大智度論 義疏通講 · 冊12Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Exposition Throughout · Vol. 12
夢中入三昧品Entering Samādhi in a Dream
全文五層 →Full five layers →夢中入三昧品：夢中入三三昧何以問有益無益，晝夜等無異何以不是說夢與醒相同，夢中之業何以說不能集成，業與思何以繫於有緣無緣，取相何以是業生之樞，夢中迴向何以轉問彌勒，彌勒何以不答亦不證，佛何以以舍利弗之不見而印可，淨佛世界諸願何以從見眾生苦相而發，逐願何以不可壓縮，最後一願何以獨須略說，疲厭心何以是邪憶念
在問什麼
這一品的前半，問的是一個看似冷僻、其實人人用得上的問題：睡著了算不算數。舍利弗開口便問，菩薩夢中入空、無相、無作三三昧，於般若波羅蜜有益不。此問一出，後面就順勢推了三重：夢中之業有集成不、夢中六度所作之迴向是實不、能說此義者是否即已得證。三重一路推近行門——第一重問功德算不算在帳上，第二重問果報成不成，第三重問修行的方向定不定得住。須菩提的答語極平：晝夜夢中等無異。要緊的是這句不是說夢境與醒境一樣真實；是說般若不隨晝夜分別，所以益與不益不由晝夜判。論主隨即把須菩提的處境點破：說有益不可，說無益亦不可，故離此二邊，以諸法實相答。
前半的深處，在彌勒現身的一節。第三難太深，須菩提讓問於彌勒；彌勒卻把問題所依的架構整個拆開——以名答耶、以色答耶、以色空答耶，一路問到不見能答者、不見所答法、不見授記處。舍利弗追一句：如是為得法作證不。彌勒答：如是不證。說得出而不取證，是此品的第一個關眼。收束不在彌勒，在佛：佛不替彌勒解釋，反問舍利弗你自己得阿羅漢時可曾見是法，舍利弗答不見；佛即以此印可——不見而不疑，正是菩薩行般若之相。
品的後半換了一副面孔。佛告須菩提：菩薩行六波羅蜜時，見眾生飢寒、破戒、瞋害、懈怠、五蓋、愚癡，見地獄餓鬼、見大地穢惡、見四姓六道、見短命無光明，一一皆當作願，令我國土無如是事。願語一段一段排比下去，體例整齊到近乎重複。前後兩半看似不相屬，論主開卷第一問正是問這個接縫：有何次第故，說菩薩見眾生饑寒凍餓等。答語把兩半縫合起來——菩薩過聲聞辟支佛地，得無生法忍、授記之後，更無餘事，唯行淨佛世界、成就眾生。前半說的是不見而不疑之心，後半說的是持此心而行的全部事業。末後一段，經文不說願而說念：生死邊如虛空，眾生性邊亦如虛空。論主獨為此段略說，指出疲厭心是邪憶念，正憶念纔是行此長途的依止。
逐段解明
一、夢中入三三昧於般若有益不之問。 舍利弗開口便問：菩薩摩訶薩夢中入三三昧，空、無相、無作三昧，寧有益於般若波羅蜜不。讀此先要看清問處——問的不是夢裡能不能入定，是夢裡所入之定算不算數。凡夫讀此易讀成一樁夢的奇談，其實所問是實法與果報：三三昧是實法，夢是虛誑，實法入於虛誑之境，還成不成其為實法。此問立住，後面三重難纔有落處。
二、晝夜夢中等無異之答。 須菩提報以一理：白日入三三昧於般若有益，夜夢中亦當有益，何以故，「晝、夜夢中等無異故」。此答最易讀偏。他不是說夢境與醒境在經驗上等同——若等同，夢中殺人便同醒時殺人，後文舍利弗就不會另設集成之問。他說的是般若波羅蜜不分別晝夜，故益不益不由晝夜這一邊判。讀般若經論，凡遇「等無異」三字，先問一句：是就哪一法說等。
三、夢中所作業有集成不之問。 舍利弗轉問第二重：夢中所作業，是業有集成不。他自己把兩邊先擺明——佛說一切法如夢，故不應集成；夢中無有法集成；然而若覺時憶想分別，應有集成。此段是全品業論的骨架：夢中之業自身無力，醒後的憶想分別纔是關口。問者不是外行，他是把自己的難處連同理路一併交出。
四、夢中殺人之設問。 須菩提不直答，反設一問：若人夢中殺眾生，覺已憶念取相分別，我殺是快耶，是事云何。這是本品最好的一段教學法——把抽象的「集成」之問，換成一樁具體的夢殺之例，逼問者自己說出判準。讀者遇見說不清的義理，可學此法：換一個最具體的事例來問自己。
五、有緣無緣之判準。 舍利弗應聲而出：「無緣業不生，無緣思不生；有緣業生，有緣思生。」一句話把業之有無繫在緣上，不繫在夢醒上。此是全品業論的樞紐，後文論主逐字的訓解都從這裡展開。要注意：判準是舍利弗自己說的，不是須菩提強加的，故下文須菩提只須可其言。
六、心生於見聞覺知法中。 須菩提印可而更推一層：心在見、聞、覺、知的法中生，不從不見聞覺知的法中生，是中心有淨有垢。讀此當知「緣」不是外境的別名，是見聞覺知——心已經接觸過的東西。夢中所現之緣，先前都曾入心；夢不生造新緣，只翻舊緣。
七、諸業諸思自相離之難。 舍利弗又以空來難：佛說一切諸業、諸思自相離，云何又說有緣故業生、無緣不生。此難有力，力在兩句同出佛口卻相牴——一句是般若門中的實相語，一句是因果門中的生起語。凡讀經論見兩語相違而不敢問者，可看舍利弗此處：他直接把牴觸說出來。
八、取相故業生之答。 須菩提以取相二字解此牴觸：取相故，有緣業生，不從無緣生；思亦如是。緣不能單獨生業，取相纔是生處。此答極要緊：它把因緣生說安放在凡夫取相的層面，因此與諸業自相離之義並不相爭——相離是法自身之相，生起是取相者之事。
九、夢中迴向是實不之問。 舍利弗第三難轉到迴向：夢中布施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、修智慧，以是善根福德迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是實迴向不。三難一路推進——先問益不益，次問集成不集成，今問迴向實不實，一難比一難切近行門。迴向是菩薩道的方向盤，故此問最重。
十、轉問彌勒。 須菩提不自答，推與彌勒：彌勒菩薩今現在前，佛授不退轉記，當作佛，當問彌勒。此處不要讀成推托。論主後文自釋其故——二難深，難答故。經中常法，位次更高者在座，深問即讓；讓問不是無答，是把問交到答得最穩的人手上。
十一、舍利弗轉白彌勒。 舍利弗依言向彌勒稟白，並複述須菩提之語。複述並非逐字：略去「當問彌勒」一句，「授」字底本作「受」（異讀見考據層）；所複述者仍是須菩提之語，讓讀者看見問已如實移交——彌勒之答是對著原問而發，不是另起一題。讀長篇經文遇複述段，不可跳過，那是交接的憑據。
十二、彌勒以能所俱不可得答。 彌勒之答是前半最深一段：當以彌勒名答耶，若色受想行識答耶，若色空答耶，若受想行識空答；是色不能答，色空亦不能答；我不見是法可答，不見能答者，不見是人授記，亦不見法可授記，亦不見授記處，「是一切法皆無二無別」。此非拒答，是把問題所依的能答、所答、能記、所記整個架構拆開。問若立在能所之上，答便只能立在能所之上；要答得究竟，須先見能所本不二。
十三、如是為得法作證不。 舍利弗即就此追一句：如仁者所說，如是為得法作證不。此問極準——說到無二無別，豈不是已證得此法。凡人聽高深法而起的第一個疑，正是這個疑：你既然說得出，想必已經證到。
十四、如是不證。 彌勒答：如我所說法，如是不證。說而不證，是本品第一個關眼。不是謙退，是所說之法本無可證之相：若有相可證，則所說之無二無別便自壞。讀此須把「說」與「證」分開看——說者隨順言路，證者取著實法。
十五、舍利弗作念：智慧甚深。 舍利弗心中作念：彌勒智慧甚深，久行檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜，「用無所得故，能如是說」。這是經文自己給的評註——甚深不在言詞巧妙，在無所得。此一句可作全品讀法的鑰匙：凡見答語斬截而不落兩邊者，其根都在無所得。
十六、佛反問舍利弗。 佛此時介入，不替彌勒解釋，反問舍利弗：於汝意云何，汝用是法得阿羅漢，見是法不。佛的教法是把問題還給問者的親證經驗——你自己走過這條路，你當時見了什麼。這是全品最切身的一問。
十七、不見也。 舍利弗答：不見也。三字而已，卻是全品的印證所在。他自己親得的果，也不是見了某一個法而得的；既然如此，先前以見不見詰難菩薩之路，便自行鬆開。
十八、佛以不見而不疑印可。 佛即以此印可：菩薩行般若亦如是，不作是念——是法當得授記、是法已授記、是法當得無上道；然而「不疑我若得、若不得，自知實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。不見與不疑並存，纔是此段之要：不見，故無所取；不疑，故不退。少了前一半成執，少了後一半成疑。
十九、論主設問：何以夢難三三昧。 論主起論，第一問是問舍利弗的問法：舍利弗何以故夢難菩薩三三昧。這一問值得學——不先答問題，先問這個問題何以生得出來。讀者若能對自己所起之疑作此一問，疑往往自鬆。
二十、夢虛誑而三三昧是實。 論主答：以夢虛誑、如狂、非實見故；是三三昧是實法。難之所以成難，是因為兩物性質相反：一邊是狂癡不實之境，一邊是實法。把相反處說明白，難的骨架就露出來了。
廿一、夢中三種與問語之全。 論主再引餘處所說：夢中亦有三種——善、不善、無記。三性之義須先分明：善者，順理益人而招可愛果報之心；不善者，與善相違，順煩惱而起，招苦果報；無記者，非善非不善，如行住坐臥之威儀心、作務工巧之心、變化所現之心，其性不落善惡兩邊，故不可記其果報——本論他處說無記無果報，是以不生天上、人中，正謂此也。三性之中，無記一項於本段最關要：夢心若屬無記之分，則本無果報可論；下文論主所以能答夢心微弱不能集成，其底據早在此三分之中。善心行三三昧應得福德，然夢是狂癡法，不應於中行實法得果報；若有實法，不名為夢。於是舍利弗之問的完整形態現前：夢中行三三昧，增益般若福德，集善根，近佛道不。此處「三種」是論文自列之名目，不假外求；讀者遇法數，先看本論自己有無列名。
