薩以人身離欲入禪。人中力士一躍不過三四丈，天中力士則無復限數，也是同一意：力大則超遠。緊接著又補一層問答：既然超越定能越層，是否次第定就不算大？論答「二俱為大」——次第定從初禪一念入二禪、中間更無餘心夾雜，直到滅盡定皆然；超越定從初禪一念入第三禪，也同樣不令餘心雜，「逆順皆爾」。可見「超越」不是心力浮躁的跳動，而是更純的無雜；有人說超越定更勝，理由也只在它能無餘心雜而又能越層，如槃馬迴轉隨意。
二、不取二乘果，而以八聖道令眾生得果。 菩薩修四念處乃至十八不共法，卻不取須陀洹到辟支佛的任何果，只借八聖道令眾生得須陀洹乃至辟支佛道。論先問：何以不說他行六波羅蜜而但說得四念處？答：說與不說，都當知此菩薩皆行六度，於三十七品或行或不行。再問：自己不取道果，怎能以此化人？佛自說因緣——聲聞、辟支佛的一切果與智，都是菩薩的無生法忍，只是不領那個「果」的名字，果與智盡收進無生法忍中；「唯不取證，餘者皆行」，得菩薩道故名「阿鞞跋致」。往下數種菩薩，各有各的道、各有各的願。論特地標出「菩薩有各各道、各各行、各各願」一句作綱：往生諸相之所以千殊萬別，正因菩薩各隨其道其行其願而現，不可齊一而論。住六波羅蜜淨兜率天道者，修業因緣生兜率天上，入千菩薩會中次第作佛，這樣的相便當知是賢劫中菩薩。一生補處者何以說得四禪等？因他生兜率天上、離欲即得四禪，且離欲來久、具足佛法，以方便力隨補處法而生兜率；他「未證四諦」是故意留著不證——「若取證者，成辟支佛」，為成佛故不證。鈍根雜行者雖種善根、求無上菩提，以鈍根雜行故久乃得之，然以深種善根故必得。不說無益之事者先有惡口，故發菩薩心願永離口四過；又知般若中諸法無有定相、不可著不可說，能利益眾生的才是佛法，不能利益的縱是種種好語也非佛法——如種種好藥不能破病即不名藥，趣得土泥而能差病者反名為藥。這一串暗藏一條線：能與不能、取與不取，全繫於「方便」與『不著名相』，不是做不到證果，而是為成佛故不證，不是不修六度，而是修而不使自己被果名套牢。
三、度生諸能：布施二種、變身作佛、遍採淨土。 中段連說度生之能。先是住六神通、到十方世界遮斷上中下三種不善道。次說以布施為首安樂眾生——此處經文只說隨所須而與，論卻分出兩重菩薩：一者「能令眾生離苦」，二者「能與樂」；又一分為二：一者「憐愍三惡道眾生」，二者「憐愍人」。這一段菩薩正是與眾生樂、憐愍人者，故隨所須飲食衣服臥具乃至燈燭皆給與之。再說變身如佛，為地獄、畜生、餓鬼說法。這一段最能見方便之細：眾生有見佛身才得度的，就現佛身；佛名既是大悲世尊，以佛身入地獄，連閻羅鬼神都不敢遮攔——「是我所尊者師，云何可遮」。地獄火燒、心常散亂，菩薩便以神通破鑊滅火、禁制獄卒、放光照之，令其心樂而後說法。至於得道與否須分別看：地獄眾生以重罪故不得道，但能「種得道善根因緣」；畜生道中則有得有不得，「如阿那婆達多龍王、沙竭龍王等得菩薩道」；鬼神道中，「夜叉、密迹金剛、鬼子母等，有得見道」，都是大菩薩——這幾個得道的實例，正顯變身作佛之化不是虛設。末說遍至十方採取淨土：菩薩以佛身遍為六道眾生說法——若眾生聞弟子所教則不能信受，若聞佛這樣獨尊自在者說法則信受其語，這正是變身作佛的用意。他又以兩事因緣供養諸佛、莊嚴世界：一為聞莊嚴世界之法，二為到十方佛國採取清淨世界相；行業因緣轉復殊勝、光明亦多，所成國土中菩薩皆一生補處。有問：前既說兜率天上一生補處，今何以又說他方世界菩薩皆一生補處？論答：「兜率天上一生補處者，是三千世界常法；餘處不定」——兜率的一生補處是這三千大千世界的定法，他方採成的殊勝世界則不拘此例，其第一清淨者轉身即成佛。
四、諸根淨利而不自高不下他。 菩薩欲令眾生眼見其身即得度，故以三十二相莊嚴其身；「諸根淨利」者，眼等諸根明利出過餘人，信、慧根與諸心數根等淨利第一。見者歎其希有，自念「我無此事」而生愛敬、信受其語，世世具足道法，以三乘道入涅槃；這三十二相與眼等諸根，都從身口業因緣清淨得，故佛說菩薩應當淨身口業。可是遍能之後，經文立刻轉向自我約束——得諸根淨而不自高、不下他。世間常情是得了殊異便輕人，作「汝無此事，我獨有此」之念，一輕人便還失佛道；經中說「菩薩輕餘菩薩，念念一劫，遠於佛道」，經爾所劫還要重修。所以愈能，愈要不恃能。這一轉，正是雙軌的縮影：右手鋪陳遍能，左手就按住我慢。
五、終不墮惡道——何以持戒之外復說布施、復說常不捨十善。 菩薩從初發心住檀、尸二波羅蜜乃至阿鞞跋致地，終不墮惡道；因未到中間，畏墮惡道而作願：若墮三惡道，自不能度，何能度人。這裡起兩問。其一，持戒既已不墮惡道，何以又說布施？論答：「持戒是不墮惡道根本，布施亦能不墮」；且菩薩持戒雖不墮惡道，卻可能「生人中貧窮，不能自利，又不益人」，故須兼行布施——持戒保住不墮，布施保住能利。其二，經又說「常不捨十善行」，與前持戒豈非重出？論答：先前說的是持戒不牢固時、以布施隨助；此處則說但令持戒牢固、不捨十善，自能不墮三惡道——同是十善，前約其未固而以施助之，此約其已固而令勿捨，落點不同。
六、作轉輪聖王：一切菩薩不必然作。 菩薩住檀、尸波羅蜜而作轉輪聖王，以尸羅波羅蜜令眾生信受十善、「安立眾生於十善道」，以檀波羅蜜將財寶給施眾生而不可盡。這裡問得切要：「一切菩薩皆行是二波羅蜜作轉輪聖王不？」論答「不必然也」——此品所列，諸菩薩各以種種法入佛道；有菩薩聞轉輪聖王的儀法，知在王位上能大利益眾生，故發願作；也有菩薩雖不作此願，只因宿種轉輪聖王的因緣，亦得轉輪聖王的果報。可見作王與否無定，全看於眾生之益在何身。聞者又生一疑：這王位是一世作、還是世世作？故經接說菩薩「無量千萬世作轉輪聖王，值遇無量百千諸佛」，供養恭敬尊重讚歎。論釋其故：若知作轉輪聖王能大益眾生便作王身，若知餘身之益更大便作餘身；又為以世間法大大供養諸佛，所以「欲以世間法大供養佛故，作轉輪聖王」——世世為王，正是世世藉王者之力供佛度生，不是貪著王位。
七、以法照明，自照亦照人。 前一菩薩以財寶作轉輪聖王行檀尸，這一菩薩則專以分別諸經、讀誦憶念思惟諸法而求佛道，以智慧光明自利益亦利益眾生，「如人闇道中然燈，亦能自益，亦能益人」，故乃至無上菩提終不離智慧光明。且此清淨法施不求名利恭敬、不貪弟子、不恃智慧、不自高輕人，只念十方諸佛慈心念眾生，我亦如是學佛道，說法無所依止、適無所著，但為令眾生知諸法實相——如此清淨說法，世世不失智慧光明。這樣的菩薩於佛法中已得尊重，故行般若時身口意不淨不令妄起：若起三業惡，聞者或不信受；意業不淨則智慧不明，便不能善行菩薩道。
八、身口意罪的判準：取相作緣即是罪，兼辨麁業細業。 舍利弗智慧第一，何以不識身口意惡業？因他在聲聞法中則知，菩薩事異故不知——如說菩薩若生聲聞、辟支佛心即是破戒，這與聲聞的罪相全然不同，故他疑而問。佛的答覆出人意表：不是十不善才算罪，而是「取相作緣」——起念說「是身、是口、是意」，如是取相作緣，就是菩薩的身口意罪。聲聞法中以十不善道為罪，摩訶衍中則以「有作、有見」為罪，因作者見者皆虛誑故。這裡論主更立一重麁細相待之辨：離欲界欲時，五欲五蓋為惡罪，初禪所攝善覺觀為無罪；離初禪入二禪時，覺觀翻成罪，二禪所攝善憙為無罪；乃至非有想非無想處亦如是，如此節節相待，前地之善入後地即成所除之罪，直到入諸法實相中，「一切諸觀、諸見、諸法皆名為罪」。所以小乘人畏三惡道，以十不善業為罪；大乘人則以一切能生著心、取相、與三解脫門相違的法為罪——判準寬狹不同，正是大乘之所以為大乘。舍利弗因而再問：先說罪業，今何以言麁業？論答「麁業、罪業無異，罪即是麁，不名為細」；又順聲聞法分疏其麁細——聲聞人以身、口不善業為麁、「意不善業名為細」，以瞋恚邪見等結使為麁罪、愛慢等結使為細罪；「三惡覺，所謂欲覺、瞋覺、惱覺名為麁，親里覺、國土覺、不死覺名為細，但善覺名為微細——於摩訶衍中盡皆為麁」。所以摩訶衍所除的麁業，範圍比聲聞遠寬：連善覺、連取相都攝在所除之列。
九、除麁業與淨佛道：二空漸入不可得空。 除麁業的辦法不是壓制惡行，而是「不得身、不得口、不得意」，並從初發意常行十善道、不生聲聞辟支佛心，以不取相心把一切善根迴向無上菩提。論以「無樹則無蔭」作比：因既不可得，果也就無從生，見有三業雖不起惡也不名牢固，不見三業為根本才是牢固。淨佛道亦依此說到底：舍利弗問既已說除三麁即是淨佛道，何以更問？論答先說三業清淨相、今說一切法清淨相，先略今別——先但不得三業，今並不得六度、不得賢聖菩薩及佛。不得身乃至般若是「法空」，不得聲聞乃至佛是「眾生空」；菩薩住此二空，漸得一切不可得空，「不可得空即是諸法實相」。往後「無能壞者」一段，正是同一句話的回聲。舍利弗驚喜恭敬諸菩薩，因而起疑：菩薩結使未斷、未於實相法作證，憑什麼不可破壞？佛答：若菩薩「不念有色」乃至不念有無上菩提，得法空故亦得眾生空；法空則觀空者亦空，住此無礙般若之中，便「無有能壞者」。可見不可壞不是別有一種堅固之力，就是不念一法、無所可著——凡有所念、有所著，便有可壞之隙；一無所念，敵無下手處。這與前面「以檀為首」處分出的能離苦、能與樂、憐愍三惡道、憐愍人諸相並讀，愈見雙軌之義：遍能一面愈廣，不著一面愈須貼緊，二者從不相離。
十、具足智慧：二種智慧而不得諸法。 「具足智慧」一段，經說此菩薩住般若具足智慧，故常不墮惡道、不生弊惡人中、不作貧窮人，所受身體不為人天阿修羅所憎惡。論釋其所以：此菩薩先世來即愛樂智慧、遍學一切經書，觀察思惟、自以智力推求一切法中實相，得諸法實相故「為諸佛深心愛念」，以無量智慧福德因緣故身心具足、常受富樂。舍利弗更問何等是此智慧，佛便說二種：一者「分別破壞諸法而不取相」，二者「不著心、不取相見十方諸佛聽法」。有問：怎能行檀而不得檀？答：不得此檀之若一若異、若實若空；檀從和合因緣生，於檀中令眾生得富樂、勸助佛道，故行檀而不得檀——乃至十八不共法皆如是。這便是「能具足一切法而不得諸法」。
十一、五眼總說與肉眼淨：不在里程，在除垢還照。 佛不說「生五眼」而說「淨五眼」，論以鏡喻點題：「如鏡性有照明，垢故不見；若除垢，則照明如本」——菩薩本有肉眼與其餘四眼之分，只被罪結所覆，行六度滅垢，眼即清淨；肉眼由業因緣淨，天眼由禪定及業因緣淨，餘三眼由修無量智慧福德淨。肉眼淨開為九層遠近：最勝者見三千大千世界，次第而下見中千、小千、四天下、三天下、二天下、一天下、乃至千由旬、百由旬，最小者見百由旬。這一層層問答須逐一交代。其一，三千世界中百億須彌諸山樹木為障，何以得遍見？答「不以障礙故見」，若無障礙則見三千世界如觀掌；又有一說，菩薩果報所得天眼常在肉眼之中、不待攝心，故三千世界之物不能為礙，因天眼開障、肉眼得見。其二，佛力周遍，何以但見一三千大千世界不能見多？答：若肉眼能過三千世界復有所見，便無須天眼；且「世界之外，無央數由旬皆是虛空，空中常有風。肉眼與風相違」，相違故不能過見異世界。其三，何以只說到百由旬為小、不說九十八十？答：「轉輪聖王所見，過於餘人」，又人先世然燈等因緣得堅固眼根，「能遠有所見；雖遠，終不能見百由旬」，故菩薩肉眼的下限標在百由旬。這一整段的重點始終在「淨」字，不在看得多遠。
十二、日月雖遠而顛倒，菩薩肉眼不然。 承上還有一問：日月高懸去地四萬二千由旬，人人能見，何以反不能見近處的百由旬？見百由旬又何足稱奇？論答兩義：一者日月自有光明還照其形，故人得見，餘色則不然；二者日月遠故，雖見而顛倒——「日月方圓五百由旬，而今所見，不過如扇；大而見小，顛倒非實。菩薩肉眼則不然」。凡夫遠見日月，是把五百由旬之大看成一扇之小，見而不如其實；菩薩肉眼所見則不顛倒。這一喻正扣本卷主旨：看得見不算，看而不倒才算眼淨。
十三、天眼淨。 菩薩天眼有二種：一者「果報得」，常與肉眼合用，唯夜闇時天眼獨用；二者「修禪得」。凡人所得果報天眼見四天下、欲界諸天，見下不見上；菩薩果報天眼則見三千大千世界。菩薩用此天眼，見十方如恒河沙世界中眾生死此生彼、善惡好醜及善惡業因緣，無所障礙，四天王天乃至阿迦尼吒天所見他皆見、又能過之，而諸天不能知菩薩天眼所見——因菩薩出三界、得法性生身、得菩薩十力故。禪定離欲所得的天眼，其所見如「十力天眼明」中已說；其餘菩薩天眼的種種論議，如「讚菩薩五神通」中所說，此處不復廣陳。要之，天眼所貴不在能見遠近多少，而在它所見的仍是生死流轉的相，故雖見而未離虛誑，還須慧眼進一步破其取相——這也正是五眼何以要層層相因、節節翻進的理由。
十四、慧眼淨：十家異說並錄，佛自標中道。 肉眼天眼雖能見，仍是虛誑、取男女樹木等相，故求慧眼。何等是慧眼相？論主歷錄諸家異說，一一並列而不判其高下：有說「八聖道中正見」能見五受眾實相、破諸顛倒者是；有說「能緣涅槃慧」，所緣不可破壞故；有說「三解脫門相應慧」，能開涅槃門故；有說智慧現前、能觀實際、了了深入通達悉知者是；有說能通達法性、直過無礙者是；有說定心知諸法相如者是；有說「法空」是；有說不可得空中亦無法空者是；有說「十八空皆是慧眼」；有說「癡、慧非一非異」，世間法不異出世間、出世間不異世間，異不可得故，諸觀滅、諸心行轉還無所去、滅一切語言，如是智慧是。這些是古來各家對慧眼的異解，並錄以備參，不判其孰是。末後佛自說：慧眼菩薩於一切法中不念有為無為、世間出世間、有漏無漏；若見有為世間有漏即墮有見，若見無為出世間無漏即墮無見，捨此有無二見、以不戲論慧「行於中道」，才名慧眼——得此慧眼則無法不見、無法不聞、無法不知、無法不識，總相別相各皆如是。
十五、聲聞辟支佛亦得慧眼，何以不能無法不見。 有問：阿羅漢、辟支佛也得慧眼，何以不說他「無法不見、無法不聞、無法不知、無法不識」？論答慧眼有二種：一總相、二別相。聲聞辟支佛見諸法總相，所謂無常、苦、空；佛則以總相別相慧觀諸法。聲聞辟支佛雖有慧眼，卻「有量有限」，因緣少故慧眼亦少，不能遍照法性——「譬如燈油炷雖淨，小故不能廣照」；諸佛慧眼照諸法實性、盡其邊底，故無法不見，「譬如劫盡，火燒三千世界，明無不照」。且若聲聞慧眼也無法不知，便與一切智人無異，那菩薩世世集福德智慧、苦行修道又有何用？可見二乘慧眼的有限，正反顯佛慧眼的無邊。
十六、慧眼成佛時變名佛眼；佛雖現得肉眼而不隨其用。 又問：無法不知本是佛眼之用，何以說慧眼無法不知？論答：慧眼「成佛時變名佛眼」，無明煩惱及習皆滅，一切法中悉皆明了；故成佛時肉眼、天眼、慧眼、法眼都失其本名，但名佛眼——「譬如閻浮提四大河，入大海中，則失其本名」。何以四眼入佛眼便失名？肉眼從有漏業生故虛誑，天眼從禪定因緣和合生故亦虛誑，慧眼法眼煩惱習未盡故不畢竟清淨，唯佛眼無有謬錯、盡其邊極。末後一問收束全卷：佛既已成佛，卻仍現得果報肉眼能見色，這如何會通？論答：肉眼雖生眼識，而佛「不隨其用，不以為實」；如「聖自在神通」中佛告阿難——見好色時生厭惡心、見惡色時生不惡厭心，或時見色不生污穢不污穢、但生捨心，「如是則肉眼無所施用」。這一答最關要害：佛非無肉眼，而是有肉眼而不隨其用，見色而不取色為實——這正是全卷『遍能而不得』在佛地上的極成。菩薩一路修來的不著，到佛位便是這樣：一切根一切見皆在，而無一被取成實有可得之物。又論補一義，得聖道時五情清淨異於本；而諸法畢竟空與諸法通達無礙，這二者總為慧眼——空是遮其取相，通達無礙是顯其遍照，一遮一照，慧眼之體乃圓。至此，遍能一路數到淨五眼，仍歸於一無所得、一無所倒——雙軌並行到卷末，正好合轍。
不要讀錯
不要把這一卷讀成神通與能力的誇耀。菩薩能跳越諸定、能見三千世界、能變身入地獄，這些都真實不虛，但經文每說一種能，就配一句不得或不取相；抽掉後半，前半就成了外道式的炫能。
不要把作轉輪聖王讀成菩薩必得的果位。經文明問「一切菩薩皆行是二波羅蜜作轉輪聖王不」，答「不必然也」——作王與否無定，全看在哪一身能大益眾生；世世為王也不是貪著王位，而是「欲以世間法大供養佛」。把它讀成一種普遍的功德階位，便錯認了菩薩隨益現身的方便。
不要把「取相作緣」的罪相與聲聞的十不善混為一談。聲聞以十不善為罪，摩訶衍卻以「有作、有見」為罪，連取相、連善覺於此皆名麁業。若仍以『我沒造十惡便無罪』自安，恰恰漏了菩薩地最細的一層——「麁業、罪業無異」，取相即麁，不待造惡。也不要把麁細之辨讀死：論說前地之善入後地即翻成罪，離欲界時初禪善覺觀為無罪，入二禪時同一覺觀便成罪——可見麁細是相待而立、節節翻進的，不是有一種固定的東西叫麁、另一種叫細。執定一個麁相去除，正又落回取相。
不要把慧眼那一段十家異說當成須要挑一個對的來信。論主歷錄正見、緣涅槃慧、三解脫門相應慧乃至十八空、癡慧非一非異諸說，是古來各家之解，並錄備參、不判高下；真正的落點在佛自說的「行於中道」——不落有見、不落無見。把某一家之說認作定論，反倒違了本段並錄不判之意。
也不要把肉眼見百由旬當成本段的看點。論主特意借日月之喻說，凡夫遠見日月尚且「大而見小，顛倒非實」，可見遠見從來不是功德；縱是堅固眼根、轉輪聖王之眼也難及百由旬，舉這數目只為標出菩薩肉眼淨的下限，重點始終在「淨」字。取相纔是麁業，看而不倒纔是眼淨；里程再遠而所見顛倒，終非五眼所貴。
修行作用
這一卷可當作一面『能與不著』的對照鏡。凡自覺在道上稍有所成——定力深了些、見識廣了些、能幫上人了些——都可以拿本卷的雙軌自照：右邊問，我這一分能力是否真能利益眾生；左邊立刻補問，我是否已把它取成『我的』相，因而暗生自高、輕慢乃至退道。經說「菩薩輕餘菩薩，念念一劫，遠於佛道」，正是這面鏡子最利的一刃。
除麁業的下手處也很具體：不必先去伏斷粗惡，而是回到起念的當下，看自己是否正把身、口、意、六度乃至佛果都握成一個可得之物。握住了，就是罪的根，如摩訶衍所判，取相即麁，不待造惡；鬆開了，善根自能迴向無上菩提。持戒與布施並行的一段也堪自省：持戒保住不墮，布施保住能利，二者缺一，或墮惡道、或雖生善處而貧窮不能利人——修行不是單守一善便了。
作轉輪聖王的一段，給發願與現身之際留了一句提醒。經明說不是一切菩薩都要作王，「不必然也」；有人聞其儀法而發願，有人不發願而宿種其報。用功人若見他人現居高位廣行利益，不必生『我亦當如是』的定執，也不必以自己未居此位而自輕——現什麼身、發什麼願，全看在哪一處於眾生之益為大。世世作王的菩薩，念念都是藉世間之力大供養佛、大安立眾生於十善，王位只是度生的器具而非所貪；把這一分看清了，於一切位次高下便自不繫心，現高位不自矜，居下位不自輕。
五眼給的則是一句提醒：修行不是要看得更遠，而是要看得不顛倒。凡夫遠見日月而以扇量之，正因取相未除；慧眼之所以貴，不在多見一物，而在「行於中道」、不落有無。看得多遠是天眼的事，看而不被所見之相所誑、所倒，才是五眼真正被「淨」的地方。慧眼一段的十家異說更堪玩味：正見、緣涅槃慧、三解脫門相應慧、觀實際、通達法性、乃至十八空、癡慧非一非異——古來諸師各執一解，都不能算錯，卻也都未必是究竟；佛不逐一裁定，只自標一句不落有無、「行於中道」，這正教用功人於一切見解不急著選邊站，而先問自己有沒有暗落有見、無見的一邊。連對『慧眼是什麼』這樣的正解，都不宜取成一個可執的定相，何況其餘。
承衍
之上開卷即以二諦答『眾生畢竟空何以有往生』，之中便把這條線從『往生從何而來』推到『往生者如何行、如何淨』——同一畢竟空，在之上顯為往來無礙，在之中顯為遍能而不得。前文所立的方便力與法性身兩義，到此化作超越定的力大不著、變身作佛的隨機現形、作轉輪聖王的隨益現身、五眼的除垢還照，一以貫之。卷中所歷的種種能——超越定、不取果而令眾生得果、變身作佛、採淨土、作轉輪聖王、以法照明、乃至肉眼天眼慧眼之淨——看似各說一事，其實共守一格：每說一能，必以一句不得、不取相、行於中道按住其後，遍能與不著始終相偕而行，抽掉任一面都不成菩薩行，這一格便是全卷的骨。而末段慧眼「成佛時變名佛眼」一語，已為之下正面開講法眼、佛眼與五眼相生預留了門徑：眼之淨到極處即是智之圓，之下承此續說法眼、佛眼與神通諸相，順理成章。
Middle Part (Fascicle 39): Capable of Everything on One Side, Obtaining Nothing on the Other—The Twin Tracks of Skilful Means and Ultimate Emptiness
What Is Being Asked
This fascicle still goes on recounting the bodhisattva’s various marks: he can pass beyond, in forward and reverse order, through the concentrations; he can decline the fruits of the two vehicles and yet bring beings to attain those fruits; he can be a bodhisattva of the Auspicious Kalpa, one bound to buddhahood in one more life, or one of dull faculties who cultivates for long; he can cut off the three evil destinies, give beings peace and happiness with giving at the head, transform his body to resemble a buddha and enter the hells to teach the Dharma, go everywhere in the ten directions gathering pure lands, perfect the thirty-two marks, become a wheel-turning sage king, illuminate by means of the Dharma, and finally purify the five eyes. The sūtra lays these out in one long spread, and the reader easily takes them as no more than a list of ‘how many things a bodhisattva can do.’ Yet what this fascicle truly asks is not how great his abilities are, but this: since a bodhisattva can enter every concentration, take up every kind of birth, and liberate every being, on what ground is he not bound by these accomplishments? The Buddha’s answer lies hidden in the “not obtaining,” the “not grasping marks,” and the “ultimate emptiness” that recur at the end of every passage. The sūtra itself lays it bare: when the bodhisattva purifies the Buddha-path, 「不得身、不得口、不得意，不得檀波羅蜜乃至不得般若波羅蜜，不得聲聞、辟支佛，不得菩薩，不得佛」 tr. "he does not obtain body, does not obtain speech, does not obtain mind; does not obtain the perfection of giving, and so on up to not obtaining the perfection of prajñā; does not obtain the śrāvaka or the pratyekabuddha, does not obtain the bodhisattva, does not obtain the Buddha," and what is called the Buddha-path is precisely 「一切諸法不可得」 tr. "all dharmas are unfindable." So this fascicle runs on twin tracks: one track is the capacity for everything, accomplished by the power of skilful means; the other is the unfindability illuminated by prajñā. The two tracks do not obstruct each other, and this is the backbone of all the marks of rebirth.
Beneath this lie several places that are hard to read. How is it that ordinary people cannot enter the leaping absorption, while the bodhisattva can pass over levels in forward and reverse order? Since he becomes a wheel-turning sage king, must every bodhisattva become one? Since the Buddha has already answered that removing the three evils and the three coarse actions is itself purifying the Buddha-path, why is purifying the Buddha-path asked about once more? The passage on the five eyes is the longest: the fleshly eye has nine grades of far and near, the divergent accounts of ten schools on the wisdom eye are listed, and the difference between the wisdom eye and the buddha eye is conveyed by the simile of four great rivers entering the sea—each of these must be accounted for one by one, and cannot be taken merely as a display of abilities.