廿二、離二邊而以實相答。 論主釋須菩提之意：言有益則夢虛誑而般若是實，云何增益；言無益則夢中有善，云何無益。兩邊俱不可答，故須菩提離此二邊，以諸法實相答——尚破晝日所行，何況夢中。所以他說白日行般若有益者夜亦應有益，而白日尚且無益，何況夢中。末以一句收：「般若波羅蜜，不分別有晝、夜。」至此，第二段那句晝夜等無異纔算落地。
廿三、既知無增無減不應復難。 論主誌一句轉語：舍利弗聞須菩提所說，既知般若無增無減，不應復難。此句是段落的接榫——第一難已了，下面的問不是舊難再起，是別起一事。讀長篇問答，須留意這類接榫語，否則容易把後難誤作前難的糾纏。
廿四、集成之訓。 論主逐字訓「集成」：是業實集能成果報不。訓詁在此不是繁文——集成二字若不訓，後面整段的辯論都懸空。讀本論當養成一個習慣：論主停下來訓一個詞，那個詞必是該段的關鍵。
廿五、夢心微弱不能集成。 論主申論：業若有實，佛常說「一切法空如夢」，不應得集成；何以故，是夢心微弱故不能集成。更推一層——晝日微弱之心尚不能集成，何況夢中；然而夢覺已，分別夢中所生善不善心，是應集成。至此第三段舍利弗所列的兩邊，都得了論主的安置：夢中之心無力，醒後之分別有力。
廿六、論主重述夢殺之問。 論主隨文重述須菩提所設之例：如人夢中殺人，覺已分別我殺是快耶，是業云何，為集成不。此是論主複述經文，非另有一位說者現場發問；讀釋論體，須分清哪句是經、哪句是論主牒經。
廿七、論主重述舍利弗之答。 論主複述舍利弗之語：一切業若晝若夢皆從因緣生，無因緣則不生。經文原作無緣有緣，論主牒為因緣，義同而語順；此即論主隨文釋經之常態。
廿八、須菩提可其言。 論主誌須菩提認可之語：業有因緣生、無因緣不生，思有因緣生、無因緣不生。可其言三字要緊——判準既是問者自立，答者只須認可，辯論便不必再往下拉。
廿九、業思之訓與三業因四種法。 此段是全品義理最密之處，論主一口氣訓了四層。其一、分業與思：「業者，身口業；思者，但意業。」其二、判輕重：思是真業，身口業為思故名為業。其三、出生處：是三業因四種法——若見、若聞、若覺、若知，因此四種則心生；心隨因緣生，或淨或不淨，不淨是罪業，淨是福業。其四、落到夢：夢中所見皆因先見聞覺知；夢中所作善惡，「為眠覆心、不自在故，無有勢力，不能集成果報」，若是業得覺時，善惡心和合故，能助成果報。四種法之名目是論文自列，不須外求；四者亦各有所屬：見屬眼識之所取，聞屬耳識之所取，覺該鼻、舌、身三識之所觸受，知則屬意識之了別。本論他處自問何以眼、耳、意三者各別立名，而鼻、舌、身三識合為一覺，答以助道之用有多寡、所知有但通世間與兼通出世間之異——用別故別說，用同故合說。四門之外，心無緣可起；夢中所見所以皆因先之見聞覺知者，正以離此四門，即無物可為夢之材。全段的分寸在最後一句：夢業不能自成果報，卻能被醒後之心助成——這正是第三段舍利弗所疑之處的正解。
三十、須菩提意謂夢中業實有集成。 論主出須菩提之意：夢中業實有集成，何以故，有因緣起故；晝日心、夢中心無異，皆因四種生故。此處要與前段合看——前段說夢業無勢力，此段說夢業有因緣；無勢力者，不能獨成果報，有因緣者，不是全無。二語不相違，分際在能不能獨自成報。
卅一、舍利弗以空難。 論主重述舍利弗之難：如佛說一切諸業自相離，汝云何定說諸業有因緣生、無因緣不生。難處在一個定字——不是難因緣說本身，是難把因緣說執成定說。
卅二、凡夫取相故業生。 論主出須菩提之答：諸法雖空、遠離相，而凡夫取相，有因緣故業生；若不取相，無因緣則不生；是故一切業皆從取相因緣生故有，晝日、夢中無異。至此第八段的取相二字得了完整的安放：空與因果不在同一層說，空是法自身之相，因果是取相者之事。
卅三、迴向之問再出。 論主重述舍利弗之第三問：菩薩夢中行六波羅蜜，迴向無上道，是實迴向不。經文作布施持戒等六事，論主牒為六波羅蜜，是隨義收攝，不是改義。
卅四、迴向之難的兩面。 論主把舍利弗的難說足：若夢中晝日無異，是夢中迴向應當是實；又若晝日著心取相尚不名為迴向，何況眠睡覆心。此難兩面夾擊——順著等無異推，則夢中迴向成實；順著取相不名迴向推，則夢中更不成。凡難有兩面者，答者若只破一面，難仍在。
卅五、二難深故讓問。 論主釋須菩提讓問之故：以此二難深，難答故，語舍利弗當問彌勒。此句正是第十段的正解——讓問之故在難深，不在推托。
卅六、論主設問：彌勒何以但說空而不答。 論主第二次起問，問的是彌勒之默：彌勒何以但說空而不答。讀者心中若也起過此疑，正是讀對了；論主的設問，常常是替讀者發問。
卅七、二大弟子各有所執。 論主答：是二大弟子為利益菩薩故，分別覺、夢若同若異；以佛常說「一切法如夢」故，若晝日行道，夢中亦應行道。此答先說二人問答的用心——是為利益菩薩而分別同異，不是諍勝。
卅八、彌勒知其所執故不答。 論主續出不答之故：彌勒知見二人各有所執、不能通達故，是故彌勒不答。此是一種教法：所執未鬆時，答同答異都落入執中，故不答。不答不是無答，是不給一個會被握住的答。
卅九、復有人言：彌勒以空答。 論主錄另一說：復有人言，彌勒以是空答。二說並陳而不判——一說不答，一說以空為答。讀者兩存之；論主此處未下取捨，讀本論遇並陳處，不可代論主作裁斷。
四十、舍利弗問以此為證不。 論主重述舍利弗之問：如所說空，以此為證不。此問承上一說而來——既說彌勒以空答，便可追問這空是否即是所證。
四一、舍利弗意中的兩難。 論主出舍利弗之意：若以此法為證，即欲生難云何為證；若不證，汝自不得、不知，云何能說。兩頭都堵死了：說證則被難，說不證則失卻說的資格。此是論議中常見的夾擊，值得記下其形。
四二、彌勒意：涅槃亦空故不證。 論主出彌勒之意：汝以涅槃為證，我以涅槃亦空、無所得故不證。此答解開夾擊——不證不是不得，是所謂證處本身亦空，故無可取為證。第十四段的不證，至此得了理由。
四三、有人言：未具足佛法故不證。 論主再錄一說：有人言，彌勒未具足佛法故說言不證；菩薩法應知空、無相、無作法，不應證。此說把不證歸於菩薩位次之分——知而不證，是菩薩法。與前說並陳，仍不判。
四四、甚深之所以及舍利弗自說因緣。 論主釋舍利弗之念：能知涅槃相而不取證，是名甚深。又誌舍利弗自說因緣：「久行六波羅蜜故，其智甚深。」末出舍利弗心中一轉：彌勒次當作佛，應當能答而今不答。此一轉是下段佛出面的引子——疑未息，故佛親自接手。
四五、佛還問舍利弗。 論主釋佛之問：是故佛還問舍利弗，於汝意云何，汝見用是法得阿羅漢不。還問二字點出佛意——不從彌勒處解，從問者自身的證境上解。
四六、不見之訓。 論主逐字訓舍利弗的不見：是法空、無相、無作，云何得見；若見即是有相。又分三眼說：肉眼、天眼分別取相故不應見；慧眼無分別相故亦不見。兩路皆不見，而所以不見者各異——前者不堪見，後者無相可見。此訓最宜細讀，否則會把聖者的不見誤讀成凡夫的不見。
四七、佛以無生忍印可。 論主釋佛之結語：菩薩得無生忍時，不作是言見是法、得授記、當得無上道；雖不作是見，亦不生疑我不得無上道；如汝雖不見法，亦不疑我成阿羅漢、不成阿羅漢。以舍利弗自身之證為喻而印可菩薩之行，前半至此收束。
四八、檀願——飢寒凍餓、衣服弊壞。 經②換面目而起：佛告須菩提，菩薩行檀波羅蜜時，若見眾生飢寒凍餓、衣服弊壞，菩薩當作是願——我隨爾所時行檀波羅蜜，我得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，令我國土眾生無如是事，衣服、飲食、資生之具當如四天王天乃至他化自在天；末結云能具足檀波羅蜜、近阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。此第一願同時是全段的體例樣本，三節分明：見眾生之苦相、隨所行之度而發願、結以具足此度而近菩提。往下諸願皆循此三節，讀者可執此為尺。又，經文以「當作是願」句式排比之段共二十九，末更有一段作「當作是念」；論主釋文中以彼段為「最後願」——故依經文願字則二十九，依論主之稱則三十，此處如實並記，不強定一數。
四九、尸羅願——殺生乃至邪見之報。 菩薩行尸羅波羅蜜時，見眾生殺生乃至邪見，短壽、多病、顏色不好、無有威德、貧乏財物、生下賤家、形殘醜陋，當作是願令我國土眾生無如是事。此願要看見一條因果線：所列諸相皆是破戒之報，故願之所對治不在相而在因。讀者不可讀成菩薩嫌惡醜陋之人。
五十、羼提願——瞋恚罵詈、刀杖殘害。 菩薩行羼提波羅蜜時，見諸眾生互相瞋恚罵詈，刀杖瓦石共相殘害奪命，當作是願令我國土眾生無如是事，且更進一層：「相視如父、如母，如兄、如弟，如姊、如妹，如善知識，皆行慈悲。」此願不止於除惡，兼立所願之善相——忍度之果不是無人相爭，是人人相視如親。
五一、毘梨耶願——懈怠棄捨三乘。 菩薩行毘梨耶波羅蜜時，見眾生懈怠、不勤精進、棄捨三乘，當作是願令我國土眾生無如是事，一切眾生勤修精進，於三乘道各得度脫。此處「三乘」之名目經文自列——聲聞、辟支佛、佛乘。三者之別，本論他處以入道之緣、悟空之深淺、愍眾之廣狹三事判之：聲聞者從他聞法而入，初入道乃至阿羅漢皆屬之，是弟子之法；辟支佛者不從他聞，或觀因緣而悟，或今世自覺成道，悟空稍深而愍眾生之心猶小；佛乘者從初發心即作度脫一切眾生之願，行六波羅蜜，起大慈大悲，總相別相之智一切盡知。三者所以各成一乘，不在果位名目之高下，在發心之廣狹與智之所窮。願中所許是各得度脫，不是齊入一乘，與後文純一大乘之願並存而不相礙，各就其所對治而說。
五二、禪願——五蓋覆心、失諸禪定。 菩薩行禪波羅蜜時，見眾生為五蓋所覆，當作是願令我國土眾生無如是事。五蓋之名目經文自列：婬欲、瞋恚、睡眠、掉悔、疑——婬欲是心貪染五欲之境，緣所愛而不能收；瞋恚是心對違逆之境起憎忿惱害；睡眠是身心昏沈闇鈍，明照之力盡失，與死無異；掉悔合二為一，掉是心浮動散亂、攝之不住，悔是追念已作未作而懊惱如箭在心，二者同以動亂為性，故同立一蓋；疑是於法猶豫不決，心無所定，如入寶山而無手可取。五者所以稱蓋，正在一個「覆」字——不是使人作惡，是使心不得明，故所失者皆是定法。所失者亦自列：初禪乃至第四禪，慈、悲、喜、捨，虛空處、識處、無所有處、非有想非無想處。慈、悲、喜、捨四者，本論他處逐字訓之：慈是愛念眾生、常求安隱樂事以饒益之，是與樂之心；悲是愍念眾生所受五道中種種身苦心苦，是拔苦之心；喜是欲令眾生從所得之樂更生歡喜，不止於與之樂而已；捨是并前三心亦捨，但念眾生而不憎不愛，唯存平等。四無色處亦自有其次第：常觀身空、念之不捨，則得度色而不復見身，所觀無量無邊，是虛空處；空既無邊，以識緣之則緣多而散，故捨虛空之緣但緣於識，以現前一識通緣過去未來無量之識，是識處；識相亦如病如癰，破諸識相而繫心於無所有中，是無所有處；至於最上一處，想已微細難覺故稱非有想，而想實未斷故亦稱非無想。此八者皆非作惡之事，正是心之所能得者——五蓋一覆，八者俱失。此願之所見最細——不是見人作惡，是見人心被覆而失其所能得。
五三、般若願——愚癡失正見。 菩薩行般若波羅蜜時，見眾生愚癡，失世間、出世間正見，或說無業、無業因緣，或說神常、或說斷滅，或說無所有，當作是願淨佛世界、成就眾生。此願所對治的是見，不是行；所列諸邪見亦是經文自出。自此願起，願語中多出「淨佛世界、成就眾生」一語，結語亦多作近一切種智——然體例之轉不畫一：其後無戀著、四姓二願結語仍作「近阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」，再後諸願則不復見「淨佛世界、成就眾生」一語。讀者當留意，不可執一格以概全段。
五四、三聚願——必正、必邪、不定。 菩薩行六波羅蜜時，見眾生住於三聚，當作是願令我國土眾生無邪聚，乃至無其名。三聚之名目經文自列：一者必正聚，二者必邪聚，三者不定聚——必正聚者，善根已定，雖遇逆緣終必趣向正道而不退；必邪聚者，邪見已固，雖遇善緣亦不迴心，定墮惡趣；不定聚者，兩無所定，遇善緣則入正，遇惡緣則入邪，其去取全繫於所遇。三者之分不在一時之善惡，在其向背已定與未定。願中只除邪聚，不除正聚不定聚，用語極有分寸；「乃至無其名」是本段以下屢見之句式——所願者連名字亦不立。
五五、三惡道願——地獄、畜生、餓鬼。 菩薩行六波羅蜜時，見地獄中眾生，畜生、餓鬼中眾生，當作是願令我國土中乃至無三惡道名。所見者是眾生之處，所願者是連處名亦無。願之力在此：不是把惡道眾生遷走，是使國土中本無此類。
五六、地相願——株杌荊棘、山陵溝坑。 菩薩見是大地株杌、荊棘、山陵、溝坑、穢惡之處，當作是願令我國土無如是惡，「地平如掌」。自此數願，所見由眾生轉到器世間——國土之相亦在願中。讀者不可把淨土之願只讀作度眾生，器界之相同是菩薩行之所攝。
五七、寶地願——大地純土、無金銀珍寶。 菩薩見是大地純土，無有金銀珍寶，當作是願令我國土以金沙布地。此願易被讀成貪愛珍寶，其實前後合看便明：上願除穢惡，此願立莊嚴，皆為國土之相順於道，不為受用。
五八、無戀著願——見眾生有所戀著。 菩薩見眾生有所戀著，當作是願令我國土眾生無所戀著。上兩願方立金沙布地之莊嚴，此願隨即除戀著——莊嚴與不戀並立，正是淨土之願不同於世間富樂之處。兩願相接而讀，前願之疑自解。
五九、四姓願——剎帝利乃至首陀羅。 菩薩見四姓眾生，當作是願令我國土眾生無四姓之名。四姓之名目經文自列：剎帝利、婆羅門、鞞舍、首陀羅——剎帝利是掌治之王族，婆羅門是世習祭祀誦典之族，鞞舍是營商作業之族，首陀羅是供役執作之族。四者是世間以生處判人高下之制，非因行業而分，故所願不在改其行，在使此分別之名無所立。所除者是名，即是除其分別；願不在改人之身，在使分別之名無所立。
六十、優劣願——下中上及所生之家。 菩薩見眾生有下、中、上，生下、中、上家，當作是願令我國土眾生無如是優劣。此願承上願而深一層：上願除族姓之名，此願除人與人之高下。二願合看，可見菩薩所願之平等不只在制度，在心所緣之相。
六一、妙色願——種種別異色。 菩薩見眾生種種別異色，當作是願令我國土眾生無種種別異色，一切眾生皆端政淨潔，妙色成就。此願的分寸在無別異而不是無色——所除者是差別之相，所立者是同一妙色。
六二、無主願——見眾生有主。 菩薩見眾生有主，當作是願令我國土眾生無有主名，乃至無其形像，「除佛法王」。除佛法王四字最要緊：所除的是世間統屬之主，不是無所宗。願語自留此一例外，讀者不可略過。
六三、六道願——地獄乃至人。 菩薩見眾生有六道別異，當作是願令我國土眾生無六道之名。六道之名目經文自列：是地獄，是畜生，是餓鬼，是神，是天，是人——六者各有其相：地獄者大苦心亂，不能受法；畜生者愚癡覆心，不能受化；餓鬼者為飢渴火燒其身，不得受法，此三一向是罪處。神者即鬼神之道；本論不別立阿修羅為一道之名而以鬼神攝之，諸鬼神皆鬼神道中所攝，龍王則入畜生道；論自論五道六道開合之處云，三惡道一向是罪處，若福多罪少如阿修羅、揵闥婆等，其生處應別，是故應言六道——故此第四之「神」，正是罪福相兼、別立生處之一類，非前之餓鬼。論他處又說鬼神道眼根等利而諸煩惱覆心，故不能專行深般若，可見其為福慧不相稱之處。天者，六道之中天道最上，受福最勝；人者苦樂相兼，苦差於三惡道，樂不如諸天，諸根濁重而能制苦樂之意以行般若，故是堪修之身。願中更立所願之行：一切眾生皆同一業，修四念處乃至八聖道分——無六道之名，而有同一之道業。
六四、化生願——卵胎濕化。 菩薩見眾生有四生，當作是願令我國土眾生無三種生，等一化生。四生之名目經文自列：卵生、胎生、濕生、化生——四者之相，本論他處以事出之：卵生者，先成卵而後剖卵出形，如毘舍佉母一生三十二卵、卵剖而生三十二子；胎生者，如常人之生，處胎而後出；濕生者，因濕暖之緣而有形，如揜羅婆利婬女及頂生轉輪聖王之生；化生者，無所依託而忽然成身，如地中化生之比丘尼阿羅婆，及劫初之時人皆化生。論復以此四配五道：諸天、地獄一向化生，餓鬼通胎、化二種，唯人道與畜生具此四生。所以獨存化生者，化生不假胞胎濕卵之緣，生即成身而即時長大，無孕育之苦，亦無稚弱待長之階。所除者三，所存者一；此願與上願同一格——去其別異，立其齊同。
六五、神通願——見眾生無五神通。 菩薩見眾生無五神通，當作是願令我國土眾生一切皆得五神通。自此願起，結語多作「乃至近一切種智」之略——經文以乃至收，是承前具足六波羅蜜之語而略，非願有闕。
六六、法喜為食願——大小便患。 菩薩見眾生有大小便患，當作是願令我國土眾生皆以法喜為食，無有便利之患。此願所見至為平常，卻正見菩薩之細心：身之累亦在所願中。所立者亦不是無食，是易其食為法喜。
六七、光明願——見眾生無有光明。 菩薩見眾生無有光明，當作是願令我國土眾生皆有光明。願語極短，義同前格；讀者可留意自此數願經文漸趨簡括，所見與所願各只一句——排比至此，體例已立，經文遂不復重覆全式。
六八、無日月願——日月、時節、歲數。 菩薩見有日月、時節、歲數，當作是願令我國土中無有日月、時節、歲數之名。此願所除是時之量。合下願觀之，量與無量正是此後數願之主題。
六九、壽命願——見眾生短命。 菩薩見眾生短命，當作是願令我國土中眾生壽命無量劫。上願除時之名，此願立壽之無量；兩願相接，不是相違——所除者是計時之分別，所立者是壽命不受其限。
七十、相好願——見眾生無有相好。 菩薩見眾生無有相好，當作是願令我國土中眾生皆有三十二相成就。相好之數經文自出；所願不在眾生好看，在其身即是道之器——相好是福德所成，故此願實是願眾生福德成就。
七一、善根願——見眾生離諸善根。 菩薩見眾生離諸善根，當作是願令我國土中眾生諸善根成就，以是福德供養諸佛。此願比前願更進一步：不止成就善根，且以其福德供養諸佛——善根之用有所歸，纔不成自受用之福。
七二、無病願——三毒、四病。 菩薩見眾生有三毒、四病，當作是願令我國土中眾生無四種病及三毒病。四病之名目經文自列：冷、熱、風病、三種雜病——本論他處自舉此四為身病之根本，並以四大配之：四大為身而常相侵害，一一大中各起百一病，合為四百四病；其中冷病二百二，從水、風二大起，熱病二百二，從地、火二大起。風病者，風大不調而一身為之亂，論他處說風病、熱病重時能令人成狂，可見其力能及於心。雜病者，非一大獨起，冷、熱、風相兼而發，故經稱三種雜病；本論牒經亦有雜熱風冷病之語，正謂三者相雜而成。身病與心毒並除，是此願之特出處——論身則四病，論心則三毒，兩者同在一願之中。
七三、一乘願——見眾生有三乘。 菩薩見眾生有三乘，當作是願令我國土中眾生無二乘之名，「純一大乘」。此願與前毘梨耶願之三乘各得度脫並讀，可見不相違：彼願對治棄捨三乘之懈怠，此願所立是國土之相。二願所對治不同，故所說不同，並存不判。