Passage by Passage
1. The leaping absorption: great in power yet unattached, and therefore able to pass over levels in forward and reverse order. First, the leaping absorption. The bodhisattva can “rise from the first dhyāna and enter the attainment of cessation,” and again rise from the attainment of cessation and enter the fourth dhyāna, enter the sphere of boundless space, and so on up to entering the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, going forwards and backwards among the concentrations. The questioner’s doubt is just the doubt of ordinary people: ordinary people cannot even enter the attainment of cessation—how could anyone leap across like this? The treatise-author points out that the rule ‘one may not pass over two; one must go step by step’ comes from the Small Vehicle treatises such as the Abhidharma-vibhāṣā, and is 「非佛三藏說」 tr. "not what the Buddha’s Tripiṭaka says"; here he only points out the difference between the two accounts, and does not judge which is higher. The positive reason he gives is power and non-attachment working together: ordinary people too have the dharma of concentration, but 「力少故，不能遠超」 tr. "because their power is slight, they cannot pass far beyond"; the bodhisattva, with immeasurable merit and wisdom, enters deeply into dhyāna, and yet his mind is not attached to the taste of concentration, so far or near is as he wishes. The six-tusked white elephant, though struck by a poisoned arrow, still pitied the hostile hunter who shot him—this is the simile this passage carries of its own, used to say that such a power of compassion is something even the arhats lack; if it was so even in an animal’s body, how much more for a bodhisattva who, in a human body, has left desire behind and entered dhyāna. A strong man among humans can leap no more than three or four zhang, while a strong man among the gods has no limit at all—the same meaning: great power, far transcendence. Close upon this comes a further layer of question and answer: since the leaping absorption can pass over levels, does the sequential concentration then not count as great? The treatise answers 「二俱為大」 tr. "both are great"—the sequential concentration goes from the first dhyāna into the second dhyāna in a single thought, with no other mind mixed in between, and so on all the way to the attainment of cessation; the leaping absorption goes from the first dhyāna into the third dhyāna in a single thought, and likewise lets no other mind mix in, “in forward and reverse order alike.” It is plain that “transcending” is not the restless leaping of mental force, but a purer freedom from admixture; and when some say the leaping absorption is superior, their reason too lies only in its being free of any other mind mixed in while also able to pass over levels, like a trained horse wheeling and turning as it wishes.
2. Not taking the fruits of the two vehicles, yet bringing beings to the fruits by the noble eightfold path. The bodhisattva cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, yet takes none of the fruits from srota-āpanna to pratyekabuddha; he only uses the noble eightfold path to bring beings to attain srota-āpanna and so on up to the path of the pratyekabuddha. The treatise first asks: why is it not said that he practises the six perfections, but only that he attains the four foundations of mindfulness? It answers: whether it is said or not, it should be known that this bodhisattva practises all six perfections, and among the thirty-seven limbs of the path he sometimes practises them and sometimes does not. It asks again: if he does not himself take the fruit of the path, how can he use it to transform others? The Buddha himself states the causes and conditions—all the fruits and knowledges of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are the bodhisattva’s acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; he merely does not take up the name of “fruit,” and fruit and knowledge are wholly gathered into the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas: 「唯不取證，餘者皆行」 tr. "only he does not take realisation; all the rest he practises," and because he has attained the bodhisattva path he is called avaivartika. From here on several kinds of bodhisattva are counted out, each with his own path and his own vow. The treatise specially marks out one sentence as the guiding thread, 「菩薩有各各道、各各行、各各願」 tr. "bodhisattvas have each their own path, each their own practice, each their own vow": the marks of rebirth differ in a thousand ways precisely because each bodhisattva appears according to his own path, his own practice, and his own vow, and they cannot be treated as uniform. One who abides in the six perfections and purifies the path to the Tuṣita Heaven is, through the causes and conditions of his cultivated action, born in the Tuṣita Heaven, enters the assembly of the thousand bodhisattvas, and becomes a buddha in his turn—when such marks are seen, it should be known that this is a bodhisattva of the Auspicious Kalpa. Why is the one bound to buddhahood in one more life said to attain the four dhyānas and so on? Because he is born in the Tuṣita Heaven and, on leaving desire, at once attains the four dhyānas; moreover he left desire long ago and is complete in the Buddha-dharma, and by the power of skilful means he is born in Tuṣita in accordance with the rule for one bound to succeed. That he “has not realised the four truths” is deliberately held back unrealised—「若取證者，成辟支佛」 tr. "if he were to take realisation, he would become a pratyekabuddha"—and for the sake of becoming a buddha he does not realise them. The bodhisattva of dull faculties and mixed practice, though he plants roots of goodness and seeks unsurpassed awakening, attains it only after a long time because of his dull faculties and mixed practice; yet because he has planted roots of goodness deeply, he is sure to attain it. The one who does not speak of useless things earlier had harsh speech, and so he aroused the bodhisattva-mind and vowed to be free forever of the four faults of speech; he also knows that in prajñā all dharmas have no fixed mark and can be neither clung to nor spoken of, and that what can benefit beings is the Buddha-dharma, while what cannot benefit them, though it be all manner of fine words, is not the Buddha-dharma—just as all manner of fine medicines that cannot break an illness are not called medicine, while even earth and mud, if they can cure the illness, are on the contrary called medicine. A thread runs hidden through this whole series: being able and not being able, taking and not taking, all hinge on “skilful means” and on ‘not being attached to names and marks’—it is not that he cannot realise the fruit, but that for the sake of becoming a buddha he does not realise it; it is not that he does not cultivate the six perfections, but that he cultivates them without letting himself be snared by the name of a fruit.
3. The capacities for liberating beings: two kinds of giving, transforming the body into a buddha, gathering pure lands everywhere. The middle section speaks of the capacities for liberating beings one after another. First, abiding in the six supernormal powers, he goes to the worlds of the ten directions and blocks off the three kinds of unwholesome destiny, upper, middle, and lower. Next it speaks of giving beings peace and happiness with giving at the head—here the sūtra says only that he gives according to what is needed, but the treatise distinguishes two kinds of bodhisattva: the first “can make beings leave suffering,” the second “can give happiness”; and again it divides them in two: the first “pities the beings of the three evil destinies,” the second “pities humans.” The bodhisattva of this passage is precisely the one who gives beings happiness and pities humans, and so he gives them whatever they need—food and drink, clothing, bedding, and so on even to lamps and candles. Next it speaks of transforming his body to resemble a buddha and teaching the Dharma to the hells, the animals, and the hungry ghosts. This passage shows most clearly how fine skilful means is: there are beings who can be liberated only by seeing a buddha’s body, and so he manifests a buddha’s body; since the name of Buddha is the World-Honored One of great compassion, when he enters the hells in a buddha’s body, even Yama and the ghosts and spirits dare not block his way—「是我所尊者師，云何可遮」 tr. "this is the teacher whom we revere; how could we block him?" In the hells fire burns and the mind is always scattered, so the bodhisattva uses his supernormal powers to break the cauldrons and put out the fires, restrain the hell-wardens, and shine his light upon them, making their minds glad before he teaches the Dharma. As to whether they attain the path or not, one must look case by case: beings in the hells, because of their heavy offences, do not attain the path, but they can “plant the causes and conditions of the roots of goodness for attaining the path”; in the animal destiny some attain it and some do not—“as the dragon king Anavatapta, the dragon king Sāgara, and others attained the bodhisattva path”; in the destiny of ghosts and spirits, “yakṣas, the Vajra-bearer of Secret Traces, the Mother of Ghost-Children, and others, have attained the path of seeing”—all of these are great bodhisattvas. These several actual cases of attaining the path show precisely that the transformation by which he changes his body into a buddha is no empty device. Last it speaks of going everywhere in the ten directions gathering pure lands: the bodhisattva, in a buddha’s body, teaches the Dharma everywhere for the beings of the six destinies—if beings hear the teaching from a disciple they cannot believe and accept it, but if they hear the Dharma taught by one so singularly honoured and sovereign as a buddha, they believe and accept his words; this is exactly the purpose of transforming his body into a buddha. Further, for two causes and conditions he makes offerings to the buddhas and adorns worlds: first, to hear the Dharma of adorning worlds; second, to go to the buddha-lands of the ten directions and gather the marks of pure worlds. The causes and conditions of his practice and action become ever more excellent, his radiance too is great, and in the lands he brings to completion the bodhisattvas are all bound to buddhahood in one more life. It is asked: since it was said before that the one bound to buddhahood in one more life is in the Tuṣita Heaven, why is it now said that the bodhisattvas of the worlds of other directions are all bound to buddhahood in one more life? The treatise answers: 「兜率天上一生補處者，是三千世界常法；餘處不定」 tr. "the one bound to buddhahood in one more life being in the Tuṣita Heaven is the standing rule of the three-thousand world; elsewhere it is not fixed"—being bound to buddhahood in one more life in Tuṣita is the fixed rule of this three-thousand great-thousand world, while the excellent worlds gathered and completed in other directions are not bound by this precedent, and in the foremost pure one among them a bodhisattva becomes a buddha on turning his body.