七四、無增上慢願。 菩薩見眾生有增上慢，當作是願令我國土中眾生無增上慢之名。增上慢是修行人之病，非凡夫之病；置於諸願之末段，正見所淨之國土連修行人之細病亦無。
七五、光明壽命僧數願。 此願體例一轉：不從見眾生起，從自省起——菩薩應作是願，若我光明、壽命有量，僧數有限，當作是願令我光明、壽命無量，僧數無限。前此諸願皆對眾生之相而發，此願對自身成佛時之相而發。願中復有願，是經文自有之層次。
七六、國土無量願。 同前一格：若我國土有量，當作是願令我一國土如恒河沙等諸佛世界。此願與上願並為自省之願，所願皆在無量。至此，依經文願字所計之願語盡。
七七、正憶念——生死邊如虛空。 末一段不說願而說念：菩薩行六波羅蜜時，當作是念——雖生死道長、眾生性多，爾時應如是正憶念，「生死邊如虛空，眾生性邊亦如虛空，是中實無生死往來，亦無解脫者」。前面諸願所對治的是眾生與國土之相，此段所對治的是行願者自己的心力。讀者至此當回看品的前半：生死如虛空之語，正與夢中所見非實一路相應——全品的兩半，在這裡合了縫。
七八、論主設問：有何次第。 論②起首便問接縫：有何次第故，說菩薩見眾生饑寒、凍餓等。此問正是讀者讀到經②時心中的疑——前半說夢與三昧，後半忽說淨土諸願，何以相次。論主不迴避，先問而後答。
七九、唯行淨佛世界成就眾生。 論主答：菩薩過聲聞、辟支佛地，得無生法忍、授記，更無餘事，唯行淨佛世界、成就眾生；今說淨佛世界因緣，見不淨世界相，願我國土無如是事，是故次第說是事。一句更無餘事，把兩半縫成一事：前半所印可的不見而不疑之心，後半所行的正是持此心而作的全部事業。
八十、檀願之廣釋。 論主獨為第一願作廣釋，可見此願是全段之樣本。菩薩見眾生飢渴、衣服弊壞，即作念言：我今福德、智慧未成就，不能給足眾生所須；若但行慈悲心，則於眾生無益。故當爾所時「深行三種福德，住三種福德中」，能令貧窮眾生皆得滿足——或作轉輪聖王、或作天王、或作神通聖人，則能多引導眾生，破其堅貪，令住布施。所謂三種福德，論文於此不別列其名，隨後所出者是三種身之用，讀者不可代論主補一份名目。末出總理：一切有為法屬因緣，行善因緣具足故，皆隨意得果報——願之所以能成，理在於此。
八一、尸羅願之略釋。 論主釋第二願，只一句：眾生破尸羅波羅蜜因緣故，短命、多病、無有威德等；菩薩作是願，「我自具足持戒，亦教眾生令持戒」。自持與教他並舉，是戒度之願的全形——只願他人持戒而自不持，願便不成。
八二、餘殘諸願隨義分別。 論主於此明說：餘殘諸願亦如是，隨義分別。此語是論主自定的釋例——不是略過，是示人以例，令讀者依前二願之格自釋其餘。讀本論遇此類語，當自己把餘願一一依格推過，纔算讀完。
八三、最後願義不明了故略說。 論主獨標最後一願：最後願義不明了，今當略說。前諸願之相顯，此段之語隱，故須別釋。此處亦可見論主之稱謂——經文此段作當作是念，論主稱之為願，如實誌之，不強會通。
八四、疲厭心是邪憶念。 論主先寫出疲厭之心的實況：菩薩作如是上願已，疲厭心起——佛道須無量無數阿僧祇劫行諸功德然後可得，但一劫歲數尚不可數，故佛以譬喻示人，何況無量無邊阿僧祇劫經此生死受諸苦惱；眾生亦無量無邊，三千大千世界中微塵等眾生猶尚難度，何況十方無量世界微塵等眾生。以是事故，或心生退沒，「是名邪憶念」。要緊的是論主並不呵斥此心，先把它說得極真切，然後纔判其為邪憶念——邪不在苦惱之感，在由此退沒。
八五、正憶念之三路。 論主出佛所教之正憶念，分三路說。其一、生死雖長，是事皆空，「如虛空、如夢中所見」，非實長遠，不應生厭心——此正與品之前半相應。其二、未來世亦是一念所緣，亦非長遠——長遠之感，起於所緣之相。其三、菩薩無量福德智慧力故，能超無量劫。三路各治一病：第一治其執長為實，第二治其緣相成怖，第三治其自度力弱之疑。
八六、佛說大因緣，度亦不難。 全品收於佛自說之大因緣：「生死如虛空，眾生亦如是；眾生雖多，亦無定實眾生。如眾生無量無邊，佛智慧亦無量無邊，度亦不難，是故菩薩不應生疲厭心。」此結有兩層。其一、所度之眾生無定實，故無量不成障。其二、能度之佛智亦無量，故無量與無量相稱。品首所問夢中三昧有益無益，至此已遠；然一線未斷——不以所見為實，故不取；不以無量為難，故不退。不取不退，正是全品的首尾。
不要讀錯
不要把「晝、夜夢中等無異」讀成夢與醒一樣真實。若一樣真實，則夢中殺人與醒時殺人同報，而論主接著釋夢中所作善惡「無有勢力，不能集成果報」，即因夢心為眠所覆、不自在故。可見等無異是就般若不分別晝夜而說，不是就夢境之實而說。讀般若經論凡遇等無異、無二無別之語，須先問一句：是就哪一法上說等。
不要把「夢中無有法集成」讀成夢中作惡全無干係。論主的訓解分得極細：夢中之業因眠覆心、不自在，故無勢力，不能自成果報；然而覺已分別、憶想取相，善惡心和合，則能助成果報。所以夢本身不成罪福，醒後對夢起的取著纔是關口。行人若因惡夢而自責，或因善夢而自矜，正落在論主所說的覺時憶想分別上。
不要把彌勒的「如是不證」讀成他未得法或不肯答。論主自答其故：彌勒知二人各有所執、不能通達故不答；又錄二說，一說彌勒以是空答，一說未具足佛法故言不證。三說並陳而論主未判，讀者不可自代論主取一說為定。至於不證之義，論主自出其理：涅槃亦空、無所得故不證——是所證處本身無相可取，不是無所得證。經文自身亦明白：舍利弗聞之而歎其智甚深，非譏其不能。
不要把舍利弗的「不見」讀成一無所知。論主逐字分開兩路：肉眼、天眼分別取相，故不應見；慧眼無分別相，故亦不見。前者是不堪見，後者是無相可見。舍利弗自陳不見，佛即以此印可菩薩之行——不見而不疑。若把不見讀成茫然，則下半句自知實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提便無著落。
不要把淨佛世界諸願讀成菩薩厭惡穢土眾生。每一願的前半都是見眾生之苦相，後半都是願其國土無如是事，中間所繫的是所行之度——見飢寒則行檀，見破戒則行尸羅，見瞋害則行羼提。所除者是苦相與其因，不是受苦之人；且願中屢屢立所願之善相，如相視如父母兄弟、皆行慈悲、諸善根成就以供養諸佛。論主更把第一願廣釋為菩薩自愧福德智慧未成就而深行福德——願的起處是自己不足，不是嫌人不好。
不要把「餘殘諸願亦如是，隨義分別」讀成其餘諸願可以略過。論主釋前二願而立其格，隨即示人以例，是要讀者依格自釋其餘。若把此語讀作省文，便把二十餘願的別相一併丟了——而每一願所見之苦相各異、所立之善相各異，正是此段最富的地方。
不要把疲厭心讀成過失而急於呵斥。論主先把疲厭之心的理由寫足——劫數不可算、眾生不可數、微塵等眾生猶尚難度——然後纔判其為邪憶念。邪不在覺得難，在由難而退沒。讀者若正被此心所困，當看論主給的是三路正憶念，不是一句責備。
修行作用
第一件受用，是夢可以拿來自驗而不必自責。論主說得分明：夢中所見皆因先見、聞、覺、知；夢不造新緣，只翻舊緣。所以夢中所現之貪瞋，是日間所習之影。用功人於此可作一個溫和的自勘——不問夢裡我做了什麼，問這影是從哪些見聞覺知來的。至於夢中所作，因眠覆心無有勢力，本不成報；真正要看的是醒後那一念憶想分別。
第二件受用，是取相二字可作日用的照察。論主把因緣生業的樞紐落在取相：取相故有緣業生，若不取相，無因緣則不生。行門上的用法極簡——境來時先不急著判它好壞，回看自己是否已在相上握住了什麼。握住了，業即從此生；不握，同一個境過去了也就過去了。晝日、夢中無異，說的正是這一處無異。
第三件受用，是說得出與證得到要分開。彌勒說得極深而自言不證，舍利弗因此歎其智甚深。學法人最易犯的是以說為證——講得清楚便以為已到。此品給的判準不在口才，在無所得：凡覺得自己已握住某個見地而不肯放，正是取相；凡說法而心不取一個所證之處，纔是彌勒之說。
第四件受用，是不見而不疑可以直接拿來用。修行久了常生兩病：或求一個明確的見證而不得，遂生退心；或自造一個見證而住著其中。佛給的是兩句並立——不作是念是法當得授記，亦不生疑我不得無上道。前一句拆掉自造的證，後一句托住不退的信。二者缺一，不是執便是疑。
第五件受用，是諸願可以逐條當作發願的樣本。每一願都是同一個作法：看見一種苦相，繫上自己正在修的一度，發願令未來的國土中無此事，結以此行能具足此度而近菩提。日用中發願往往浮泛，此段給的是極具體的格——今日所見之苦相是什麼，我正在修的是哪一度，願中要除的是什麼、要立的是什麼。連大小便之患、無有光明這樣的事都在願中，可見無一苦相不可入願。
第六件受用，是疲厭心來時有三路可走。論主給的不是一句忍耐：其一、觀生死如虛空、如夢中所見，非實長遠——長是所緣之相，不是所緣之實。其二、觀未來世亦是一念所緣，亦非長遠——未來之長，只在此刻一念中現。其三、憶菩薩無量福德智慧力故能超無量劫——不以現前之力量度將來之程。三路可隨機取用；末後更有佛自說之大因緣可持：眾生雖多，亦無定實眾生，佛智慧亦無量無邊，度亦不難。
承衍
本品的骨幹，是兩段經文與兩段論釋。經①自舍利弗問夢中入三三昧於般若有益不起，須菩提答晝夜夢中等無異；次問夢中所作業有集成不，須菩提設夢中殺人之例反問，舍利弗自出有緣無緣之判，須菩提可之而推及見聞覺知法中心生、心有淨垢；舍利弗以諸業諸思自相離為難，須菩提以取相故有緣業生答之；末問夢中六度迴向是實不，須菩提以彌勒現前、佛授不退轉記故讓問於彌勒。彌勒答以名、色、色空俱不能答，不見能答者、不見法可授記、不見授記處，一切法皆無二無別；舍利弗追問如是為得法作證不，彌勒答如是不證；舍利弗作念歎其智甚深、用無所得故能如是說。佛乃反問舍利弗用是法得阿羅漢見是法不，舍利弗答不見，佛即以不見而不疑印可菩薩行般若之相。論①先設舍利弗何以夢難三三昧之問，答以夢虛誑如狂非實見而三三昧是實，引餘處所說夢中三種善不善無記，出須菩提離二邊以諸法實相答之意，結以般若不分別晝夜；次隨文訓集成、明夢心微弱不能集成而覺後分別是應集成，重述夢殺之問與有緣無緣之答，逐字訓業與思、三業因見聞覺知四種法、夢中善惡為眠覆心無有勢力而覺時和合能助成果報；次出舍利弗以空為難與須菩提取相之答，重述迴向之問與兩面之難，明二難深故讓問；再設彌勒何以但說空而不答之問，出二大弟子各有所執故不答之義，並錄復有人言以空答、有人言未具足佛法故不證二說，出舍利弗意與彌勒意之對，末釋佛還問舍利弗之意、逐字訓肉眼天眼慧眼之不見，以佛印可無生忍菩薩不見而不疑收束。經②佛告須菩提，菩薩行六波羅蜜時見眾生種種苦相、缺陷、穢惡而逐願淨其國土——自檀願之飢寒凍餓、尸羅願之破戒諸報、羼提願之瞋害、毘梨耶願之懈怠棄捨三乘、禪願之五蓋失定、般若願之愚癡邪見，至三聚、三惡道、地相、寶地、無戀著、四姓、優劣、妙色、無主、六道、四生、五神通、法喜為食、光明、無日月時節歲數、壽命、相好、善根、無病、一乘、無增上慢，末以光明壽命僧數無量、國土如恒河沙等二願自省，終以當作是念之正憶念段收束。論②先設有何次第之問，答以菩薩過二乘地得無生法忍授記後更無餘事、唯行淨佛世界成就眾生；次廣釋檀願，出菩薩自愧福德智慧未成就、深行三種福德、作轉輪聖王天王神通聖人引導眾生破其堅貪之相，結以有為法屬因緣故隨意得果報；略釋尸羅願之自持教他，明餘殘諸願隨義分別；末獨釋最後一願，寫足疲厭心之實況而判為邪憶念，出正憶念三路——生死皆空如虛空如夢中所見、未來世亦一念所緣、菩薩福德智慧力能超無量劫，終以佛自說大因緣「度亦不難」收束全品。
本品與前後諸品的義脈，可見者有三線。其一、承前：經①之起句即承前品菩薩入三三昧之事而以夢設難，故此品之前半不別立三三昧之義，只問它在夢中的分際。其二、品內之縫：前半論夢與實、後半論淨土諸願，看似不相屬，論主開卷第一問即補此縫——得無生法忍、授記之後更無餘事，唯行淨佛世界、成就眾生；故前半所印可之心，正是後半所行之事的依止。其三、垂後：末段正憶念之「生死邊如虛空，眾生性邊亦如虛空」與品首夢中所見非實一線相貫，而菩薩不應生疲厭心之義，亦為此後諸品廣說菩薩行處之所本。
古德之釋，本品可誌者二家。其一、吉藏。其疏於本品標目作「夢行品第五十八」，與本論底本題名不同；其釋品名云：「若凡夫覺果夢，覺行是行，夢行非行。菩薩了夢覺不二，夢覺既行，覺夢亦行」，又云：「今正明菩薩夢覺不二行，故云夢行亦」——以夢覺不二釋品名之所以。其科判本品云：「又此亦文中具論三種義：一步論夢中行有益無益，二論夢中行集成不集成，三論夢迴向非迴向」，三分正與本論經①論①之三重問答相應。此是吉藏自家之判釋，與本論論主隨文而釋一路各有所重，並錄不判。其二、慧影。其疏標目作「釋夢中入三昧品第五十八」，與本論底本題名逐字相同；其科判本品云：「爾時舍利弗已下，就此品中大有二意：第一明乘於前品入三三昧廣化眾生，則因生論義齊於夢覺；第二從佛告須菩提有菩薩摩訶薩行檀波羅蜜時已下竟品，明菩薩之行淨佛國願」——以前半齊於夢覺、後半淨佛國願二分本品，正與本論經①論①、經②論②之分相應。其釋舍利弗初問之意云：「意謂夢是誑法，三昧是實」，與本論論主所答夢虛誑而三三昧是實同一理路。二家所用品名不同，其品目異稱、諸本分卷與星記校勘之考，詳考據層。
Entering Samādhi in a Dream: Why Entering the Three Samādhi in a Dream Is Asked About as Beneficial or Not; Why Day, Night, and Dream Being Equal and without Difference Does Not Say That Dream and Waking Are the Same; Why the Deed in a Dream Is Said to Be Unable to Gather and Come to Completion; Why Deed and construction Are Tied to There Being a Condition or No Condition; Why Grasping at Marks Is the Pivot of the Arising of Deeds; Why the Dedication in a Dream Is Turned into a Question Put to Maitreya; Why Maitreya Neither Answers nor Realises; Why the Buddha Seals It by Śāriputra's Not Seeing; Why the Vows of Purifying Buddha-Worlds Arise from Seeing the Marks of Beings' Suffering; Why the Vows, One by One, Cannot Be Compressed; Why the Last Vow Alone Needs a Brief Explanation; and Why the Mind of Exhaustion and Weariness Is Wrong Recollection
What Is Being Asked
What the first half of this chapter asks is a question that looks obscure but that in fact everyone can use: does it count when one is asleep? Śāriputra opens by asking whether, if a bodhisattva enters in a dream the three samādhi, the emptiness samādhi, the signless samādhi, and the non-action samādhi, there is any benefit to prajñāpāramitā or not. Once this question is put, three further rounds are pushed forward along its momentum: whether a deed in a dream gathers and comes to completion or not; whether the dedication made from what is done in the six perfections in a dream is real or not; whether the one who can speak this meaning has thereby already realised it. The three rounds draw steadily closer to the gate of practice—the first round asks whether the merit counts in the account, the second whether the retribution comes to completion or not, the third whether the direction of practice can be held steady or not. Subhūti's answer is utterly plain: day, night, and dream are equal and without difference. What matters is that this sentence does not say that the dream-world and the waking world are equally real; it says that prajñā does not discriminate according to day and night, and so benefit and non-benefit are not decided by day and night. The treatise-author at once lays bare Subhūti's position: to say there is benefit will not do, and to say there is no benefit will not do either; therefore he leaves these two extremes and answers by the real mark of all dharmas.