4. The faculties pure and keen, yet neither exalting oneself nor looking down on others. Because the bodhisattva wishes beings to be liberated as soon as their eyes see his body, he adorns his body with the thirty-two marks; “the faculties pure and keen” means that his faculties, the eye and the rest, are bright and keen beyond other people’s, and that the faculties of faith and wisdom and the faculties among the mental factors are foremost in purity and keenness. Those who see him marvel at how rare it is, think to themselves, “I have nothing like this,” and give rise to love and reverence and believe and accept his words; life after life they are complete in the Dharma of the path, and by the path of the three vehicles they enter nirvāṇa. These thirty-two marks and the faculties such as the eye are all obtained from the purity of the causes and conditions of bodily and verbal action, and so the Buddha says that the bodhisattva should purify his bodily and verbal action. Yet once this capacity for everything has been set out, the sūtra at once turns to self-restraint—having obtained the purity of the faculties, he does not exalt himself and does not look down on others. The common way of the world is that one who has obtained something distinctive belittles others, thinking, “You have nothing like this; I alone have it,” and as soon as one belittles others one loses the Buddha-path again; the sūtra says, 「菩薩輕餘菩薩，念念一劫，遠於佛道」 tr. "a bodhisattva who belittles another bodhisattva is, for each moment of thought, one kalpa further from the Buddha-path," and after passing through that many kalpas he must cultivate all over again. So the more capable one is, the less one should rely on one’s capability. This one turn is the twin tracks in miniature: the right hand spreads out the capacity for everything, and the left hand at once holds down the conceit of self.
5. Never falling into the evil destinies—why giving is spoken of in addition to keeping the precepts, and why never abandoning the ten wholesome actions is spoken of as well. From the first arousing of the mind, the bodhisattva abides in the perfections of giving and morality until he reaches the stage of avaivartika, and never falls into the evil destinies; because he has not yet arrived and is still in between, fearing to fall into the evil destinies, he makes a vow: if I fall into the three evil destinies, I cannot liberate myself—how could I liberate others? Here two questions arise. First: since keeping the precepts already keeps one from falling into the evil destinies, why is giving spoken of as well? The treatise answers: 「持戒是不墮惡道根本，布施亦能不墮」 tr. "keeping the precepts is the root of not falling into the evil destinies; giving too can keep one from falling"; moreover, although a bodhisattva who keeps the precepts does not fall into the evil destinies, he may yet “be born among humans poor, unable to benefit himself and unable to benefit others,” and so he must also practise giving—keeping the precepts secures his not falling, and giving secures his ability to benefit. Second: the sūtra further says “never abandoning the practice of the ten wholesome actions”—is this not a repetition of keeping the precepts above? The treatise answers: what was spoken of before was the case where the keeping of precepts is not yet firm, and giving comes along to help; here it speaks of simply making the keeping of precepts firm and not abandoning the ten wholesome actions, and then one naturally does not fall into the three evil destinies—it is the same ten wholesome actions, but the former speaks of their not yet being firm and helping them with giving, while this speaks of their being already firm and bidding one not abandon them; the point of emphasis differs.
6. Becoming a wheel-turning sage king: not every bodhisattva necessarily does so. The bodhisattva abides in the perfections of giving and morality and becomes a wheel-turning sage king: by the perfection of morality he brings beings to believe in and accept the ten wholesome actions, “establishing beings in the ten wholesome paths of action,” and by the perfection of giving he takes wealth and treasure and bestows them on beings without ever exhausting them. Here the question goes straight to the point: 「一切菩薩皆行是二波羅蜜作轉輪聖王不？」 tr. "Do all bodhisattvas practise these two perfections and become wheel-turning sage kings?" The treatise answers 「不必然也」 tr. "Not necessarily"—in what this chapter lists, the bodhisattvas each enter the Buddha-path by all manner of dharmas; there are bodhisattvas who hear of the rule and bearing of the wheel-turning sage king and, knowing that in the royal seat one can greatly benefit beings, therefore vow to become one; and there are also bodhisattvas who, though they make no such vow, simply because they planted in former lives the causes and conditions of a wheel-turning sage king, likewise obtain the recompense of a wheel-turning sage king. It is plain that whether he becomes king is not fixed, and depends wholly on in which body the benefit to beings lies. A listener then has a further doubt: is this royal seat held for one life, or life after life? So the sūtra goes on to say that the bodhisattva “for immeasurable thousands of myriads of lives becomes a wheel-turning sage king and meets immeasurable hundreds of thousands of buddhas,” making offerings, revering, honouring, and praising them. The treatise explains the reason: if he knows that becoming a wheel-turning sage king can greatly benefit beings, he takes a king’s body; if he knows that the benefit of some other body is greater, he takes that other body; and further, it is for the sake of making great offerings to the buddhas by worldly dharmas, so that 「欲以世間法大供養佛故，作轉輪聖王」 tr. "because he wishes to make great offerings to the Buddha by worldly dharmas, he becomes a wheel-turning sage king"—being king life after life is precisely borrowing, life after life, the power of a king to make offerings to the buddhas and liberate beings, not being greedily attached to the royal seat.
7. Illuminating by means of the Dharma, illuminating oneself and illuminating others too. The previous bodhisattva became a wheel-turning sage king by wealth and treasure and practised giving and morality; this bodhisattva instead seeks the Buddha-path solely by distinguishing the sūtras and reciting, recollecting, and reflecting on the dharmas, and by the light of wisdom benefits himself and benefits beings as well—「如人闇道中然燈，亦能自益，亦能益人」 tr. "like a person lighting a lamp on a dark road: it benefits himself and it benefits others too"—and so, all the way to unsurpassed awakening, he never parts from the light of wisdom. Moreover, this pure giving of the Dharma does not seek fame, profit, or reverence, is not greedy for disciples, does not rely on its own wisdom, does not exalt itself and belittle others; it only thinks: the buddhas of the ten directions think of beings with a mind of kindness, and I too train in the Buddha-path in just this way; he teaches the Dharma relying on nothing and attached to nothing whatever, only so that beings may know the real mark of all dharmas—teaching the Dharma purely in this way, life after life he does not lose the light of wisdom. Such a bodhisattva has already won respect within the Buddha-dharma, and so when practising prajñā he does not let impurity of body, speech, or mind arise at random: if the three kinds of evil action arise, listeners may not believe and accept him; if mental action is impure, his wisdom is not bright, and then he cannot practise the bodhisattva path well.
8. The criterion for offences of body, speech, and mind: grasping marks and making them conditions is itself offence; with a further discrimination of coarse and subtle action. Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom—why does he not recognise the evil actions of body, speech, and mind? Because within the śrāvaka Dharma he knows them, but the bodhisattva’s affairs are different, so he does not know them—for instance, it is said that if a bodhisattva gives rise to the mind of a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha, this is breaking the precepts, which is wholly different from the śrāvaka’s marks of offence; and so he doubts and asks. The Buddha’s reply is beyond expectation: it is not only the ten unwholesome actions that count as offence, but 「取相作緣」 tr. "grasping marks and making them conditions"—to raise the thought, “this is body, this is speech, this is mind,” and so grasp marks and make them conditions, is the bodhisattva’s offence of body, speech, and mind. In the śrāvaka Dharma the ten unwholesome paths of action are taken as offence; in the Mahāyāna, 「有作、有見」 tr. "there being a maker, there being a seer" is taken as offence, because the maker and the seer are both false and deceptive. Here the treatise-author further sets up a discrimination of coarse and subtle as mutually relative: when leaving desire for the desire realm, the five desires and the five hindrances are evil offences, and the wholesome initial and sustained thought included in the first dhyāna is without offence; when leaving the first dhyāna and entering the second, initial and sustained thought in turn becomes offence, and the wholesome joy included in the second dhyāna is without offence; and so on up to the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception—thus, stage by stage in mutual relation, the good of the former ground becomes, on entering the later ground, the offence to be removed, until on entering the real mark of all dharmas, 「一切諸觀、諸見、諸法皆名為罪」 tr. "all contemplations, all views, all dharmas are called offence." So people of the Small Vehicle fear the three evil destinies and take the ten unwholesome actions as offence; people of the Mahāyāna take as offence every dharma that can give rise to an attached mind, that grasps marks, that runs counter to the three gates of liberation—the criterion differs in breadth, and this is precisely why the Mahāyāna is great. Śāriputra therefore asks again: offensive action was spoken of before—why now speak of coarse action? The treatise answers, 「麁業、罪業無異，罪即是麁，不名為細」 tr. "coarse action and offensive action are no different; offence is coarse, and is not called subtle"; and further, following the śrāvaka Dharma, it sets out their coarse and subtle forms—śrāvakas take unwholesome bodily and verbal action as coarse, while “unwholesome mental action is called subtle”; they take fetters such as anger and wrong view as coarse offences, and fetters such as craving and conceit as subtle offences; 「三惡覺，所謂欲覺、瞋覺、惱覺名為麁，親里覺、國土覺、不死覺名為細，但善覺名為微細——於摩訶衍中盡皆為麁」 tr. "the three evil thoughts, namely the thought of desire, the thought of anger, and the thought of harm, are called coarse; the thought of kin, the thought of homeland, and the thought of not dying are called subtle; only wholesome thought is called very subtle—in the Mahāyāna all of these are coarse." So the coarse action that the Mahāyāna removes is far wider in range than the śrāvaka’s: even wholesome thought, even the grasping of marks, is included in what is to be removed.
9. Removing coarse action and purifying the Buddha-path: through the two emptinesses gradually entering the emptiness of the unfindable. The method for removing coarse action is not to suppress evil conduct, but “not obtaining body, not obtaining speech, not obtaining mind,” and, from the first arousing of the mind, always practising the ten wholesome paths of action, not giving rise to the mind of a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha, and with a mind that does not grasp marks dedicating all roots of goodness to unsurpassed awakening. The treatise makes a comparison with “no tree, then no shade”: since the cause is unfindable, the fruit has nowhere to arise from; to see that the three actions exist, even without giving rise to evil, is not called firm—not seeing the three actions as the root is what is firm. Purifying the Buddha-path is likewise spoken of to its end on this basis: Śāriputra asks, since it has already been said that removing the three coarse actions is itself purifying the Buddha-path, why ask again? The treatise answers that before it spoke of the mark of the purity of the three actions and now it speaks of the mark of the purity of all dharmas—before in brief, now in detail; before, only the three actions were not obtained, now in addition the six perfections are not obtained, and the worthies, the sages, the bodhisattvas, and the Buddha are not obtained. Not obtaining body and so on up to prajñā is “the emptiness of dharmas”; not obtaining the śrāvaka and so on up to the Buddha is “the emptiness of beings”; abiding in these two emptinesses, the bodhisattva gradually attains the emptiness of all unfindability, and 「不可得空即是諸法實相」 tr. "the emptiness of the unfindable is precisely the real mark of all dharmas." The later passage on “none who can destroy him” is precisely the echo of this same sentence. Śāriputra, amazed and delighted, reveres the bodhisattvas, and so a doubt arises: the bodhisattva has not yet cut off the fetters and has not yet realised the dharma of the real mark—on what ground can he not be broken? The Buddha answers: if the bodhisattva “does not think there is form,” and so on up to not thinking there is unsurpassed awakening, then because he attains the emptiness of dharmas he also attains the emptiness of beings; with the emptiness of dharmas, the one who contemplates emptiness is also empty, and abiding in this unobstructed prajñā, “there is none who can destroy him.” It is plain that indestructibility is not some separate kind of solid strength; it is simply not thinking of a single dharma, having nothing that can be clung to—wherever there is something thought of, something clung to, there is a crack that can be broken; when nothing at all is thought of, the enemy has nowhere to lay a hand. Read together with the marks distinguished earlier under “giving at the head”—being able to make beings leave suffering, being able to give happiness, pitying the three evil destinies, pitying humans—the meaning of the twin tracks shows all the more: the wider the side of capacity for everything, the more closely the side of non-attachment must keep to it; the two never part.
10. Being complete in wisdom: two kinds of wisdom, yet not obtaining any dharma. In the passage on “being complete in wisdom,” the sūtra says that this bodhisattva abides in prajñā and is complete in wisdom, and therefore never falls into the evil destinies, is not born among base and evil people, does not become a poor person, and the body he receives is not loathed by humans, gods, or asuras. The treatise explains why: from former lives onward this bodhisattva has loved and delighted in wisdom and studied all scriptures and books everywhere, observing and reflecting, and by the power of his own wisdom seeking out the real mark within all dharmas; because he has attained the real mark of all dharmas he is “deeply loved and kept in mind by the buddhas,” and because of the causes and conditions of immeasurable wisdom and merit he is complete in body and mind and always receives wealth and happiness. Śāriputra asks further what this wisdom is, and the Buddha speaks of two kinds: the first, 「分別破壞諸法而不取相」 tr. "distinguishing and breaking down dharmas, yet not grasping marks"; the second, 「不著心、不取相見十方諸佛聽法」 tr. "with an unattached mind, not grasping marks, seeing the buddhas of the ten directions and hearing the Dharma." It is asked: how can one practise giving and yet not obtain giving? The answer: one does not obtain this giving as one or as different, as real or as empty; giving arises from the coming together of causes and conditions, and within giving one brings beings to obtain wealth and happiness and encourages and assists the Buddha-path, and so one practises giving without obtaining giving—and so it is for everything up to the eighteen unshared dharmas. This is what is meant by “being able to be complete in all dharmas, yet not obtaining any dharma.”
11. General account of the five eyes, and the purity of the fleshly eye: not in the mileage, but in removing the dirt and restoring the illumination. The Buddha does not say “give rise to the five eyes” but “purify the five eyes,” and the treatise brings out the point with the simile of a mirror: 「如鏡性有照明，垢故不見；若除垢，則照明如本」 tr. "as a mirror by nature has illumination, yet because of dirt it does not show; if the dirt is removed, the illumination is as it was at first"—the bodhisattva already has his share of the fleshly eye and the other four eyes, only they are covered by offences and fetters; practising the six perfections, he extinguishes the dirt and the eyes become pure. The fleshly eye is purified through the causes and conditions of action; the divine eye is purified through dhyāna-concentration and the causes and conditions of action; the other three eyes are purified by cultivating immeasurable wisdom and merit. The purity of the fleshly eye opens into nine grades of far and near: the most excellent sees the three-thousand great-thousand world, and going down in order it sees the middle-thousand world, the small-thousand world, four continents, three continents, two continents, one continent, and on down to a thousand yojanas and a hundred yojanas; the least sees a hundred yojanas. These layer upon layer of questions and answers must be accounted for one by one. First: within the three-thousand world, the hundred koṭi of Sumerus, the mountains, and the trees are obstructions—how can one see everywhere? The answer: “it does not see because of obstruction”; if there were no obstruction, one would see the three-thousand world as if looking at one’s palm. There is also another account: the divine eye obtained by the bodhisattva as recompense is always present within the fleshly eye, without waiting for the mind to be gathered, and so the things of the three-thousand world cannot obstruct it—because the divine eye opens the obstruction, the fleshly eye gets to see. Second: the Buddha’s power pervades everywhere—why does one see only one three-thousand great-thousand world and cannot see more? The answer: if the fleshly eye could see beyond the three-thousand world, there would be no need of the divine eye; moreover, 「世界之外，無央數由旬皆是虛空，空中常有風。肉眼與風相違」 tr. "beyond the world, countless yojanas are all empty space, and in space there is always wind. The fleshly eye and the wind are at odds with each other," and because they are at odds it cannot see across to other worlds. Third: why is only a hundred yojanas given as the least, and not ninety or eighty? The answer: “what a wheel-turning sage king sees surpasses other people,” and further, people who in former lives had causes and conditions such as lighting lamps obtain a firm eye-faculty and 「能遠有所見；雖遠，終不能見百由旬」 tr. "can see things far away; yet however far, they can never see a hundred yojanas"—and so the lower limit of the bodhisattva’s fleshly eye is marked at a hundred yojanas. The emphasis of this whole passage lies throughout on the word “pure,” not on how far one sees.
12. The sun and moon, though far, are seen inverted; the bodhisattva’s fleshly eye is not so. Following on from the above there is one more question: the sun and moon hang high, forty-two thousand yojanas from the earth, and everyone can see them—why then can one not see a hundred yojanas close at hand? And what is so remarkable about seeing a hundred yojanas? The treatise answers with two meanings: first, the sun and moon have their own light that shines back on their forms, and so people can see them, which is not so of other visible forms; second, because the sun and moon are far, though seen they are seen inverted—「日月方圓五百由旬，而今所見，不過如扇；大而見小，顛倒非實。菩薩肉眼則不然」 tr. "the sun and moon are five hundred yojanas across, yet as they are seen now they are no bigger than a fan; large, yet seen as small—inverted, not real. The bodhisattva’s fleshly eye is not so." When ordinary people see the sun and moon from afar, they take something five hundred yojanas in size and see it as the smallness of a fan—seeing, but not as it really is; what the bodhisattva’s fleshly eye sees is not inverted. This one simile strikes exactly at the main theme of this fascicle: being able to see does not count; seeing without inversion is what counts as the purity of the eye.