The depth of the first half lies in the section where Maitreya appears. The third difficulty is too deep, and Subhūti yields the question to Maitreya; but Maitreya takes apart the whole framework on which the question rests—shall I answer by the name, shall I answer by form, shall I answer by the emptiness of form—questioning all the way through to not seeing one who can answer, not seeing a dharma that is answered, not seeing a place of the prediction. Śāriputra presses with one sentence: speaking thus, is this obtaining the dharma and realising it or not? Maitreya answers: thus I do not realise it. To be able to say it and yet not take realisation—this is the first crux of this chapter. The close does not rest with Maitreya; it rests with the Buddha: the Buddha does not explain for Maitreya, but asks Śāriputra in return whether, when he himself obtained arhatship, he saw this dharma; Śāriputra answers that he does not see it; the Buddha at once seals it by this—not seeing and yet not doubting is precisely the mark of the bodhisattva practising prajñā.
The latter half of the chapter puts on a different face. The Buddha tells Subhūti: when the bodhisattva practises the six perfections, he sees beings in hunger and cold, breaking the precepts, in hatred and harm, in laziness, under the five hindrances, in folly and delusion; he sees the hells and the hungry ghosts, sees the great earth foul and evil, sees the four castes and the six destinies, sees short life and the absence of light; and for each one he should make a vow that in my land there be no such matter. The vow-words are ranged in parallel passage after passage, the form so regular as to be nearly repetitive. The two halves seem not to belong together, and the treatise-author's very first question at the opening of his explanation asks precisely about this seam: by what order is it that the bodhisattva is said to see beings in hunger and cold, freezing and starvation, and the like? The answer sews the two halves together—after the bodhisattva has passed beyond the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha grounds and obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and the prediction, he has no other matter left; he practises only purifying buddha-worlds and bringing beings to accomplishment. What the first half speaks of is the mind that does not see and yet does not doubt; what the latter half speaks of is the whole of the work carried out holding this mind. In the final passage the sūtra text speaks not of a vow but of a thought: the limit of birth and death is like space, and the limit of the nature of beings is also like space. The treatise-author gives a brief explanation for this passage alone, pointing out that the mind of exhaustion and weariness is wrong recollection, and that only right recollection is the support for travelling this long road.
Passage by Passage
1. The question whether entering the three samādhi in a dream benefits prajñā. Śāriputra opens by asking: if a bodhisattva-mahāsattva in a dream enters the three samādhi—the emptiness samādhi, the signless samādhi, and the non-action samādhi—is there any benefit to prajñāpāramitā or not? In reading this, one must first see clearly where the question lies—what is asked is not whether one can enter concentration in a dream, but whether the concentration entered in a dream counts. Ordinary readers easily read this as a strange tale about dreams, but what is in fact asked about is real dharmas and retribution: the three samādhi are real dharmas, the dream is false and deceptive; when a real dharma enters a false and deceptive realm, does it still remain a real dharma? Once this question is set up, the three rounds of difficulty that follow have somewhere to land.
2. The answer that day, night, and dream are equal and without difference. Subhūti replies with a single principle: if entering the three samādhi by day benefits prajñā, then at night in a dream it should also benefit; why? 「晝、夜夢中等無異故」 tr. "because day, night, and dream are equal and without difference." This answer is the easiest to read lopsidedly. He is not saying that the dream-world and the waking world are the same in experience—if they were the same, killing someone in a dream would be the same as killing someone when awake, and Śāriputra further on would not set up a separate question about gathering and coming to completion. What he is saying is that prajñāpāramitā does not discriminate between day and night, and so whether there is benefit or not is not decided from the side of day and night. In reading the prajñā sūtras and treatises, whenever one meets the three Chinese characters rendered here as 「等無異」 tr. "equal and without difference," first ask one question: with respect to which dharma is it said to be equal?
3. The question whether the deed performed in a dream gathers and comes to completion or not. Śāriputra turns to the second round: a deed performed in a dream—does this deed gather and come to completion or not? He himself first lays out the two sides—the Buddha says that all dharmas are like a dream, so it should not gather and come to completion; in a dream there is no dharma that gathers and comes to completion; and yet if at the time of waking one recollects, imagines, and discriminates, it should gather and come to completion. This passage is the skeleton of the whole chapter's teaching on deeds: the deed in a dream has no strength of itself; the recollection, imagining, and discrimination after waking is the real gate. The questioner is no outsider; he hands over his own difficulty together with its line of reasoning.
4. The case of killing in a dream, put as a question. Subhūti does not answer directly, but sets up a question in return: if a person in a dream kills a being and, upon waking, recalls it, grasps at the mark and discriminates—"was my killing a pleasure?"—how is this matter to be judged? This is the finest piece of teaching method in this chapter—it exchanges the abstract question of 「集成」 tr. "gathering and coming to completion" for a concrete case of killing in a dream, and presses the questioner to state the criterion himself. When a reader meets a doctrine he cannot make clear, he can learn this method: ask himself by way of the most concrete case.
5. The criterion of having a condition or no condition. Śāriputra answers at once: 「無緣業不生，無緣思不生；有緣業生，有緣思生。」 tr. "Without a condition, no deed arises; without a condition, no construction arises. With a condition, a deed arises; with a condition, a construction arises." One sentence ties whether there is a deed or not to the condition, not to dreaming or waking. This is the pivot of the whole chapter's teaching on deeds; the treatise-author's word-by-word glosses further on all unfold from here. Note: the criterion is stated by Śāriputra himself, not imposed by Subhūti, and so below Subhūti need only approve his words.
6. The mind arises among the dharmas of seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing. Subhūti seals it and pushes one layer further: the mind arises among the dharmas of seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing, and does not arise from dharmas not seen, heard, sensed, or known; within this, the mind has purity and has stain. In reading this, know that 「緣」 tr. "condition" is not another name for the outer realm; it is seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing—what the mind has already come into contact with. The conditions that appear in a dream have all entered the mind before; a dream does not create new conditions, it only turns over old ones.
7. The difficulty that all deeds and all constructions are separated from their own marks. Śāriputra objects again from emptiness: the Buddha says that all deeds and all constructions are separated from their own marks; how then is it said that because there is a condition a deed arises, and without a condition it does not arise? This difficulty has force, and its force lies in the two sentences both coming from the Buddha's mouth and yet opposing each other—one is a statement of the real mark within the gate of prajñā, the other a statement of arising within the gate of cause and effect. Anyone who, reading the sūtras and treatises, sees two statements in conflict and does not dare to ask may look at Śāriputra here: he states the contradiction outright.
8. The answer that deeds arise because of grasping at marks. Subhūti resolves this contradiction by the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘grasping at marks’: because of grasping at marks, with a condition a deed arises, and it does not arise from no condition; construction is likewise. A condition cannot give rise to a deed on its own; grasping at marks is where it arises. This answer is of the utmost importance: it sets the teaching of arising from causes and conditions on the level of ordinary people's grasping at marks, and so it does not contend with the meaning that all deeds are separated from their own marks—being separated is the mark of the dharma itself; arising is the affair of the one who grasps at marks.
9. The question whether the dedication in a dream is real or not. Śāriputra's third difficulty turns to dedication: if in a dream one gives, keeps the precepts, is patient, is vigorous, meditates, and cultivates wisdom, and dedicates these roots of goodness and merit to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, is this a real dedication or not? The three difficulties push forward in sequence—first asking whether there is benefit or not, next asking whether it gathers and comes to completion or not, now asking whether the dedication is real or not, each difficulty closer to the gate of practice than the last. Dedication is the steering wheel of the bodhisattva path, and so this question weighs most.
10. The question is turned over to Maitreya. Subhūti does not answer himself, but passes it to Maitreya: the bodhisattva Maitreya is now present before us; the Buddha gave him the prediction of non-retrogression, that he will become a Buddha; we should ask Maitreya. Do not read this as evasion. The treatise-author himself explains the reason further on—because these two difficulties are deep and hard to answer. It is the ordinary way in the sūtras that when one higher in station is present, a deep question is yielded; yielding the question is not having no answer; it is handing the question into the hands of the one who can answer it most securely.
11. Śāriputra in turn addresses Maitreya. Śāriputra, as he was told, addresses Maitreya and repeats Subhūti's words. The repetition is not word for word: it leaves out the sentence 「當問彌勒」 tr. "we should ask Maitreya," and the character 「授」 tr. "give" is written in the base text as 「受」 tr. "receive" (the variant reading is in the apparatus layer); what is repeated is still Subhūti's words, so that the reader sees that the question has been truly handed over—Maitreya's answer is directed at the original question, not at a new topic. When reading a long sūtra text and meeting a passage of repetition, one must not skip it; it is the evidence of the handover.
12. Maitreya answers that both the one who can and what is done are unfindable. Maitreya's answer is the deepest passage of the first half: shall I answer by the name Maitreya? or by form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness? or by the emptiness of form? or by the emptiness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness? This form cannot answer, and the emptiness of form cannot answer either; I see no dharma that can answer, see no one who can answer, see no person who is given the prediction, nor see a dharma that can be given the prediction, nor see a place of the prediction: 「是一切法皆無二無別」 tr. "all these dharmas are without duality and without difference." This is not a refusal to answer; it takes apart the entire framework on which the question rests—the one who can answer and what is answered, the one who predicts and what is predicted. If the question is set up on the one who can and what is done, the answer can only be set up on the one who can and what is done; to answer ultimately, one must first see that the one who can and what is done are from the start not two.