13. The purity of the divine eye. The bodhisattva’s divine eye is of two kinds: the first is “obtained as recompense,” and is always used together with the fleshly eye, the divine eye being used alone only in the darkness of night; the second is “obtained by cultivating dhyāna.” The divine eye that ordinary people obtain as recompense sees the four continents and the gods of the desire realm, seeing below but not above; the bodhisattva’s divine eye obtained as recompense sees the three-thousand great-thousand world. Using this divine eye, the bodhisattva sees beings in worlds as many as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions dying here and being born there, good and evil, fair and foul, and the causes and conditions of their good and evil actions, without any obstruction; what the gods from the Heaven of the Four Kings up to the Akaniṣṭha Heaven see, he sees all of, and he can go beyond it, while the gods cannot know what the bodhisattva’s divine eye sees—because the bodhisattva has gone out of the three realms, obtained the body born of the dharma-nature, and obtained the ten powers of a bodhisattva. What the divine eye obtained by leaving desire through dhyāna-concentration sees has already been told in “the divine-eye knowledge among the ten powers”; the various other discussions of the bodhisattva’s divine eye are as told in “Praising the Bodhisattva’s Five Supernormal Powers,” and are not set out at length again here. In short, what is valued in the divine eye is not how far, how near, how much, or how little it can see; since what it sees are still the marks of the flowing round of birth and death, though it sees it has not left falsity and deception, and still needs the wisdom eye to go further and break its grasping of marks—and this is exactly why the five eyes must depend on one another layer upon layer and turn onward stage by stage.
14. The purity of the wisdom eye: the divergent accounts of ten schools recorded side by side, and the Buddha himself marking out the middle way. Although the fleshly eye and the divine eye can see, they are still false and deceptive, grasping marks such as man and woman, tree and wood, and so one seeks the wisdom eye. What is the mark of the wisdom eye? The treatise-author records in turn the divergent accounts of the various schools, setting them side by side one by one without judging which is higher: some say it is “right view within the noble eightfold path,” which can see the real mark of the five aggregates of clinging and break all inversions; some say it is “wisdom that can take nirvāṇa as its object,” because its object cannot be destroyed; some say it is “wisdom associated with the three gates of liberation,” because it can open the gate of nirvāṇa; some say it is wisdom made present, able to contemplate the limit of reality, entering deeply, penetrating, and knowing everything clearly; some say it is that which can penetrate the dharma-nature and pass straight through without obstruction; some say it is the concentrated mind knowing the marks of dharmas as they are; some say it is “the emptiness of dharmas”; some say it is that in which, within the emptiness of the unfindable, there is not even the emptiness of dharmas; some say “the eighteen emptinesses are all the wisdom eye”; some say “delusion and wisdom are neither one nor different”: worldly dharmas are not different from the world-transcending, and the world-transcending is not different from the worldly, because difference is unfindable; all contemplations cease, all activities of mind turn back with nowhere to go, all language is extinguished—such wisdom is it. These are the divergent understandings of the wisdom eye held by the various schools of old, recorded side by side for reference, without judging which is right. At the end the Buddha himself speaks: the bodhisattva of the wisdom eye does not think, of any dharma, that it is conditioned or unconditioned, worldly or world-transcending, with outflows or without outflows; if he sees the conditioned, the worldly, and the outflowing, he falls into the view of existence; if he sees the unconditioned, the world-transcending, and the outflow-free, he falls into the view of non-existence; abandoning these two views of existence and non-existence, with wisdom free of idle discourse he 「行於中道」 tr. "walks in the middle way," and only this is called the wisdom eye—one who obtains this wisdom eye has no dharma he does not see, no dharma he does not hear, no dharma he does not know, no dharma he does not recognise, and so it is for both the general mark and the particular mark.
15. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas also obtain the wisdom eye—why can they not be without any dharma unseen? It is asked: arhats and pratyekabuddhas also obtain the wisdom eye—why is it not said of them that there is “no dharma they do not see, no dharma they do not hear, no dharma they do not know, no dharma they do not recognise”? The treatise answers that the wisdom eye is of two kinds: first, of the general mark; second, of the particular mark. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas see the general mark of dharmas, namely impermanence, suffering, and emptiness; the Buddha contemplates dharmas with the wisdom of both the general and the particular mark. Although śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have the wisdom eye, it “has measure and has limit”; because their causes and conditions are few, their wisdom eye too is small, and cannot illuminate the dharma-nature everywhere—「譬如燈油炷雖淨，小故不能廣照」 tr. "just as a lamp, though its oil and wick are pure, cannot shine widely because it is small"; the wisdom eye of the buddhas illuminates the real nature of dharmas and exhausts their very edge and bottom, and so there is no dharma it does not see—「譬如劫盡，火燒三千世界，明無不照」 tr. "just as at the end of the kalpa fire burns the three-thousand world, and its brightness leaves nothing unilluminated." Moreover, if the wisdom eye of the śrāvaka too knew every dharma, he would be no different from an omniscient one—then what use would there be in the bodhisattva gathering merit and wisdom life after life, practising austerities and cultivating the path? It is plain that the limitedness of the wisdom eye of the two vehicles, on the contrary, brings out the boundlessness of the Buddha’s wisdom eye.
16. On becoming a buddha the wisdom eye changes its name to the buddha eye; the Buddha, though he manifestly has the fleshly eye, does not follow its function. It is asked again: knowing every dharma is properly the function of the buddha eye—why is the wisdom eye said to know every dharma? The treatise answers that the wisdom eye 「成佛時變名佛眼」 tr. "on becoming a buddha changes its name to the buddha eye"; ignorance, afflictions, and their residual habits are all extinguished, and in all dharmas everything is clear; therefore on becoming a buddha the fleshly eye, the divine eye, the wisdom eye, and the dharma eye all lose their original names and are called only the buddha eye—「譬如閻浮提四大河，入大海中，則失其本名」 tr. "just as the four great rivers of Jambudvīpa, on entering the great ocean, lose their original names." Why do the four eyes lose their names on entering the buddha eye? The fleshly eye arises from action with outflows, and so is false and deceptive; the divine eye arises from the coming together of the causes and conditions of dhyāna-concentration, and so is also false and deceptive; the wisdom eye and the dharma eye, because the residual habits of the afflictions are not yet exhausted, are not ultimately pure; only the buddha eye has no error at all and exhausts the utmost limit. A last question gathers up the whole fascicle: since the Buddha has already become a buddha, yet still manifestly has the fleshly eye obtained as recompense and can see forms—how is this to be reconciled? The treatise answers: although the fleshly eye gives rise to eye-consciousness, the Buddha 「不隨其用，不以為實」 tr. "does not follow its function and does not take it as real"; as in “Noble Sovereign Supernormal Powers,” where the Buddha tells Ānanda—on seeing a pleasing form he gives rise to a mind of aversion, on seeing an unpleasing form he gives rise to a mind of non-aversion, or at times on seeing form he gives rise to neither the defiled nor the undefiled but only to a mind of equanimity—「如是則肉眼無所施用」 tr. "in this way the fleshly eye has nothing to which it is put to use." This answer touches the crux most closely: it is not that the Buddha has no fleshly eye, but that he has the fleshly eye and does not follow its function, sees form and does not take form as real—this is exactly the full consummation, at the Buddha’s stage, of the whole fascicle’s ‘capable of everything, yet obtaining nothing.’ The non-attachment the bodhisattva has cultivated all along the way becomes, at the stage of Buddha, just this: every faculty and every seeing is present, and not one is grasped as a really existent, obtainable thing. The treatise further adds a meaning: on attaining the noble path the five sense faculties are purified and differ from what they were; and ultimate emptiness of all dharmas together with unobstructed penetration of all dharmas—these two together are the wisdom eye: emptiness screens off its grasping of marks, unobstructed penetration reveals its illumination of everything, and with one screening and one illuminating the substance of the wisdom eye is made whole. Here, the capacity for everything, counted all the way to the purification of the five eyes, still returns to obtaining nothing at all and inverting nothing at all—the twin tracks, running side by side to the end of the fascicle, come exactly into one rut.
Do Not Misread
Do not read this fascicle as a boast of supernormal powers and abilities. The bodhisattva can leap across the concentrations, can see the three-thousand world, can transform his body and enter the hells—all of this is true and not empty; but each time the sūtra speaks of an ability, it pairs it with a sentence of not obtaining or not grasping marks; take away the latter half, and the former half becomes a display of powers in the manner of the outside paths.
Do not read becoming a wheel-turning sage king as a rank of fruit that a bodhisattva must obtain. The sūtra asks explicitly, 「一切菩薩皆行是二波羅蜜作轉輪聖王不」 tr. "do all bodhisattvas practise these two perfections and become wheel-turning sage kings?" and answers “not necessarily”—whether he becomes king is not fixed, and depends wholly on in which body he can greatly benefit beings; being king life after life is not greedy attachment to the royal seat either, but “wishing to make great offerings to the Buddha by worldly dharmas.” To read it as a universal rank of merit is to mistake the skilful means by which a bodhisattva manifests a body according to benefit.
Do not confuse the mark of offence that is 「取相作緣」 tr. "grasping marks and making them conditions" with the śrāvaka’s ten unwholesome actions. Śrāvakas take the ten unwholesome actions as offence, but the Mahāyāna takes “there being a maker, there being a seer” as offence, and here even the grasping of marks, even wholesome thought, are all called coarse action. If one still comforts oneself with ‘I have not committed the ten evils, so I have no offence,’ one misses precisely the subtlest layer of the bodhisattva ground—“coarse action and offensive action are no different”; grasping marks is itself coarse, without waiting for evil to be done. Nor should the discrimination of coarse and subtle be read rigidly: the treatise says that the good of the former ground, on entering the later ground, turns into offence—when leaving the desire realm, the wholesome initial and sustained thought of the first dhyāna is without offence, but on entering the second dhyāna that same initial and sustained thought becomes offence—so it is plain that coarse and subtle are set up in mutual relation and turn onward stage by stage; it is not that there is some fixed thing called coarse and another called subtle. To fix upon a coarse mark and set about removing it is to fall right back into grasping marks.
Do not take the divergent accounts of ten schools in the passage on the wisdom eye as something from which one must pick the right one to believe. The treatise-author records in turn the accounts of right view, wisdom that takes nirvāṇa as object, wisdom associated with the three gates of liberation, and so on up to the eighteen emptinesses and delusion and wisdom being neither one nor different; these are the understandings of the various schools of old, recorded side by side for reference, without judging which is higher. The true point of arrival lies in what the Buddha himself says, “walking in the middle way”—falling neither into the view of existence nor into the view of non-existence. To take any one school’s account as the settled conclusion would on the contrary go against this passage’s intention of recording side by side without judging.
Nor should the fleshly eye seeing a hundred yojanas be taken as the point of this passage. The treatise-author deliberately uses the simile of the sun and moon to say that when ordinary people see the sun and moon from afar, it is still “large, yet seen as small—inverted, not real,” so it is plain that seeing far has never been a merit; even a firm eye-faculty, even the eye of a wheel-turning sage king, can hardly reach a hundred yojanas, and this number is cited only to mark the lower limit of the purity of the bodhisattva’s fleshly eye; the emphasis lies throughout on the word “pure.” Grasping marks is what is coarse action; seeing without inversion is what is the purity of the eye; however far the mileage, if what is seen is inverted, it is in the end not what is valued in the five eyes.
Bearing on Practice
This fascicle can serve as a mirror of ‘ability and non-attachment.’ Whenever one feels one has accomplished a little on the path—concentration a little deeper, understanding a little wider, a little more able to help people—one can hold oneself up to this fascicle’s twin tracks: on the right, ask whether this measure of ability truly benefits beings; on the left, at once ask further whether one has already grasped it as the mark of ‘mine,’ and so secretly given rise to self-exaltation, contempt for others, and even falling back from the path. The sūtra says, “a bodhisattva who belittles another bodhisattva is, for each moment of thought, one kalpa further from the Buddha-path”—this is the sharpest edge of this mirror.
The point at which to set to work on removing coarse action is also very concrete: one need not first go about subduing and cutting off gross evils, but return to the very moment a thought arises, and see whether one is gripping body, speech, mind, the six perfections, and even the fruit of buddhahood as something obtainable. To grip it is the root of offence—as the Mahāyāna judges, grasping marks is itself coarse, without waiting for evil to be done; to let go, and the roots of goodness can of themselves be dedicated to unsurpassed awakening. The passage on keeping the precepts and giving together is also worth examining oneself by: keeping the precepts secures not falling, giving secures the ability to benefit; lacking either one, one either falls into the evil destinies, or, though born in a good place, is poor and unable to benefit others—practice is not a matter of keeping to a single good and being done.
The passage on becoming a wheel-turning sage king leaves a word of reminder for the moment of making vows and manifesting a body. The sūtra says plainly that not every bodhisattva must become king—“not necessarily”; some make the vow on hearing of its rule and bearing, some make no vow and yet reap its recompense from seeds planted before. When a practitioner sees others occupying high positions and doing wide benefit, there is no need to form the fixed attachment ‘I too must be like this,’ nor to belittle oneself for not occupying such a position—what body to manifest and what vow to make depends wholly on where the benefit to beings is greatest. The bodhisattva who is king life after life thinks, moment by moment, only of borrowing worldly power to make great offerings to the Buddha and greatly establish beings in the ten wholesome actions; the royal seat is only an instrument for liberating beings and not something craved. Once this is seen clearly, the mind is naturally not tied to high or low rank in any position: manifesting in a high position one is not self-satisfied, dwelling in a low position one does not belittle oneself.
The five eyes give a word of reminder: practice is not about seeing farther, but about seeing without inversion. Ordinary people see the sun and moon from afar and measure them as a fan precisely because the grasping of marks has not been removed; what makes the wisdom eye precious is not seeing one thing more, but “walking in the middle way,” falling neither into existence nor non-existence. How far one sees is the business of the divine eye; not being deceived or inverted by the marks of what is seen is where the five eyes are truly “purified.” The divergent accounts of ten schools in the passage on the wisdom eye are especially worth savouring: right view, wisdom that takes nirvāṇa as object, wisdom associated with the three gates of liberation, contemplating the limit of reality, penetrating the dharma-nature, and so on up to the eighteen emptinesses, delusion and wisdom neither one nor different—the masters of old each held to one understanding, none of which can be counted wrong, yet none of which is necessarily ultimate either; the Buddha does not adjudicate them one by one, but only marks out for himself the single phrase of falling into neither existence nor non-existence, “walking in the middle way.” This teaches the practitioner not to rush to take sides among all views, but first to ask whether he himself has secretly fallen to the side of the view of existence or the view of non-existence. Even a right understanding such as ‘what the wisdom eye is’ should not be grasped as a fixed mark to cling to—how much less anything else.
Further Resonances
The First Part opened by answering, with the two truths, ‘if beings are ultimately empty, how can there be rebirth?’; the Middle Part then pushes this thread from ‘where rebirth comes from’ to ‘how the one reborn practises and how he is purified’—the same ultimate emptiness that in the First Part shows as unobstructed coming and going shows in the Middle Part as capacity for everything, yet obtaining nothing. The two meanings set up earlier, the power of skilful means and the dharma-nature body, here become the leaping absorption’s great power without attachment, the transformation into a buddha’s body that manifests according to occasion, the kingship of the wheel-turning sage king that manifests a body according to benefit, and the five eyes’ removing of dirt and restoring of illumination—one thread running through them all. The many abilities this fascicle passes through—the leaping absorption, not taking the fruit yet bringing beings to the fruit, transforming the body into a buddha, gathering pure lands, becoming a wheel-turning sage king, illuminating by means of the Dharma, and even the purification of the fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the wisdom eye—seem each to speak of a separate matter, but in fact all keep one pattern: each time an ability is spoken of, a sentence of not obtaining, not grasping marks, walking in the middle way is sure to hold it down behind; the capacity for everything and non-attachment always go hand in hand, and to take away either side is not the bodhisattva’s practice. This pattern is the bone of the whole fascicle. And the phrase in the last section that the wisdom eye “on becoming a buddha changes its name to the buddha eye” has already left an opening for the Last Part to expound directly the dharma eye, the buddha eye, and the mutual arising of the five eyes: the purity of the eye at its utmost is the perfection of knowledge, and the Last Part, carrying this on, goes on to speak of the dharma eye, the buddha eye, and the various marks of the supernormal powers, as follows naturally in order.
往生品之下Rebirth, Part 3 of 3
全文五層 →Full five layers →往生品之下：五眼登頂於佛眼，神通與六度同歸畢竟空，等心終成授記
在問什麼
往生品到這裡，經文接連問了三個「云何淨」：法眼怎樣淨、佛眼怎樣淨、神通波羅蜜怎樣修，接著又問六波羅蜜怎樣住畢竟空、菩薩怎樣於一切眾生中生等心，最後以三百比丘捨衣得記作結。表面是把五眼補足、把神通鋪陳、把六度重列，像在收攏名相；但這一分真正要回答的是一個更根本的問題：菩薩既有能力見一切、變一切、施一切，這些能力憑什麼不變成新的我慢與繫縛？答案在每一段末反覆出現的同一句話裡——不著、不作是念、除為薩婆若心、畢竟空。往生品從卷首問「從何處生」，到這裡已轉成問「帶著這樣的見與能，如何仍是空、仍向一切智」。
底下還壓著幾個容易滑過去的細問，須一一交代：法眼既已斷三結成須陀洹，何以偏偏只說「得五根」？經文那一長串「知是菩薩退、知是菩薩不退」究竟排了多少對、每一對各指什麼？既是末後身的大菩薩，何以還要受惡業之報、被魔來壞？眼明明是「見」的器官，佛眼何以又說「聞」？六識同是識，何以眼名見、耳名聞、意名識，而鼻舌身三識卻合名為「覺」？神通力既能上通四禪，經何以只說「但至梵世」？末了，佛兩度微笑，何以每次都是阿難發問、其餘比丘不問？這些看似枝節，卻正是這一分把「見與能」講到滴水不漏的地方。
逐段解明
一、五眼何以次第相生——法眼之所以名法眼。 論釋法眼，不先解字，先追它從何而來。菩薩初發心時，以肉眼見世間眾生受諸苦患而起慈愍；為救濟故學諸禪定、修得五通，以天眼遍見六道受種種身心苦，憐愍更深，故求慧眼以救濟之；得慧眼已，見眾生心相種種不同，思量如何令眾生得此實法，故更求法眼，引導眾生令入法中——法眼之名，正落在「引導入法」四字上。這一段是全分的眼目：五眼不是五件並列的本領，而是一重悲心逼出一重眼、層層相生的。肉眼見苦、天眼見遍、慧眼見空，到法眼便要在空中重新看見眾生種種不同的道路與位次，好把人一一引入。慧眼見空是一味的，法眼卻要在一味的空裡分別出千差萬別的度生之門——這正是慧眼與法眼的分水。
二、法眼第一用：分別二乘得道之門。 經先以聲聞道立說：有隨信行、隨法行、無相行三種根性。鈍根依信力得道名隨信行，利根分別諸法得道名隨法行，二人於見道十五心中疾速無人能取其相，故又名無相行。又隨眾生宿習之性而各有入處：性好真實者用空解脫門，好行捨離者用無作解脫門，好樂善寂者用無相解脫門。由此得五根、得無間三昧、得解脫智，斷身見（有眾見）、疑、戒禁取（齋戒取）三結而成須陀洹，順次薄三毒而向斯陀含、斷婬恚而得阿那含、斷色無色染乃至慢掉而至阿羅漢，別有觀「集法皆滅法」而成辟支佛者。這一整段看似在講二乘果位，其實是在界定菩薩法眼的第一種用——分別了知二乘方便得道之門。
三、法眼何以只說「得五根」——三無漏根無別異。 這裡有一個細問須答清：果位進程明明涉及種種善根，經何以偏偏拈出「得五根」為樞紐？論答：一切聖道都可總名為五根（信、進、念、定、慧），因為聖道全靠這五根成立。有人問，二十二根裡明有未知當知、已知、具知這三無漏根，何不一併說？論答：這三無漏根只是同一無漏慧在見道、修道、無學道三位上的異名，其體無有別異，故不必別立，攝入五根中的慧根即盡——所以只說五根，不是漏了三無漏根，而是三無漏根本不外於五根。懂了這一層，「得五根」一句便不再是隨手一提的名相，而是把全副聖道收攝在五根上的簡練說法。
四、斷三結何以不說七結。 見道所斷本有十結，得須陀洹果，經何以只說斷三、不說斷七？論答得極有分寸：說了「有眾見」，就已說盡一切見結之根本，如經言「有眾見為六十二見根本」——人一著我，便思量我為常為無常，計無常則墮斷滅邊見而生邪見，計常則墮常見而生戒禁取、見取；故一「有眾見」即攝盡邊見、邪見二見，一「戒禁取」即攝盡見取。其餘四結未拔根本，故不別說。這是經文用語的分寸，不是漏說；而這十結於三界四諦所斷分別開來，實有八十八使。
五、法眼第二用：知菩薩方便行道——先知因、後知果。 經隨即翻到法眼的第二種用：了知某菩薩自初發意深行六度、煩惱漸薄，用信根、精進根及方便力為度眾生而受身，或生剎利、婆羅門、居士大家，或生四天王天乃至他化自在天，於中成就眾生、淨佛世界、值遇諸佛而終不墮二乘地。這裡有一個易被滑過的分判：這菩薩是「生死肉身」，尚未得法性神通法身，未離欲故，所以經此處只說信根、精進根二根而不說三無漏根——與第三段「三無漏根無別異」正相呼應：有則說五根全，此處肉身未離欲則連無漏根都未起。而法眼於此是「先知其因（今世行布施、成信進二根），後知其果（後世生大姓乃至天處）」——因果兩頭俱在法眼照中。
六、十九對分別知——法眼在空中重見萬別的實義。 經文最後排出一長串「知是菩薩退、知是菩薩不退」，這不是煩瑣的清單，正是法眼所以為法眼的實義所在，須逐對點過。一、退／不退：如〈阿鞞跋致品〉所說不退轉相，與之相違即名退。二、受記／未受記：不退菩薩又分已受記、未受記二種，如《首楞嚴三昧》所說四種受記。三、到阿鞞跋致地／未到。四、具足神通／未具足：能於十方恆沙世界一時變無量身、供佛聽法說法度生，除佛無能及者，是末後身菩薩之「具足」；於各各自地無所欠名具足，未成就名不具足。五、已得神通／未得神通：得又分用與不用，未得則因新發意、未離欲、懈怠、或行餘法。六、當淨佛世界／未淨。七、成就眾生／未成就：此對最堪細味，成就有二種——有先自成功德後度眾生者，有先成就眾生後自成功德者；如寶華佛欲涅槃時觀彌勒、釋迦文二菩薩之心，彌勒自功德成而弟子未成，釋迦文弟子成而自身未成，因成就多人難、自成則易，釋迦文見佛一足而立、七日七夜以一偈讚佛，遂超越九劫——先人後己者其行更難更速。八、為諸佛稱譽／不稱譽。九、親近諸佛／不親近。十、壽命有量／無量。十一、比丘眾有量／無量。十二、以菩薩為僧／不以菩薩為僧。十三、當修苦行／不修苦行。十四、一生補處／未一生補處：一生補處或以相而知，如阿私陀仙人觀身相知悉達多今世成佛，珊若婆羅門見乳糜知今日成佛者應食，如遍吉、觀世音、文殊師利等見此菩薩具諸佛相而知當成佛。十五、受最後身／未受最後身。十六、能坐道場／不能坐道場：坐道場者，有見其行處地下有金剛地承持、天龍鬼神持供養具送至道場而知者。十七、有魔／無魔：有魔者，宿世曾遮他行道、又好行空等而不喜行慈，以宿世破他行道之因，故今有魔來破壞。這一串窮舉，句句是法眼在一味空中重新照見的位次、因緣與差別——慧眼到此便止，法眼卻要在這裡分毫不爽地看見每一菩薩的來歷與去處，才好因材引導入法。
七、末後身菩薩何以受惡業報、為魔所壞。 這是一個最易起疑的難處：既是垂成佛的末後身大菩薩，何以還受惡業之報、被魔來壞？論答分兩層。先答其「行精進智慧門而息慈悲」：菩薩入佛道之門不一，或從悲門，或從精進、智慧門；此類菩薩偏行精進、智慧而暫息慈悲心，譬如貴人雖有種種好衣，有時只著一件、餘者不著——修種種行者有時只行精進智慧一路，慈悲暫斂，遂於因地留下受魔之緣。再答其「佛故現受報」：那些不識方便的長壽天、龍、鬼神，見菩薩有惡行因緣而竟不受報，便會生起「作惡無報」的斷滅見；為破此斷滅見故，佛雖實無罪因緣招魔，仍以方便力示現有魔、示現受報。所以末後身受報為魔壞，不是菩薩真有未了之惡業在追討，而是一重應機的示現——一破偏行者息慈之隙，一破天龍鬼神撥無因果之疑。
八、佛眼——如金剛三昧、一切種智，慈悲何以亦名眼。 經把佛眼安在如金剛三昧、一切種智之上：菩薩住十地具足六度，入如金剛三昧破諸煩惱習，即得諸佛無礙解脫而生佛眼，於一切法無不見、無不聞、無不知、無不識。這裡有一個容易起的疑：既然智慧見物才叫眼，大慈大悲怎麼也算佛眼？論答：諸功德都與慧眼相應，故通名為眼；而慈悲又分三重——凡夫緣眾生，聲聞辟支佛及菩薩初緣眾生後緣法，唯諸佛善修畢竟空而住無緣大慈，故慈悲亦即佛眼。三種慈悲一層深一層，到無緣大慈已與畢竟空一味，慈即是智、悲即是眼，故大慈大悲列在佛眼之中並非勉強比配。
九、眼是見相，佛眼何以說「聞」。 經說佛眼「無法不聞」，隨即有疑：眼是見的相狀，怎麼說聞？論答得樸實而透闢。其一，眾生的智慧本從六情（六根）而生、遍知六塵，見固是知、聞亦是知，此「眼」是就遍知一切而立名，非局於眼根之見。其二，世人或謂佛有所不聞——如外道經書中或有佛所未聞者；為遮此謂，故特說佛智無所不聞。其三，耳識因緣也能生智慧，此智慧之所知，即以「無法不聞」表之。可見佛眼之「聞」不是眼去聽聲，而是佛的一切種智於聲塵一分亦無不照——說「聞」正為補足「無所不知」裡屬於聲的那一分，免人以為佛眼只見色而遺了聲。
十、六識何以眼名見、耳名聞、意名識，而鼻舌身合名覺。 承上更有一問：同是六識所知，何以析為四名——眼識名見、耳識名聞、意識所知名識，而鼻、舌、身三識卻合起來名為「覺」？論以三重理由答之。其一，眼、耳、意三識助道之法多（眼見佛、耳聞法、意籌量正憶念，皆是入道之階），故各別立名；鼻、舌、身三識於助道用少，故合而為一。其二，鼻舌身三識但知世間事，故合為一；眼耳意三識既知世間亦知出世間，故別說。其三，鼻舌身三識但緣無記法，眼耳意三識則或緣善、或緣不善、或緣無記。三理合觀，六識所知之事遂分為見、聞、識、覺四分——這不是隨意的名相分配，而是依「助道多少、知世間出世間、所緣善惡無記」三層差別而定的。這一段與上段「佛眼何以說聞」正相承接：先明佛眼於六塵無不照，再明六識分名之所以然，讀者才不致把「見、聞、覺、識」錯看成同一件事的重複用字。
十一、十住菩薩比佛猶小——月光雖大於日不現之喻。 佛眼所用，經先總說「無法不見、不聞、不知、不識」。這裡論插入一重辨疑：有人謂十住大菩薩如遍吉、文殊、觀世音等，已具足佛之十力功德而不作佛，只為廣度眾生故留惑不證，如此則十住菩薩與佛豈非無別？為破此疑，故特說佛眼之相——於十方眾生及諸法中無不見、無不聞。這些菩薩，比於其餘菩薩固然為大，然比於佛則「不能遍知」；譬如月光雖比眾星乃至比夜為大，一到白日則隱而不現。這一喻要人記住：十住之於佛，正如月光之於日光，非是全無光明，而是大光現前則小光不彰——五眼層層排列的「見與不見」，到這裡才逼出佛眼獨尊的分際。
十二、五眼互見的九重層次——凡有「見」對「不見」皆未圓。 這一分最見工夫的，是把肉、天、慧、法、佛五眼兩兩、三三乃至四四地排出「見與不見」的層層組合：肉眼見而天眼不見（未離欲凡夫），天眼見而慧眼不見（凡夫得天眼神通），慧眼見而法眼不見（未離欲聲聞不知度生道），法眼見而佛眼不見（菩薩得道種智而未成佛），直到肉天慧法四眼齊見而佛眼獨不見（初得無生忍未捨肉身之菩薩）。這一長串窮舉不是炫巧，而是要逼出一個結論——凡有一分「見」對著一分「不見」，就都還不是圓滿；唯佛眼觀法，才真正無所不見、無所不聞、無所不覺、無所不識。經末所以說般若能生五眼：五眼皆攝於善法，善法皆攝於六度，六度又以般若為本，故學五眼即是學般若，不久當作佛。
十三、神通波羅蜜——六通逐一，皆自性空、除為薩婆若心。 經把六神通逐一鋪開，須知其各有所照，非籠統一說。如意神通：能動大地、一身變無數身還為一身、隱顯自在、穿山壁樹木如行空中、履水如地、凌虛如鳥、出沒地中如出入水、身出煙炎如大火聚、身中出水如雪山水流，乃至摩捫日月、上通梵天而身得自在。天耳神通：以清淨天耳過於人耳，聞天聲、人聲二種。他心神通：如實知他眾生心——有欲知有欲、離欲知離欲，瞋與離瞋、癡與離癡、渴愛與無渴愛、有受與無受、攝與散、小與大、定與亂、解脫與不解脫、有上與無上，凡二十種心一一如實而知。宿命神通：念一心乃至百心、一日乃至百歲、一劫乃至無數百千萬億劫世，於某處是何姓何名、如是生食壽限苦樂、是中死彼處生，有相有因緣。天眼神通：見眾生死時生時、端正醜陋、惡處好處、若大若小，知其隨業因緣——三業惡、謗聖受邪見者墮惡道生地獄，三業善、不謗聖受正見者入善道生天上，兼見十方恆沙世界眾生生死。漏盡神通：雖得漏盡而不墮二乘地、乃至菩提不依異法。可是每一種神通說完，都緊接同一句收束：不著此神通，神通事及己身皆不可得，自性空、自性離、自性無生，不作「我得神通」之念，除為薩婆若心。這重複不是修辭，而是這一分的樞紐——六通各異而一句同歸，正顯神通之為度生之具、非自我之憑。論用大海寶珠作譬：海中種種寶珠各有所能，大乘海中種種菩薩寶亦各有所能，能破惡道、能開善門、能生五眼、能修神通；神通之奇特，在取相多少之間——取空相多則能動地，取地相多則履水如地，取水相多則入地如水，取火相多則身出煙火；至於捫摸日月，則是神通不可思議力令手能及，入火定故月不能令冷、入水定故日不能令熱。同一神通之相無量無數，論但為易解而略說數喻而已。
十四、神通力何以「但至梵世，身得自在」。 這裡有一問須答：神通力明明上通四禪，四禪盡在色界之頂，經何以只說「但至梵世，身得自在」？論答三事。其一，梵天是色界初門，舉初門之「梵世」即已攝盡一切色界，非謂止於梵天而不及上三禪。其二，世人皆以梵王為世界之主而尊貴之，舉其所貴以言自在，最易令人領會。其三，這菩薩不欲在欲界的散亂心中示現自在，故其示現乃至於離欲之人中方能有所作為。三事合看，「但至梵世」不是神通的界限，而是舉初門攝色界、就世所貴而言、且不於散亂處妄現——是說法的分寸，不是能力的封頂。
十五、外道神通與聖人神通之別。 論更點出外道與聖人神通的分野正在著與不著：外道兩錯，一是起吾我心而生憍慢，二是著神通如貪人著寶；菩薩則知一切法自性不生故不著，但念一切種智為度眾生。同是動地分身，著則成縛，不著則成度生之具——這正回到每段末「除為薩婆若心」那一句上。
十六、六度住畢竟空——金剛山四面風不動。 經把六波羅蜜逐一系於「淨薩婆若道、畢竟空」，每一度所以住空各有其由，須逐一點過：住檀波羅蜜而畢竟空者，以不生慳心故——畢竟空中無有慳貪，慳根既斷則檀行純；住尸羅波羅蜜而畢竟空者，以罪不罪不著故——不取有罪無罪之相，戒乃離兩邊；住羼提波羅蜜而畢竟空者，以不瞋故；住毘梨耶波羅蜜而畢竟空者，以身心精進不懈息故；住禪波羅蜜而畢竟空者，以不亂不味故——既不散亂、亦不貪著禪味；住般若波羅蜜而畢竟空者，以不生癡心故。六度各以其對治之空而住薩婆若道，總收則不來不去、不施不受、非戒非犯、非忍非瞋、不進不怠、不定不亂、不智不愚。這不是取消六度，而是論所說的兩事並行：一面觀一切法畢竟空，一面不生慳貪等心，以此二事開薩婆若道。若只念有施則入虛妄而生慢，若只念無施則墮邪見；布施論議本是佛法初門，豈可言無。論以金剛山四面風起而不動作結：菩薩於罵詈讚歎心無有異，正因無生法中無罵者、無害者、無恭敬者。而這「不動」不是聲聞式的默然遠離，菩薩反能深加慈心、愛之如子、方便度之，故勝於二乘。
十七、等心——由眾生等到法等。 經說一句極短卻極重的話：於一切眾生中生等心，由等心得一切法等，再以法等安立一切眾生。論說佛廣說菩薩相則窮劫不盡，故品末只略舉此相為諸菩薩所通行。眾生等，是慈憫四生、一心欲利益而不揀親疏；法等，是觀四念處而不見有身、乃至入一相無相。得此二等，現世即為十方諸佛及一切賢聖所念——愛著之念皆虛妄，唯佛不愛著故其念為實；後世所生眼不見惡色，如生六欲天而五欲隨意。經以「不減於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」收束，正見等心不是修行的裝飾，而是逼近菩提的正因。
十八、三百比丘捨衣、佛微笑，及捨衣非破戒之判。 經以一樁事收全品：三百比丘聞般若品而脫衣上佛、發菩提心，佛微笑放光，授記六十一劫後皆號大相、生阿閦佛國；十千人願生淨土，亦得記號莊嚴王佛。有人疑脫衣是否破戒，論列數解而歸於一個判準：或謂佛過十二歲方結戒、此時未結，或謂別有淨施衣、或謂多知多識能更得不經宿，然究竟一判在於——破戒在於貪瞋怖畏邪見輕佛之心，諸比丘無此心，又知佛法畢竟空、為世諦故結戒而非第一義，故施衣非破。佛之微笑亦非無故，論列八種笑（見妓樂、內懷瞋、憍慢、輕物、事辦歡喜、見不應作而作、懷詐揚善、見希有事）而定此笑為「見希有事」——見一袈裟之施而成未來佛事。這一段把前面五眼、神通、六度、等心的抽象義，落到一件當眾發生的授記之事上：畢竟空不礙業因緣果報相續，不可思議正在於此。
十九、阿難何以常問佛笑、餘比丘不問。 末了一個細問，卻最見這一段的用意：佛兩度微笑，何以每次都是阿難發問，其餘比丘不問？論答二事。其一，那些比丘不親近佛、又敬畏之心多，不敢自問——親近不足則不敢近前，敬難心重則怯於發言。其二，阿難善知人相，能知諸比丘心意，又見佛笑而起疑，作是念：「佛無眾生相、無有法相，知三界如夢如幻，今有何事能令佛笑？佛如須彌山王、大地、大海，不以小因緣故動。」——正因深知佛不以小事而笑，才會為這一笑追問因緣。而佛答阿難的那一句「業因緣果報相續，不可思議」，恰是把全品的樞紐再點一遍：三百比丘六十一劫後成佛、六萬天子彌勒時出家、十千人生莊嚴王佛土，一一皆是業果相續不可思議之事；問笑的因緣，答的卻是畢竟空與業果不相礙這一大義。
不要讀錯
不要把這一分讀成「神通與果位的名相彙編」。五眼的層層窮舉、六神通的逐一鋪陳、六度的重列，若抽掉每段末「不著、畢竟空、除為薩婆若心」那一句，就全盤讀反了——那一句才是這一分的骨。也不要把「畢竟空」誤解為取消神通與六度：經明明是住六度、修神通而後言空，空是不著其相，不是廢其事。更不要把「不動如金剛山」誤認作冷漠遠離；經論特意分判，菩薩的不動裡有比二乘更深的慈悲。
不要把十九對分別知讀成一堆同義的排比。退／不退、受記／未受記、一生補處／未一生補處……每一對都是法眼在一味空中照出的一重真實位次，缺一即漏了一分眾生的來歷；尤其「成就眾生」一對裡先人後己、先己後人之別，「有魔」一對裡宿世遮他行道之因，都是實打實的差別，不可囫圇讀過。
不要把佛眼的「聞」與六識的「見聞覺識」混作一團。佛眼說「聞」，是就一切種智於聲塵無不照而立，不是眼去聽聲；六識分見、聞、識、覺四名，是依助道多少、知世間出世間、所緣善惡無記三層差別而定——兩處各有分際，不是同一套字的重複。
不要把「末後身受魔」讀成菩薩真有未了之惡業。那是佛為破偏行者息慈之隙、破天龍鬼神撥無因果之疑而作的示現，「雖無罪因緣實魔來，以方便力故現有魔」——是應機的現，不是業債的討。
最後，三百比丘授記與阿難問笑不是與前文無關的故事尾巴。捨衣得記，是畢竟空與業果不相礙的當場印證；阿難獨問而佛答以「業因緣果報相續不可思議」，正是把全品的樞紐再點一遍。
修行作用
這一分可作一面驗心之鏡。凡自覺於見解、能力、布施、忍辱上有所長進時，便以經末那一句自問：我是否在「得」上起了「我得」之念？這見、這能、這施，是攀成新的自我，還是仍歸於畢竟空、仍除為薩婆若心？若一起「我能見、我能施、我能忍」之念，便如外道著神通、如慳者惜一錢；若能於動地分身之際仍知自性不生，於罵讚交至之際仍如金剛山不動，便是把五眼與六度真正修在了空上。
五眼互見那九重層次，也堪日用自照：自己此刻所見所行，是停在哪一重「見」上、又對著哪一重「不見」？記住凡有一分見對一分不見便未圓滿，就不會把一得之見當作究竟。十九對分別知則提醒：看人不可一概而論，退與不退、先人後己與先己後人、有魔與無魔，各有因緣位次——待己待人，都當如法眼那樣於一味中見其萬別，才不致以己度人、以一律齊。
等心一段尤可日用：對親對怨、對可愛色與不可愛色，能否生一味平等？能答好這一問，便已走在「不減於菩提」的路上。而阿難問笑、佛答「業因緣果報相續不可思議」，最堪常記——凡於因果起斷滅疑、或於小善輕忽不為者，只須想這一笑之下便是六十一劫後的成佛：畢竟空從不礙業果相續，一袈裟之施亦可成未來佛事。
承衍
後來讀往生品之下者，各就己所重取一段。有從法眼段拈出「若證四諦即成辟支佛」以明二乘與菩薩留惑度生之別的，有引「從一佛國至一佛國」以證常值諸佛之行的，有專取慧眼「見真境名慧眼」以釋五眼次第的，也有獨標卷末三百比丘脫衣上佛、佛舉手微笑一節以顯發心得記之速的。這些取用各有偏重，並錄而不判高下；把它們帶回本分，最堪守的仍是經文自身反覆叮嚀的那一句——見一切而不著所見，能一切而不著所能，施忍定慧俱行而俱歸畢竟空，則五眼登於佛眼、神通與六度同一味、等心終成授記，皆不出「除為薩婆若心」六字之外。
Rebirth, Last Part: The Five Eyes Culminate in the Buddha-Eye, Supernormal Powers and the Six Perfections Return Alike to Ultimate Emptiness, and the Even Mind at Last Becomes a Prediction
What Is Being Asked
By this point in the Chapter on Rebirth the sūtra has asked three questions of “how is it purified?” one after another: how the Dharma-eye is purified, how the buddha-eye is purified, how the perfection of supernormal powers is cultivated; it then asks how the six perfections abide in ultimate emptiness and how a bodhisattva gives rise to an even mind toward all beings, and it closes with three hundred bhikṣus who give up their robes and receive a prediction. On the surface this completes the five eyes, lays out the supernormal powers, and lists the six perfections once more, as though gathering up names and marks; but what this part really sets out to answer is a more fundamental question: since the bodhisattva has the capacity to see everything, transform everything, and give everything, by what right do these capacities not turn into a new conceit of self and a new bondage? The answer lies in the same words that recur again and again at the end of every passage—not attaching, not forming the thought, except for the mind of sarvajñā, ultimate emptiness. The Chapter on Rebirth began at the head of the fascicle by asking “from where is one born?”; by now it has turned into asking “carrying such seeing and such capacity, how is one still empty, still turned toward omniscience?”
Beneath this lie several fine questions that slip by easily and must each be accounted for. Since the Dharma-eye has already cut off the three fetters and become a srota-āpanna, why does the sūtra single out only “obtaining the five faculties”? That long string in the sūtra, “knowing this bodhisattva to regress, knowing this bodhisattva not to regress”—how many pairs does it actually set out, and what does each pair point to? Since this is a great bodhisattva in his final body, why must he still receive the retribution of evil karma, and be assailed by Māra? The eye is plainly the organ of “seeing”; why then is the buddha-eye also said to “hear”? The six consciousnesses are alike consciousness; why is that of the eye called seeing, that of the ear hearing, that of mind cognising, while the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue and body are named together as “sensing”? Since supernormal power reaches up to the fourth dhyāna, why does the sūtra say only “as far as the Brahmā world”? Finally, the Buddha smiles twice—why is it Ānanda who asks each time, and the other bhikṣus do not ask? These look like side issues, yet they are precisely where this part makes its account of “seeing and capacity” watertight.
Passage by Passage
1. Why the five eyes arise one from another in sequence—why the Dharma-eye is called the Dharma-eye. In explaining the Dharma-eye, the treatise does not first gloss the word; it first traces where it comes from. When the bodhisattva first arouses the mind, he sees with the fleshly eye the beings of the world undergoing all kinds of suffering and affliction, and gives rise to kindness and pity; in order to rescue them he trains in the meditations and cultivates and obtains the five supernormal powers; with the divine eye he sees everywhere the beings of the six destinies receiving all kinds of suffering of body and mind, his pity deepens, and so he seeks the wisdom-eye in order to rescue them; having obtained the wisdom-eye, he sees that the marks of beings’ minds differ in all kinds of ways, and ponders how to let beings obtain this real Dharma, and so he further seeks the Dharma-eye, to guide beings and lead them into the Dharma—the name “Dharma-eye” falls precisely on the words ‘guiding them into the Dharma.’ This passage is the eye of the whole part: the five eyes are not five skills set side by side, but arise layer upon layer, each layer of compassionate mind pressing forth one more eye. The fleshly eye sees suffering, the divine eye sees everywhere, the wisdom-eye sees emptiness; and at the Dharma-eye one must see anew, within emptiness, the various roads and stages of beings, so as to lead people in one by one. What the wisdom-eye sees in emptiness is of a single flavour; the Dharma-eye, however, must distinguish, within that single-flavoured emptiness, a thousand differing gates for liberating beings—this is exactly the watershed between the wisdom-eye and the Dharma-eye.