13. Is this obtaining the dharma and realising it or not? Śāriputra at once presses with one sentence on this: as you, kind sir, have said—speaking thus, is this obtaining the dharma and realising it or not? This question is exactly on target—having spoken as far as without duality and without difference, has one not already realised this dharma? The first doubt that arises when people hear a lofty Dharma is exactly this doubt: since you can say it, you must surely have realised it.
14. Thus I do not realise it. Maitreya answers: as is the Dharma I have spoken, just so I do not realise it. Speaking and not realising is the first crux of this chapter. It is not modest withdrawal; it is that the Dharma spoken has from the start no mark that can be realised: if there were a mark that could be realised, the without duality and without difference that is spoken would destroy itself. In reading this, one must look at 「說」 tr. "speaking" and 「證」 tr. "realising" separately—the one who speaks follows the road of words; the one who realises grasps at and clings to a real dharma.
15. Śāriputra has the thought: his wisdom is very deep. Śāriputra has this thought in his mind: Maitreya's wisdom is very deep; he has long practised dānapāramitā and so on up to prajñāpāramitā; 「用無所得故，能如是說」 tr. "because he uses nothing to be attained, he can speak thus." This is the sūtra text's own comment—the depth does not lie in skill of words, but in nothing to be attained. This one sentence can serve as the key to reading the whole chapter: wherever an answer is seen to be clean-cut and not to fall into the two extremes, its root lies in nothing to be attained.
16. The Buddha questions Śāriputra in return. The Buddha steps in at this moment, not explaining for Maitreya, but asking Śāriputra in return: what do you think? By this dharma you obtained arhatship—do you see this dharma? The Buddha's way of teaching is to hand the question back to the questioner's own realised experience—you yourself have walked this road; what did you see at the time? This is the most personal question in the whole chapter.
17. I do not see it. Śāriputra answers: I do not see it. The three Chinese characters rendered here as ‘I do not see it’, no more, and yet they are where the whole chapter's confirmation lies. The fruit he himself personally obtained was also not obtained by seeing some one dharma; this being so, the road of pressing the bodhisattva with seeing and not seeing that was taken before loosens of itself.
18. The Buddha seals it by not seeing and not doubting. The Buddha at once seals it by this: the bodhisattva practising prajñā is also thus; he does not have the thought—this dharma will obtain the prediction, this dharma has been given the prediction, this dharma will obtain the unsurpassed path; and yet 「不疑我若得、若不得，自知實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "he does not doubt whether I obtain it or do not obtain it; he knows of himself that he really obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Not seeing and not doubting existing together—only this is the essential point of this passage: not seeing, therefore nothing is grasped; not doubting, therefore no retrogression. Lacking the first half, it becomes clinging; lacking the latter half, it becomes doubt.
19. The treatise-author sets up a question: why Śāriputra poses the difficulty of the three samādhi in a dream. The treatise-author begins his explanation, and his first question asks about Śāriputra's way of questioning: for what reason does Śāriputra pose the difficulty to the bodhisattva's three samādhi by way of a dream? This question is worth learning—not first answering the question, but first asking how this question could arise. If the reader can put this question to a doubt he himself has raised, the doubt often loosens of itself.
20. The dream is false and deceptive, while the three samādhi are real. The treatise-author answers: because a dream is false and deceptive, like madness, not a real seeing; and these three samādhi are real dharmas. The difficulty becomes a difficulty because the two things are opposite in nature: on one side a realm of madness and delusion, not real; on the other side a real dharma. Once the opposition is made clear, the skeleton of the difficulty shows.
21. The three kinds in a dream, and the full form of the question. The treatise-author further cites what is said elsewhere: in a dream too there are three kinds—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. The meaning of the three natures must first be made clear: the wholesome is the mind that accords with principle, benefits people, and brings a desirable retribution; the unwholesome runs counter to the wholesome, arises in accord with the afflictions, and brings a painful retribution; the indeterminate is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, such as the mind of the deportments of walking, standing, sitting, and lying, the mind of work and craft, and the mind manifested by transformation; its nature does not fall on either side of wholesome and unwholesome, and so its retribution cannot be determined—this treatise says elsewhere that the indeterminate has no retribution, and so does not bring birth in the heavens above or among humans, and this is exactly what is meant. Among the three natures, the item of the indeterminate is the most crucial for this passage: if the dream-mind belongs to the portion of the indeterminate, then there is from the start no retribution to speak of; the ground on which the treatise-author below can answer that the dream-mind is feeble and cannot gather and come to completion was already in these three divisions. A wholesome mind practising the three samādhi should obtain merit; yet a dream is a dharma of madness and delusion, and one should not practise a real dharma within it and obtain a retribution; if there were a real dharma, it would not be called a dream. Thereupon the full form of Śāriputra's question appears: does practising the three samādhi in a dream increase the merit of prajñā, gather roots of goodness, and draw near to the Buddha path or not? Here 「三種」 tr. "three kinds" is a heading the treatise's own text lists, not to be sought from outside; when the reader meets a numbered set of dharmas, let him first look whether this treatise itself lists the names.
22. Leaving the two extremes and answering by the real mark. The treatise-author explains Subhūti's meaning: to say there is benefit—a dream is false and deceptive while prajñā is real; how can it increase it? To say there is no benefit—in a dream there is the wholesome; how can there be no benefit? Neither side can be answered, and so Subhūti leaves these two extremes and answers by the real mark of all dharmas—it refutes even what is practised by day, how much more what is in a dream. That is why he says that if practising prajñā by day has benefit, at night too it should have benefit, while even by day there is no benefit, how much less in a dream. It closes with one sentence: 「般若波羅蜜，不分別有晝、夜。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā does not discriminate between day and night." Only at this point does that sentence of the second passage, day and night are equal and without difference, come to land.
23. Since he knows there is neither increase nor decrease, he should not raise the difficulty again. The treatise-author records a transitional sentence: Śāriputra, hearing what Subhūti said, since he knows that prajñā has neither increase nor decrease, should not raise the difficulty again. This sentence is the joint of the passage—the first difficulty is finished, and the question below is not the old difficulty raised again, but a separate matter raised. In reading long passages of question and answer, one must watch for such joining sentences, or else it is easy to mistake a later difficulty for an entanglement of the earlier one.
24. The gloss on gathering and coming to completion. The treatise-author glosses 「集成」 tr. "gathering and coming to completion" word by word: does this deed really gather and become able to complete a retribution or not? The gloss here is not superfluous text—if the two characters were not glossed, the whole debate that follows would hang in the air. In reading this treatise, one should form a habit: when the treatise-author stops to gloss a word, that word is certainly the key to that passage.
25. The dream-mind is feeble and cannot gather and come to completion. The treatise-author argues: if a deed were real, then since the Buddha constantly says 「一切法空如夢」 tr. "all dharmas are empty, like a dream," it should not be able to gather and come to completion; why? Because this dream-mind is feeble, it cannot gather and come to completion. He pushes one layer further—even the feeble mind of the daytime cannot gather and come to completion, how much less in a dream; and yet after waking from the dream, when one discriminates the wholesome and unwholesome minds that arose in the dream, this should gather and come to completion. At this point both sides that Śāriputra laid out in the third passage have received the treatise-author's placement: the mind in a dream has no strength; the discrimination after waking has strength.
26. The treatise-author restates the question of killing in a dream. The treatise-author restates, following the text, the case Subhūti set up: as when a person in a dream kills someone and, upon waking, discriminates, "was my killing a pleasure?"—how is this deed? does it gather and come to completion or not? This is the treatise-author repeating the sūtra text; it is not another speaker asking on the spot; in reading the style of the Expository Treatise, one must distinguish which sentence is sūtra and which is the treatise-author citing the sūtra.
27. The treatise-author restates Śāriputra's answer. The treatise-author repeats Śāriputra's words: all deeds, whether by day or in a dream, arise from causes and conditions; without causes and conditions they do not arise. The sūtra text originally says no condition and with a condition; the treatise-author cites it as causes and conditions—the same in meaning and smoother in wording; this is the ordinary way the treatise-author explains the sūtra following the text.
28. Subhūti approves his words. The treatise-author records Subhūti's words of approval: a deed arises with causes and conditions and does not arise without causes and conditions; a construction arises with causes and conditions and does not arise without causes and conditions. The three Chinese characters rendered here as ‘approves his words’ are important—since the criterion was set up by the questioner himself, the one answering need only approve it, and the debate need not be dragged further.
29. The gloss on deed and construction, and the four dharmas that are the causes of the three deeds. This passage is the densest in doctrine of the whole chapter; the treatise-author glosses four layers in one breath. First, he distinguishes deed and construction: 「業者，身口業；思者，但意業。」 tr. "Deeds are the deeds of body and speech; construction is only the deed of the mind." Second, he judges weight: construction is the true deed; the deeds of body and speech are called deeds because of construction. Third, the place of origin: the causes of these three deeds are four dharmas—seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing; because of these four the mind arises; the mind arises following causes and conditions, either pure or impure; the impure is sinful deed, the pure is meritorious deed. Fourth, it lands on the dream: what is seen in a dream is all because of prior seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing; the wholesome and evil done in a dream, 「為眠覆心、不自在故，無有勢力，不能集成果報」 tr. "because sleep covers the mind and it is not free, has no strength and cannot gather to complete a retribution"; if this deed is obtained at the time of waking, then because the wholesome or evil mind comes together with it, it can help to complete a retribution. The headings of the four dharmas are listed by the treatise's own text, and need not be sought from outside; and the four each have what they belong to: seeing belongs to what eye-consciousness takes up, hearing to what ear-consciousness takes up, sensing covers what the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue, and body touch and receive, and knowing belongs to the discernment of mind-consciousness. This treatise elsewhere asks itself why eye, ear, and mind are each given a separate name while the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue, and body are combined into the one of sensing, and answers that their use in aiding the path is more or less, and that what they know is either only of the world or reaches also to what transcends the world—because the use differs, they are spoken of separately; because the use is the same, they are spoken of together. Outside these four gates, the mind has no condition from which to arise; that what is seen in a dream is all because of prior seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing is precisely because, apart from these four gates, there is nothing that can be the material of a dream. The measure of the whole passage lies in the last sentence: the dream-deed cannot complete a retribution by itself, yet it can be helped to completion by the mind after waking—this is exactly the right understanding of what Śāriputra doubted in the third passage.