2. The first use of the Dharma-eye: distinguishing the gates by which the two vehicles attain the path. The sūtra first sets out its account in terms of the śrāvaka path: there are three kinds of disposition—the follower by faith, the follower by Dharma, and the signless practitioner. One of dull faculties who attains the path by the power of faith is called a follower by faith; one of sharp faculties who attains the path by discriminating dharmas is called a follower by Dharma; since in the fifteen mind-moments of the path of seeing these two are so swift that no one can grasp their mark, they are also called signless practitioners. Further, according to the nature of beings’ past habituation each has his own point of entry: one whose nature loves the real uses the emptiness gate of liberation; one who likes to practise relinquishment uses the non-action gate of liberation; one who delights in wholesome stillness uses the signless gate of liberation. By this one obtains the five faculties, obtains the uninterrupted samādhi, obtains the knowledge of liberation, cuts off the three fetters of the view of self (the view of existing aggregates), doubt, and attachment to rules and observances (attachment to fasts and precepts), and becomes a srota-āpanna; in due order thinning the three poisons one heads for sakṛdāgāmin, cutting off lust and hatred one attains anāgāmin, cutting off attachment to form and the formless and on to conceit and restlessness one reaches arhatship; and separately there are those who contemplate 「集法皆滅法」 tr. "whatever is of the nature to arise is all of the nature to cease" and become pratyekabuddhas. This whole passage seems to be speaking of the fruits and stages of the two vehicles, but in fact it defines the first kind of use of the bodhisattva’s Dharma-eye—discriminating and knowing the gates of skilful means by which the two vehicles attain the path.
3. Why the Dharma-eye speaks only of “obtaining the five faculties”—the three faculties free of outflows are no different. Here a fine question must be answered clearly: the progression of fruits and stages plainly involves all kinds of wholesome roots, so why does the sūtra single out “obtaining the five faculties” as the pivot? The treatise answers: all of the noble path may be named in sum the five faculties (faith, vigour, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom), because the noble path depends entirely on these five faculties for its establishment. Question: among the twenty-two faculties there are plainly the three faculties free of outflows—the faculty of coming to know the not-yet-known, the faculty of knowing, and the faculty of complete knowing—so why not state them as well? The treatise answers: these three faculties free of outflows are only different names for one and the same wisdom free of outflows at the three stages of the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path of no-more-training; their substance is not different, so they need not be set up separately, and they are wholly included in the faculty of wisdom among the five faculties—so to speak only of five faculties is not to leave out the three faculties free of outflows; rather, the three faculties free of outflows are from the outset not outside the five faculties. Once this layer is understood, the phrase “obtaining the five faculties” is no longer a name and mark mentioned in passing, but a concise statement that gathers the whole of the noble path into the five faculties.
4. Why cutting off three fetters, and not seven. What is cut off on the path of seeing is originally ten fetters; on attaining the fruit of srota-āpanna, why does the sūtra speak only of cutting off three and not of cutting off seven? The treatise answers with great measure: once “the view of existing aggregates” has been stated, the root of all the fetters of view has already been fully stated, as the sūtra says, 「有眾見為六十二見根本」 tr. "the view of existing aggregates is the root of the sixty-two views"—once a person clings to a self, he ponders whether the self is permanent or impermanent; reckoning it impermanent, he falls into the extreme view of annihilation and gives rise to wrong view; reckoning it permanent, he falls into the view of permanence and gives rise to attachment to rules and observances and attachment to views; so the single “view of existing aggregates” fully includes the two views of extreme view and wrong view, and the single “attachment to rules and observances” fully includes attachment to views. The remaining four fetters have not had their roots pulled out, so they are not spoken of separately. This is a matter of measure in the sūtra’s wording, not an omission; and these ten fetters, divided out according to what is cut off with respect to the four truths in the three realms, in fact amount to eighty-eight latent tendencies.
5. The second use of the Dharma-eye: knowing the bodhisattva’s path of practice by skilful means—first knowing the cause, then knowing the fruit. The sūtra then turns at once to the second kind of use of the Dharma-eye: it knows that a certain bodhisattva, from first arousing the thought, has deeply practised the six perfections and his afflictions have gradually thinned, and that using the faculty of faith, the faculty of vigour and the power of skilful means he takes on bodies in order to liberate beings—born now among the great families of kṣatriyas, brahmins or householders, now in the Heaven of the Four Kings and on up to the Heaven Sovereign over Others’ Transformations—and that there he brings beings to maturity, purifies buddha-worlds, meets buddhas, and never falls to the ground of the two vehicles. Here there is a distinction easily slid over: this bodhisattva is a ‘fleshly body of birth and death,’ has not yet obtained the dharma-nature body of supernormal powers, and is not yet free of desire; therefore at this point the sūtra speaks only of the two faculties of faith and vigour and not of the three faculties free of outflows—which corresponds exactly with the third passage, ‘the three faculties free of outflows are no different’: where they are present, all five faculties are spoken of; here, in a fleshly body not yet free of desire, not even the faculties free of outflows have arisen. And the Dharma-eye here ‘first knows the cause (in this life practising giving and perfecting the two faculties of faith and vigour), then knows the fruit (in a later life being born into a great clan, and even into heavenly realms)’—both ends, cause and fruit, lie within the illumination of the Dharma-eye.
6. Knowing by distinction in nineteen pairs—the real meaning of the Dharma-eye seeing anew, within emptiness, ten thousand differences. At the last the sūtra sets out a long string of “knowing this bodhisattva to regress, knowing this bodhisattva not to regress.” This is not a tiresome checklist; it is exactly where the real meaning lies by which the Dharma-eye is the Dharma-eye, and each pair must be pointed out in turn. One, regressing / not regressing: as the marks of non-retrogression are described in the Chapter on the Avaivartika, what runs contrary to them is called regressing. Two, having received a prediction / not having received a prediction: non-regressing bodhisattvas are further of two kinds, those who have received a prediction and those who have not, as the Śūraṃgama Samādhi describes four kinds of receiving a prediction. Three, having reached the ground of avaivartika / not having reached it. Four, complete in supernormal powers / not complete: to be able, in worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions, at one time to transform immeasurable bodies, make offerings to buddhas, hear the Dharma, teach the Dharma and liberate beings, such that none but a buddha can equal him—this is the “completeness” of a bodhisattva in his final body; to lack nothing on each one’s own ground is called complete, and not to have accomplished it is called not complete. Five, having obtained supernormal powers / not having obtained supernormal powers: obtaining is further divided into using and not using; not obtaining is due to being newly resolved, not yet free of desire, being slack, or practising other dharmas. Six, about to purify a buddha-world / not purifying. Seven, bringing beings to maturity / not bringing them to maturity: this pair is the one most worth savouring closely; bringing to maturity is of two kinds—there are those who first perfect their own merit and afterwards liberate beings, and there are those who first bring beings to maturity and afterwards perfect their own merit; as when the Buddha Jewel Flower, about to enter nirvāṇa, observed the minds of two bodhisattvas, Maitreya and Śākyamuni: Maitreya’s own merit was perfected but his disciples were not yet matured, Śākyamuni’s disciples were matured but he himself was not yet perfected; because bringing many people to maturity is hard and perfecting oneself is easy, Śākyamuni, seeing the Buddha, stood on one foot and for seven days and seven nights praised the Buddha with a single verse, and thereupon leapt over nine kalpas—one who puts others first and himself after practises what is harder and swifter. Eight, praised by the buddhas / not praised. Nine, drawing near to the buddhas / not drawing near. Ten, lifespan limited / unlimited. Eleven, assembly of bhikṣus limited / unlimited. Twelve, having bodhisattvas as his saṅgha / not having bodhisattvas as his saṅgha. Thirteen, about to practise austerities / not practising austerities. Fourteen, bound to one more birth / not bound to one more birth: one bound to one more birth may be known by his marks, as the seer Asita observed the marks of Siddhārtha’s body and knew he would become a buddha in this very life, and the brahmin Shanruo, seeing the milk-gruel, knew that one who would become a buddha that very day should eat it; and as the bodhisattvas Samantabhadra, Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī and others, seeing this bodhisattva complete with the marks of the buddhas, know that he will become a buddha. Fifteen, having taken the final body / not having taken the final body. Sixteen, able to sit at the seat of awakening / unable to sit at the seat of awakening: as to sitting at the seat of awakening, some know it by seeing a vajra ground beneath the earth where he walks bearing him up, and gods, dragons, ghosts and spirits bringing the implements of offering to the seat of awakening. Seventeen, having Māra / having no Māra: one who has Māra, in a former life obstructed others in practising the path, and also liked to practise emptiness and the like but did not delight in practising kindness; because of the cause of having in a former life broken others’ practice of the path, Māra now comes to break and ruin him. In this exhaustive enumeration, every phrase is a stage, a set of causes and conditions, a difference that the Dharma-eye illuminates anew within the single flavour of emptiness—the wisdom-eye stops here, but the Dharma-eye must see here, without a hair’s error, each bodhisattva’s whence and whither, so as to guide him into the Dharma according to his material.
7. Why the bodhisattva in his final body receives the retribution of evil karma and is ruined by Māra. This is the difficulty most apt to raise doubt: since he is a great bodhisattva in his final body on the verge of buddhahood, why does he still receive the retribution of evil karma and have Māra come to ruin him? The treatise answers in two layers. First it answers with ‘practising the gate of vigour and wisdom while setting kindness and compassion to rest’: the gates by which bodhisattvas enter the Buddha-path are not one—some enter by the gate of compassion, some by the gates of vigour and wisdom; bodhisattvas of this kind practise vigour and wisdom one-sidedly and for a time set to rest the mind of kindness and compassion, just as a noble person, though he has all kinds of fine clothes, at times wears only one and does not wear the rest—one who cultivates all kinds of practice at times practises only the single road of vigour and wisdom, with kindness and compassion drawn in for a while, and so in the causal ground leaves behind a condition for meeting Māra. Next it answers with ‘the Buddha deliberately displays the receiving of retribution’: those long-lived gods, dragons, ghosts and spirits who do not understand skilful means, seeing that a bodhisattva has causes and conditions of evil action and yet receives no retribution, would give rise to the annihilationist view that ‘evil deeds have no retribution’; in order to break this annihilationist view, the Buddha, though in truth he has no causes and conditions of wrongdoing that would summon Māra, still by the power of skilful means displays the presence of Māra and displays the receiving of retribution. Therefore the final-body bodhisattva’s receiving retribution and being ruined by Māra is not an unfinished evil karma of the bodhisattva truly coming to collect its debt, but a display in response to the occasion—on the one hand breaking the gap left by one-sided practitioners who set kindness to rest, on the other breaking the doubt of gods, dragons, ghosts and spirits who deny cause and effect.
8. The buddha-eye—the vajra-like samādhi, omniscience of all kinds; why kindness and compassion are also called an eye. The sūtra places the buddha-eye upon the vajra-like samādhi and omniscience of all kinds: the bodhisattva abides in the tenth ground complete in the six perfections, enters the vajra-like samādhi and breaks the residual habits of the afflictions, and at once obtains the unobstructed liberation of the buddhas and gives rise to the buddha-eye; of all dharmas there is nothing he does not see, nothing he does not hear, nothing he does not know, nothing he does not cognise. Here a doubt readily arises: since only wisdom seeing things is called an eye, how can great kindness and great compassion also count as the buddha-eye? The treatise answers: all merits are associated with the wisdom-eye, and so are all named eyes; and kindness and compassion are further of three grades—ordinary beings take beings as their object; śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas first take beings as their object and afterwards dharmas; only the buddhas, having thoroughly cultivated ultimate emptiness, abide in great kindness without object; therefore kindness and compassion are themselves the buddha-eye. The three kinds of kindness and compassion go one layer deeper than the last, and at great kindness without object they are already of one flavour with ultimate emptiness—kindness is wisdom, compassion is the eye; so to list great kindness and great compassion within the buddha-eye is no forced matching.
9. The eye has the mark of seeing; why is the buddha-eye said to “hear”? The sūtra says the buddha-eye has 「無法不聞」 tr. "no dharma it does not hear," and a doubt follows at once: the eye has the mark of seeing, so how can it be said to hear? The treatise’s answer is plain and penetrating. First, beings’ wisdom arises from the six faculties and knows the six sense-objects throughout; seeing is certainly knowing, and hearing too is knowing; this “eye” is named with respect to knowing everything throughout, and is not confined to the seeing of the eye-faculty. Second, some in the world say there is something the Buddha has not heard—for instance, that in the scriptures of the outside paths there may be things the Buddha has not heard; to block this claim, it is specially said that the Buddha’s wisdom has nothing it does not hear. Third, the causes and conditions of ear-consciousness can also give rise to wisdom, and what this wisdom knows is expressed as “no dharma it does not hear.” It is plain, then, that the “hearing” of the buddha-eye is not the eye going off to listen to sounds, but the Buddha’s omniscience of all kinds leaving not one part of the sense-object of sound unilluminated—saying “hear” serves exactly to supply that portion belonging to sound within “nothing he does not know,” lest people think the buddha-eye sees only form and leaves sound out.
10. Why among the six consciousnesses that of the eye is called seeing, that of the ear hearing, that of mind cognising, while those of nose, tongue and body are named together as sensing. Following on from the above there is a further question: what the six consciousnesses know is alike, so why is it analysed into four names—eye-consciousness called seeing, ear-consciousness called hearing, what mind-consciousness knows called cognising, while the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue and body are combined and named “sensing”? The treatise answers with three reasons. First, the three consciousnesses of eye, ear and mind have many dharmas that aid the path (the eye sees the Buddha, the ear hears the Dharma, the mind deliberates and rightly recollects—all are steps into the path), so each is given its own name; the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue and body are of little use in aiding the path, so they are combined into one. Second, the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue and body know only worldly matters, so they are combined into one; the three consciousnesses of eye, ear and mind know both the worldly and the world-transcending, so they are spoken of separately. Third, the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue and body take only indeterminate dharmas as object, while the three consciousnesses of eye, ear and mind take now the wholesome, now the unwholesome, now the indeterminate as object. Seen together, the three reasons divide the matters known by the six consciousnesses into four portions—seeing, hearing, cognising, sensing—and this is not an arbitrary allocation of names and marks but is fixed according to three layers of difference: ‘how much they aid the path, whether they know the worldly and the world-transcending, and whether their objects are wholesome, unwholesome or indeterminate.’ This passage follows exactly upon the preceding one, ‘why the buddha-eye is said to hear’: first it is made clear that the buddha-eye leaves none of the six sense-objects unilluminated, and then why the six consciousnesses are given separate names, so that the reader will not mistake “seeing, hearing, sensing, cognising” for repeated words for one and the same thing.
11. The bodhisattva of the ten abidings is still small beside the Buddha—the simile of moonlight, though greater, not showing in the sun. Of the use of the buddha-eye, the sūtra first says in general, “there is no dharma it does not see, not hear, not know, not cognise.” Here the treatise inserts a layer of resolving doubt: some say that the great bodhisattvas of the ten abidings, such as Samantabhadra, Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara and others, are already complete in the Buddha’s merits of the ten powers and yet do not become buddhas, keeping their afflictions and not realising only for the sake of liberating beings widely—if so, would the bodhisattvas of the ten abidings not be no different from the Buddha? To break this doubt, the marks of the buddha-eye are specially stated—among the beings and dharmas of the ten directions there is nothing it does not see, nothing it does not hear. These bodhisattvas, compared with other bodhisattvas, are certainly great, yet compared with the Buddha they “cannot know throughout”; just as moonlight, though greater than all the stars and even than the night, hides and does not show once the full day comes. This simile asks us to remember: the ten abidings stand to the Buddha as moonlight to sunlight—not that there is no light at all, but that when the great light is present the small light is not manifest—the “seeing and not seeing” arranged layer upon layer through the five eyes only here presses forth the boundary of the buddha-eye’s sole supremacy.
12. The nine layers of the five eyes seeing one another—wherever a “seeing” stands against a “not seeing,” none is yet complete. Where this part shows its greatest workmanship is in setting out the fleshly, divine, wisdom, Dharma and buddha eyes, two by two, three by three and even four by four, in layer upon layer of combinations of “seeing and not seeing”: what the fleshly eye sees and the divine eye does not see (an ordinary person not yet free of desire); what the divine eye sees and the wisdom-eye does not see (an ordinary person who has obtained the supernormal power of the divine eye); what the wisdom-eye sees and the Dharma-eye does not see (a śrāvaka not yet free of desire, who does not know the path of liberating beings); what the Dharma-eye sees and the buddha-eye does not see (a bodhisattva who has obtained the knowledge of the kinds of paths but has not yet become a buddha); on to what the four eyes—fleshly, divine, wisdom, Dharma—all see together and the buddha-eye alone does not see (a bodhisattva who has first obtained the acceptance of non-arising and has not yet given up the fleshly body). This long exhaustive enumeration is not a display of cleverness; it aims to press forth one conclusion—wherever one portion of “seeing” stands against one portion of “not seeing,” it is still not complete; only the buddha-eye, contemplating dharmas, truly has nothing it does not see, nothing it does not hear, nothing it does not sense, nothing it does not cognise. This is why at the end the sūtra says prajñā can give rise to the five eyes: the five eyes are all included in wholesome dharmas, wholesome dharmas are all included in the six perfections, and the six perfections in turn have prajñā as their root; so to train in the five eyes is to train in prajñā, and before long one will become a buddha.
13. The perfection of supernormal powers—the six powers one by one, all empty of own-nature, except for the mind of sarvajñā. The sūtra lays out the six supernormal powers one by one, and it must be understood that each has what it illuminates, not to be spoken of all in a lump. The supernormal power of magical feats: able to shake the great earth; to transform one body into countless bodies and turn them back into one; to be hidden or manifest at will; to pass through mountains, walls and trees as though moving through empty space; to walk on water as on earth; to ride the void like a bird; to sink into and emerge from the earth as though entering and leaving water; for the body to emit smoke and flame like a great mass of fire; for water to come forth from the body like the streams of the Snowy Mountains; even to stroke the sun and moon, and to reach up to the Brahmā heavens with the body at ease. The supernormal power of the divine ear: with the pure divine ear surpassing the human ear, hearing two kinds of sound, the sounds of gods and the sounds of humans. The supernormal power of knowing others’ minds: knowing as they truly are the minds of other beings—a mind with desire known as with desire, a mind free of desire known as free of desire; with hatred and free of hatred, with delusion and free of delusion, with craving and without craving, with grasping and without grasping, collected and scattered, small and great, concentrated and distracted, liberated and not liberated, surpassable and unsurpassable—twenty kinds of mind in all, each known as it truly is. The supernormal power of recollecting past lives: recollecting one mind-moment up to a hundred mind-moments, one day up to a hundred years, one kalpa up to countless hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭi of kalpas and ages—in such a place of such a clan and such a name, being born, eating, the span of life, suffering and pleasure thus, dying here and being born there, with marks and with causes and conditions. The supernormal power of the divine eye: seeing beings at the time of death and the time of birth, handsome and ugly, in evil places and good places, great or small, knowing that they go according to the causes and conditions of their karma—those whose three kinds of action are evil, who slander the noble ones and hold wrong views, fall into the evil destinies and are born in the hells; those whose three kinds of action are good, who do not slander the noble ones and hold right view, enter the good destinies and are born in the heavens; and also seeing the births and deaths of beings in worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in the ten directions. The supernormal power of the exhaustion of the outflows: though having attained the exhaustion of the outflows, not falling to the ground of the two vehicles, and on up to awakening not relying on any other dharma. Yet as each supernormal power is finished, it is followed at once by the same closing sentence: not attaching to this supernormal power; the matter of the supernormal power and one’s own body are both unfindable, empty of own-nature, apart from own-nature, of own-nature unarising; not forming the thought ‘I have obtained supernormal powers,’ except for the mind of sarvajñā. This repetition is not rhetoric but the pivot of this part—the six powers differ, yet a single sentence returns them all alike to one place, which shows that supernormal powers are an instrument for liberating beings, not something the self relies on. The treatise uses the jewels of the great ocean as a simile: the various jewels in the ocean each have their own abilities, and the various bodhisattva-jewels in the ocean of the Mahāyāna likewise each have their own abilities—able to destroy the evil destinies, able to open the gates of good, able to give rise to the five eyes, able to cultivate supernormal powers; the wonder of supernormal power lies in how much of a mark is grasped—grasping much of the mark of emptiness, one can shake the earth; grasping much of the mark of earth, one walks on water as on earth; grasping much of the mark of water, one enters the earth as though it were water; grasping much of the mark of fire, the body emits smoke and fire; as for stroking the sun and moon, it is the inconceivable power of supernormal power that lets the hand reach them, and because one has entered the fire-concentration the moon cannot make one cold, and because one has entered the water-concentration the sun cannot make one hot. The marks of one and the same supernormal power are immeasurable and countless; the treatise merely states a few similes in brief for ease of understanding.
14. Why supernormal power goes “only as far as the Brahmā world, with the body at ease.” Here a question must be answered: supernormal power plainly reaches up to the fourth dhyāna, and the fourth dhyāna lies wholly at the summit of the form realm; why does the sūtra say only 「但至梵世，身得自在」 tr. "only as far as the Brahmā world, with the body at ease"? The treatise answers with three points. First, the Brahmā heaven is the first gate of the form realm; to name the “Brahmā world” of the first gate is already to include the entire form realm, not to say that it stops at the Brahmā heaven and does not reach the upper three dhyānas. Second, people in the world all take the Brahmā king as the lord of the world and honour him; to speak of being at ease by naming what they honour is what lets people grasp it most easily. Third, this bodhisattva does not wish to display his ease within the scattered mind of the desire realm, so his display reaches to where, among those free of desire, something can be done. Seen together, the three points show that “only as far as the Brahmā world” is not the limit of supernormal power, but names the first gate to include the form realm, speaks in terms of what the world honours, and does not make a false display in a scattered place—it is a matter of measure in the teaching, not a ceiling on capacity.
15. The difference between the supernormal powers of the outside paths and those of the noble ones. The treatise further points out that the division between the supernormal powers of the outside paths and those of the noble ones lies precisely in attaching or not attaching: the outside paths err in two ways—one, they give rise to a mind of I and mine and produce arrogance; two, they attach to supernormal powers as a greedy man attaches to treasure; the bodhisattva, knowing that all dharmas are of own-nature unarising, does not attach, but is mindful only of omniscience of all kinds for the sake of liberating beings. Shaking the earth and dividing the body alike—with attachment it becomes bondage, without attachment it becomes an instrument for liberating beings—this comes right back to that sentence at the end of every passage, “except for the mind of sarvajñā.”
16. The six perfections abiding in ultimate emptiness—the vajra mountain unmoved by wind from four sides. The sūtra ties the six perfections one by one to ‘purifying the path of sarvajñā, ultimate emptiness,’ and each perfection has its own ground for abiding in emptiness, which must be pointed out one by one. Abiding in the perfection of dāna and in ultimate emptiness is by not giving rise to a stingy mind—in ultimate emptiness there is no stinginess and greed, and once the root of stinginess is cut the practice of giving is pure. Abiding in the perfection of śīla and in ultimate emptiness is by not attaching to offence or non-offence—not grasping the marks of offence and non-offence, morality departs from the two extremes. Abiding in the perfection of kṣānti and in ultimate emptiness is by not being angry. Abiding in the perfection of vīrya and in ultimate emptiness is by the vigour of body and mind never slackening or resting. Abiding in the perfection of dhyāna and in ultimate emptiness is by not being distracted and not relishing—neither scattered nor greedily attached to the flavour of meditation. Abiding in the perfection of prajñā and in ultimate emptiness is by not giving rise to a deluded mind. Each of the six perfections abides on the path of sarvajñā by the emptiness that counters its opposite; gathered together, it is neither coming nor going, neither giving nor receiving, neither morality nor transgression, neither patience nor anger, neither advancing nor slackening, neither concentrated nor distracted, neither wise nor foolish. This is not an abolishing of the six perfections, but the two things running together of which the treatise speaks: on the one hand contemplating all dharmas as ultimately empty, on the other not giving rise to stinginess, greed and the other minds; with these two things one opens the path of sarvajñā. If one thinks only that there is giving, one enters the false and gives rise to conceit; if one thinks only that there is no giving, one falls into wrong view; discourse on giving is from the first the opening gate of the Buddha-Dharma—how could one say there is none? The treatise concludes with the vajra mountain, which does not move when wind rises from its four sides: the bodhisattva’s mind makes no difference between abuse and praise, precisely because in the dharma of non-arising there is no abuser, no harmer, no one who reveres. And this “not moving” is not a śrāvaka-style silent withdrawal; the bodhisattva, on the contrary, is able to deepen his kind mind, love them like children, and liberate them by skilful means, and so he surpasses the two vehicles.
17. The even mind—from the evenness of beings to the evenness of dharmas. The sūtra speaks a sentence extremely short yet extremely weighty: to give rise to an even mind toward all beings, through the even mind to obtain the evenness of all dharmas, and then with the evenness of dharmas to establish all beings. The treatise says that were the Buddha to expound the marks of the bodhisattva at length it would not be exhausted in a kalpa, so at the end of the chapter he briefly cites only these marks, which all bodhisattvas practise in common. The evenness of beings is to pity the four modes of birth with kindness, wishing single-mindedly to benefit them without picking out near and far; the evenness of dharmas is to contemplate the four foundations of mindfulness without seeing that there is a body, on up to entering the one mark, the signless. Obtaining these two evennesses, in this life one is kept in mind by the buddhas of the ten directions and all the worthies and noble ones—thoughts of loving attachment are all false; only the Buddha, having no loving attachment, has a thought that is real; in later lives, where one is born the eye sees no evil forms, as when born in the six desire heavens the five desires come as one wishes. The sūtra closes with 「不減於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not falling short of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," which shows that the even mind is not an ornament of practice but the direct cause for drawing near to awakening.
18. The three hundred bhikṣus give up their robes and the Buddha smiles; and the ruling that giving up the robe is not breaking the precepts. The sūtra gathers up the whole chapter with one event: three hundred bhikṣus, hearing the chapter on prajñā, took off their robes and offered them up to the Buddha and aroused the mind of awakening; the Buddha smiled and emitted light, and predicted that after sixty-one kalpas they would all be named Great Mark and would be born in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha; ten thousand people vowed to be born in the pure land, and they too received the prediction of being named the Buddha Adornment King. Someone doubts whether taking off the robe breaks the precepts; the treatise lists several explanations and returns to a single criterion: some say the Buddha laid down the precepts only after twelve years, and they were not yet laid down at this time; some say there were separate robes of pure giving; some say that, knowing many people and having many acquaintances, they could obtain others again without passing the night; but the final ruling lies in this—breaking the precepts lies in a mind of greed, hatred, fear, wrong view or making light of the Buddha; these bhikṣus had no such mind, and moreover knew that the Buddha-Dharma is ultimately empty and that the precepts are laid down for the sake of worldly truth and not of the highest meaning; therefore giving the robes is not a breach. Nor is the Buddha’s smile without reason: the treatise lists eight kinds of smiling (on seeing entertainers and music, harbouring anger within, arrogance, slighting others, joy that a matter is accomplished, seeing what ought not to be done being done, harbouring deceit while displaying goodness, and seeing a rare matter) and fixes this smile as “seeing a rare matter”—seeing that from the gift of a kāṣāya robe the work of a future buddha is accomplished. This passage brings down the abstract meanings of the five eyes, supernormal powers, the six perfections and the even mind that went before onto an event of prediction happening before the assembly: ultimate emptiness does not obstruct the continuity of karma, causes and conditions, fruits and retribution, and the inconceivable lies precisely here.
19. Why Ānanda always asks about the Buddha’s smile, and the other bhikṣus do not ask. At the last comes a fine question, yet it shows most clearly the intent of this passage: the Buddha smiles twice—why is it Ānanda who asks each time, and the other bhikṣus do not ask? The treatise answers with two points. First, those bhikṣus did not draw near the Buddha and had much reverent awe of him, and did not dare ask for themselves—not drawing near enough, they did not dare come forward; with a heavy mind of reverence and constraint, they were timid about speaking. Second, Ānanda knows people’s marks well and could know the intentions of the bhikṣus; moreover, seeing the Buddha smile, he gave rise to doubt, and formed this thought: 「佛無眾生相、無有法相，知三界如夢如幻，今有何事能令佛笑？佛如須彌山王、大地、大海，不以小因緣故動。」 tr. "The Buddha has no mark of beings and no mark of dharmas; he knows the three realms to be like a dream, like an illusion—what matter now could make the Buddha smile? The Buddha is like Sumeru, king of mountains, like the great earth, like the great ocean; he is not moved by small causes and conditions."—precisely because he knew deeply that the Buddha does not smile at small matters, he pressed to ask the causes and conditions of this smile. And the Buddha’s reply to Ānanda, 「業因緣果報相續，不可思議」 tr. "the continuity of karma, causes and conditions, fruits and retribution is inconceivable," points out the pivot of the whole chapter once more: the three hundred bhikṣus becoming buddhas after sixty-one kalpas, the sixty thousand young gods going forth in the time of Maitreya, the ten thousand people being born in the land of the Buddha Adornment King—each and every one is a matter of the inconceivable continuity of karma and its fruits; what was asked was the cause of the smile, yet what was answered is the great meaning that ultimate emptiness and karmic fruit do not obstruct each other.
Do Not Misread
Do not read this part as “a compilation of names and marks about supernormal powers and fruits and stages.” The layer-upon-layer enumeration of the five eyes, the one-by-one laying out of the six supernormal powers, the relisting of the six perfections—if that sentence at the end of each passage, “not attaching, ultimate emptiness, except for the mind of sarvajñā,” is taken away, the whole is read backwards—that sentence is the backbone of this part. Nor misunderstand “ultimate emptiness” as abolishing supernormal powers and the six perfections: the sūtra plainly abides in the six perfections and cultivates supernormal powers, and only then speaks of emptiness; emptiness is not attaching to their marks, not doing away with their activity. Still less take “unmoving like the vajra mountain” for cold withdrawal; sūtra and treatise deliberately distinguish it: within the bodhisattva’s unmoving there is a compassion deeper than that of the two vehicles.
Do not read the knowing by distinction in nineteen pairs as a pile of synonymous parallel phrases. Regressing / not regressing, having received a prediction / not having received a prediction, bound to one more birth / not bound to one more birth… each pair is one real stage that the Dharma-eye illuminates within the single flavour of emptiness, and to lack one is to leave out one portion of beings’ whence; in particular, within the pair “bringing beings to maturity,” the difference between putting others first and oneself after, and oneself first and others after, and within the pair “having Māra,” the cause of having obstructed others’ practice of the path in a former life, are solid, real differences and must not be swallowed whole.
Do not muddle together the buddha-eye’s “hearing” and the six consciousnesses’ “seeing, hearing, sensing, cognising.” The buddha-eye is said to “hear” on the ground that omniscience of all kinds leaves nothing of the sense-object of sound unilluminated, not that the eye goes off to listen to sounds; the six consciousnesses are divided into the four names of seeing, hearing, cognising and sensing according to three layers of difference—how much they aid the path, whether they know the worldly and the world-transcending, and whether their objects are wholesome, unwholesome or indeterminate—each of the two places has its own boundary, and they are not a repetition of the same set of words.
Do not read “the final body meeting Māra” as the bodhisattva truly having unfinished evil karma. It is a display the Buddha makes to break the gap left by one-sided practitioners who set kindness to rest, and to break the doubt of gods, dragons, ghosts and spirits who deny cause and effect—「雖無罪因緣實魔來，以方便力故現有魔」 tr. "though there are no causes and conditions of wrongdoing by which Māra would really come, by the power of skilful means he displays the presence of Māra"—it is a manifestation in response to the occasion, not the collecting of a karmic debt.
Finally, the prediction of the three hundred bhikṣus and Ānanda’s question about the smile are not a story-tail unrelated to what went before. Giving up the robes and obtaining a prediction is an on-the-spot confirmation that ultimate emptiness and karmic fruit do not obstruct each other; Ānanda alone asking, and the Buddha answering with “the continuity of karma, causes and conditions, fruits and retribution is inconceivable,” is exactly pointing out the pivot of the whole chapter once more.
Bearing on Practice
This part can serve as a mirror for testing the mind. Whenever one feels one has made some progress in understanding, capacity, giving or patience, ask oneself with that sentence at the end of the sūtra: have I, on “obtaining,” given rise to the thought “I have obtained”? This seeing, this capacity, this giving—is it clambering up into a new self, or does it still return to ultimate emptiness, still except for the mind of sarvajñā? The moment the thought “I can see, I can give, I can endure” arises, one is like the outside paths attaching to supernormal powers, like the miser begrudging a single coin; if, at the very moment of shaking the earth and dividing the body, one can still know that own-nature is unarising, and when abuse and praise come together one can still be unmoving like the vajra mountain, then one has truly cultivated the five eyes and the six perfections upon emptiness.
Those nine layers of the five eyes seeing one another can also serve for daily self-illumination: on which layer of “seeing” does what I now see and do rest, and against which layer of “not seeing” does it stand? Remember that wherever a portion of seeing stands against a portion of not seeing it is not yet complete, and one will not take a single gain in insight for the ultimate. The knowing by distinction in nineteen pairs reminds us that people must not be judged all alike: regressing and not regressing, others first and oneself after or oneself first and others after, having Māra and having no Māra—each has its own causes, conditions and stage; in dealing with oneself and with others, one should, like the Dharma-eye, see within the single flavour its ten thousand differences, so as not to measure others by oneself or level everyone by one rule.
The passage on the even mind is especially fit for daily use: toward kin and toward enemies, toward lovely forms and unlovely forms, can one give rise to a single-flavoured evenness? To answer this question well is already to be walking on the road of “not falling short of awakening.” And Ānanda’s question about the smile, and the Buddha’s answer, “the continuity of karma, causes and conditions, fruits and retribution is inconceivable,” are most worth constantly remembering—whoever raises annihilationist doubts about cause and effect, or makes light of small goods and does not do them, need only think that beneath this one smile lies becoming a buddha after sixty-one kalpas: ultimate emptiness has never obstructed the continuity of karmic fruit, and the gift of a single kāṣāya robe can accomplish the work of a future buddha.
Further Resonances
Later readers of the last part of the Chapter on Rebirth have each taken up a passage according to what they themselves weighed most. Some have picked out from the passage on the Dharma-eye “if one realises the four truths one becomes a pratyekabuddha,” to make clear the difference between the two vehicles and the bodhisattva who keeps his afflictions to liberate beings; some have cited “from one buddha-land to another buddha-land” to attest the practice of always meeting the buddhas; some have taken solely the wisdom-eye’s “seeing the true object is called the wisdom-eye” to explain the sequence of the five eyes; and some have singled out the section at the end of the fascicle in which three hundred bhikṣus took off their robes and offered them up to the Buddha, and the Buddha raised his hand and smiled, to show the swiftness of arousing the mind and obtaining a prediction. These uses each have their own emphasis; they are recorded side by side without judging which is higher. Brought back to this part, what is most worth keeping is still that sentence the sūtra itself repeatedly enjoins—to see everything without attaching to what is seen, to be capable of everything without attaching to what one is capable of, to practise giving, patience, concentration and wisdom together and have them all return together to ultimate emptiness: then the five eyes ascending to the buddha-eye, supernormal powers and the six perfections being of one flavour, and the even mind at last becoming a prediction—none of these goes outside the six characters 「除為薩婆若心」 tr. "except for the mind of sarvajñā."
往生品 · 承衍Rebirth · Further Resonances
全文五層 →Full five layers →承衍
〈往生品〉的義脈，前有所承，後有所啟。所承者是前之〈習相應品〉：彼品明菩薩習應般若時，不見菩薩、不見般若，無菩薩亦無般若——一切法畢竟空，本無往來可說。本品緊接著發問：既已說無菩薩、無般若，今何以又說有菩薩往生、有從何處終而來生此間？可見〈往生品〉不是另起爐灶，而是把前品所立的「無」推到度生的現場，逼出二諦的答案：無者就第一義諦門說，往生者就世諦門說，二諦說般若而不相違。所啟者，則是本品末所記三百比丘捨衣發心、佛微笑授記六十一劫後成佛、十千人願生淨土號莊嚴王——度生之果既已於眼前彰顯，讚歎度生之廣大功德，便自然成為其後義脈的去向。
後來古德讀本品，最著眼的正是這條二諦樞紐。吉藏《大品經義疏》三處明引「大智論釋往生品云」，皆在二諦說法的脈絡下徵引：他以本品「前習應品明無菩薩、則無去來，今何故說有菩薩、有去來」的問答對觀，釋為凡聖二諦不相違——為凡說無去來、為聖說有去來，為聖說無去來、為凡說有去來；又謂本品與《中論》同屬一套二諦邏輯。其中一處更直接牒引本品開篇「問曰／答曰」的問答架構，判為具說二諦、但說第一義、但說世諦三種說法型態之首例，指出前明「無菩薩無般若」是就第一義諦門說般若，今說「菩薩往生」是就世諦門說般若，此即就二諦說般若。這三處引文都環繞本品開篇「佛法中有二諦」一段，可見古德所取，正是本疏〈總說〉所拈出的同一樞紐，而非泛引全品。此處僅誌錄吉藏所引段落與本品的對應關係，以見一家如何讀本品，不判其詮釋高下。
把這一路承衍帶回本品，最值得保存的不是一張更繁複的往生分類，而是它對「往生」二字的改寫。凡夫式的往生，以我從此處滅、往彼處生為實事；本品則反過來，愈是深達第一義諦的無來去，愈能在世諦門中不捨一處往生、不捨一類眾生。他方來者常值諸佛、法性生身遍入三界、方便力不隨禪生而還生大姓、六神通遊戲十方讚歎三寶、乃至捨衣一施而感六十一劫後成佛——每一種往生相，都是同一件事的深淺不同：無眾生可得而遍生度眾，無去來可執而終不離佛。
因此，〈往生品〉最終不是教人推算自己來自何處、將生何國，而是留下一條可反覆使用的問路法：我此刻所執的往生，是實我的流轉，還是不可得中的度生行處？所往之處，是否仍向一切智與一切眾生？能否既不把往生當作實有可占，又不因畢竟空而廢度眾之事？在每一個當下答好這幾問，便已走在無來無去而能遍往生的二諦之路上。
Further Resonances
The line of meaning in the chapter “Rebirth” has something it inherits from before and something it opens onto after. What it inherits is the preceding chapter, “Practising in Accord”: that chapter made clear that when a bodhisattva practises in accord with prajñā, he does not see a bodhisattva and does not see prajñā—there is no bodhisattva and no prajñā either—all dharmas are ultimately empty, and there is originally no going and coming to speak of. This chapter follows directly with its question: since it has already been said that there is no bodhisattva and no prajñā, why now say again that there are bodhisattvas who are reborn, that there are those who end somewhere and come to be born here? This shows that “Rebirth” does not start afresh from nothing, but carries the ‘no’ established in the preceding chapter out into the very scene of delivering beings, and presses from it the answer of the two truths: the ‘no’ is spoken from the gate of the truth of the highest meaning, rebirth is spoken from the gate of worldly truth, and the two truths speak prajñā without contradicting each other. What it opens onto is recorded at the end of this chapter: the three hundred bhikṣus who offered up their robes and aroused the mind, the Buddha’s smile and his prediction that after sixty-one kalpas they will attain Buddhahood, and the ten thousand people who vow to be born in a pure land, all to be named King of Adornment—since the fruit of delivering beings has already been made manifest before one’s eyes, praise of the vast merit of delivering beings naturally becomes the direction the line of meaning takes thereafter.
When ancient masters later read this chapter, what they fixed their eyes on most was precisely this pivot of the two truths. In Jizang’s Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, three places explicitly cite 「大智論釋往生品云」 tr. "the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, explaining the Chapter on Rebirth, says," and all of them cite it within the context of teaching by the two truths. He sets side by side this chapter’s question and answer, 「前習應品明無菩薩、則無去來，今何故說有菩薩、有去來」 tr. "the earlier Chapter on Practising in Accord made clear that there is no bodhisattva and so no going and coming; why now say that there are bodhisattvas and there is going and coming?", and explains it as the two truths of ordinary beings and noble ones not contradicting each other: for ordinary beings it is said there is no going and coming, and for noble ones it is said there is going and coming; for noble ones it is said there is no going and coming, and for ordinary beings it is said there is going and coming. He further says that this chapter and the Middle Treatise belong to one and the same logic of the two truths. One of these places goes further and directly cites the question-and-answer frame (“Question … Answer”) with which this chapter opens, classing it as the first instance of three types of teaching—fully speaking both truths, speaking only the highest meaning, and speaking only worldly truth—and pointing out that the earlier making clear of 「無菩薩無般若」 tr. "no bodhisattva and no prajñā" is speaking prajñā from the gate of the truth of the highest meaning, while the present speaking of 「菩薩往生」 tr. "the rebirth of bodhisattvas" is speaking prajñā from the gate of worldly truth, and this is speaking prajñā in terms of the two truths. All three of these citations revolve around the passage at the opening of this chapter, 「佛法中有二諦」 tr. "In the Buddha-dharma there are two truths"; this shows that what the ancient master took up is exactly the same pivot that this exposition’s Overview picks out, and not a loose citation of the whole chapter. Here only the correspondence between the passages Jizang cites and this chapter is recorded, to show how one master read this chapter, without judging whether his interpretation is higher or lower.
Bringing this line of further resonance back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a more elaborate classification of rebirth, but its rewriting of the word “rebirth.” Rebirth in the ordinary person’s manner takes it as a real event that I perish from this place and go to be born in that place; this chapter turns it the other way round: the more deeply one reaches the no-coming-and-going of the truth of the highest meaning, the more one can, in the gate of worldly truth, not abandon a single place of rebirth and not abandon a single kind of being. Those who come from other quarters always meeting the buddhas; the body born of dharma-nature entering everywhere into the three realms; by the power of skilful means not being reborn according to one’s meditations but being reborn instead in a great clan; with the six supernormal powers roaming in play through the ten directions praising the Three Jewels; and even a single gift of robes bringing about Buddhahood after sixty-one kalpas—every mark of rebirth is the same one matter at differing depths: with no being to be attained, one is born everywhere to deliver beings; with no going and coming to cling to, one never leaves the buddhas.
Therefore “Rebirth” in the end does not teach one to calculate where one has come from and in what land one will be born; rather, it leaves behind a way of questioning that can be used again and again: is the rebirth I now cling to the wandering of a real self, or is it the field where beings are delivered within what cannot be attained? Does the place I go to still face toward omniscience and toward all beings? Can I neither take rebirth as something really existent that can be occupied, nor, because of ultimate emptiness, abandon the work of delivering beings? To answer these few questions well in each present moment is already to be walking the road of the two truths, which is without coming and going yet able to be reborn everywhere.