30. Subhūti's meaning is that the deed in a dream really does gather and come to completion. The treatise-author brings out Subhūti's meaning: the deed in a dream really does gather and come to completion; why? Because it arises from causes and conditions; the mind by day and the mind in a dream are without difference; both arise because of the four kinds. Here it must be read together with the preceding passage—the preceding passage says the dream-deed has no strength; this passage says the dream-deed has causes and conditions; what has no strength cannot complete a retribution alone; what has causes and conditions is not wholly nothing. The two statements do not contradict each other; the dividing line lies in whether it can complete a retribution alone or not.
31. Śāriputra objects from emptiness. The treatise-author restates Śāriputra's difficulty: as the Buddha says, all deeds are separated from their own marks; how do you say for certain that deeds arise with causes and conditions and do not arise without causes and conditions? The difficulty lies in the one character rendered here as ‘for certain’—it is not objecting to the teaching of causes and conditions itself; it is objecting to clinging to the teaching of causes and conditions as a fixed teaching.
32. Because ordinary people grasp at marks, deeds arise. The treatise-author brings out Subhūti's answer: though dharmas are empty and separated from marks, ordinary people grasp at marks, and because there are causes and conditions, deeds arise; if they do not grasp at marks, then without causes and conditions they do not arise; therefore all deeds exist because they arise from the causes and conditions of grasping at marks, and by day and in a dream there is no difference. At this point the two characters rendered as ‘grasping at marks’ in the eighth passage receive their full placement: emptiness and cause and effect are not spoken on the same level; emptiness is the mark of the dharma itself, cause and effect are the affair of the one who grasps at marks.
33. The question of dedication comes out again. The treatise-author restates Śāriputra's third question: when the bodhisattva practises the six perfections in a dream and dedicates it to the unsurpassed path, is this a real dedication or not? The sūtra text speaks of six matters, giving, keeping the precepts, and the rest; the treatise-author cites them as the six perfections—a gathering-up according to the meaning, not a change of meaning.
34. The two sides of the difficulty about dedication. The treatise-author states Śāriputra's difficulty in full: if in a dream and by day there is no difference, then this dedication in a dream should be real; and again, if by day a clinging mind that grasps at marks is still not called dedication, how much less when sleep covers the mind. This difficulty attacks from both sides—pushed along equal and without difference, the dedication in a dream becomes real; pushed along grasping at marks not being called dedication, in a dream it is even less so. Wherever a difficulty has two sides, if the one answering breaks only one side, the difficulty still stands.
35. Because the two difficulties are deep, the question is yielded. The treatise-author explains why Subhūti yields the question: because these two difficulties are deep and hard to answer, he tells Śāriputra that he should ask Maitreya. This sentence is exactly the right understanding of the tenth passage—the reason for yielding the question lies in the depth of the difficulty, not in evasion.
36. The treatise-author sets up a question: why Maitreya only speaks of emptiness and does not answer. The treatise-author raises a question for the second time, and what he asks about is Maitreya's silence: why does Maitreya only speak of emptiness and not answer? If the reader too has had this doubt in his mind, he has read it rightly; the treatise-author's questions are often asked on the reader's behalf.
37. The two great disciples each have something they cling to. The treatise-author answers: these two great disciples, for the sake of benefiting bodhisattvas, discriminate whether waking and dreaming are the same or different; because the Buddha constantly says 「一切法如夢」 tr. "all dharmas are like a dream," if one practises the path by day, one should also practise the path in a dream. This answer first speaks of the intent of the two men's question and answer—it is to discriminate sameness and difference for the sake of benefiting bodhisattvas, not to contend for victory.
38. Maitreya knows what they cling to, and so does not answer. The treatise-author goes on to bring out the reason for not answering: because Maitreya knows and sees that the two men each have something they cling to and cannot penetrate it, therefore Maitreya does not answer. This is a way of teaching: while what is clung to has not loosened, answering same or answering different both fall into the clinging, and so he does not answer. Not answering is not having no answer; it is not giving an answer that will be seized and held.
39. Again someone says: Maitreya answers by emptiness. The treatise-author records another view: again someone says that Maitreya answers by this emptiness. The two views are set side by side without judgement—one says he does not answer, one says he takes emptiness as the answer. The reader keeps both; the treatise-author does not adopt or reject here, and in reading this treatise, wherever views are set side by side, one must not make the ruling in the treatise-author's place.
40. Śāriputra asks whether this is taken as realisation. The treatise-author restates Śāriputra's question: as you speak of emptiness, do you take this as realisation or not? This question comes from the preceding view—since it is said that Maitreya answers by emptiness, one can press further whether this emptiness is what is realised.
41. The two horns in Śāriputra's intent. The treatise-author brings out Śāriputra's intent: if you take this dharma as realisation, I would raise the difficulty of how it is realisation; if you do not realise it, you yourself have not obtained it and do not know it; how can you speak it? Both ends are blocked: saying one realises it invites the difficulty; saying one does not realise it forfeits the standing to speak. This is a pincer common in debate, and its form is worth noting.
42. Maitreya's intent: because nirvāṇa too is empty, he does not realise it. The treatise-author brings out Maitreya's intent: you take nirvāṇa as realisation; I, because nirvāṇa too is empty and there is nothing to be attained, do not realise it. This answer undoes the pincer—not realising is not failing to obtain; it is that the so-called place of realisation is itself also empty, and so there is nothing that can be taken as realisation. The not realising of the fourteenth passage here receives its reason.
43. Someone says: because he has not yet fulfilled the dharmas of a Buddha, he does not realise it. The treatise-author records one more view: someone says that because Maitreya has not yet fulfilled the dharmas of a Buddha, he says he does not realise it; the bodhisattva's dharma should know the dharmas of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, and should not realise them. This view assigns not realising to the portion of the bodhisattva's station—knowing and not realising is the bodhisattva's dharma. It is set side by side with the preceding view, still without judgement.
44. The reason for the depth, and Śāriputra's own statement of causes and conditions. The treatise-author explains Śāriputra's thought: to be able to know the mark of nirvāṇa and not take realisation is called very deep. He also records Śāriputra's own statement of causes and conditions: 「久行六波羅蜜故，其智甚深。」 tr. "Because he has long practised the six perfections, his wisdom is very deep." At the end he brings out a turn in Śāriputra's mind: Maitreya will be the next to become a Buddha; he ought to be able to answer, and yet now he does not answer. This turn is the lead-in to the Buddha's coming forward in the next passage—the doubt has not ceased, and so the Buddha takes it over himself.
45. The Buddha in turn questions Śāriputra. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's question: therefore the Buddha in turn questions Śāriputra—what do you think? do you see the dharma by which you obtained arhatship or not? The two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘in turn questions’ point out the Buddha's intent—not resolving it from Maitreya's side, but from the questioner's own realised state.
46. The gloss on not seeing. The treatise-author glosses Śāriputra's not seeing word by word: this dharma is empty, signless, and without action; how could it be seen? If it were seen, that would be having a mark. He also speaks by way of the three eyes: the fleshly eye and the divine eye discriminate and grasp at marks, and so should not see it; the wisdom-eye has no mark of discrimination, and so also does not see it. By both roads it is not seen, yet the reasons for not seeing differ—the former is not fit to see, the latter has no mark to be seen. This gloss is best read closely; otherwise one will misread the not seeing of the noble one as the not seeing of an ordinary person.
47. The Buddha seals it by the acceptance of non-arising. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's closing words: when the bodhisattva obtains the acceptance of non-arising, he does not say, I see this dharma, I obtain the prediction, I shall obtain the unsurpassed path; though he does not have this view, he also does not give rise to the doubt that I shall not obtain the unsurpassed path; just as you, though you do not see the dharma, also do not doubt whether I have become an arhat or have not become an arhat. Taking Śāriputra's own realisation as the simile, he seals the bodhisattva's practice, and the first half closes here.
48. The vow of giving—hunger and cold and freezing and starvation, clothes worn out and ruined. Sūtra ② rises with a changed face: the Buddha tells Subhūti that when the bodhisattva practises dānapāramitā, if he sees beings in hunger and cold and freezing and starvation, with clothes worn out and ruined, the bodhisattva should make this vow—for however long I practise dānapāramitā, when I obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, may the beings in my land have no such matter; may their clothing, food and drink, and necessities of life be like those of the Heaven of the Four Heavenly Kings and so on up to the heaven of the gods Sovereign over Others' Transformations; it closes by saying that he can fulfil dānapāramitā and draws near to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This first vow is at the same time the sample of the form for the whole passage, with three clear sections: seeing the marks of beings' suffering; making the vow according to the perfection being practised; closing with fulfilling this perfection and drawing near to awakening. All the vows that follow keep to these three sections, and the reader can hold this as his measuring rule. Further: the passages ranged in parallel in the sentence-form 「當作是願」 tr. "should make this vow" number twenty-nine in the sūtra text, and at the end there is one more passage in the form 「當作是念」 tr. "should have this thought"; in his explanation the treatise-author takes that passage as 「最後願」 tr. "the last vow"—so by the word "vow" in the sūtra text there are twenty-nine, and by the treatise-author's naming there are thirty; here both are recorded as they are, without forcing a single number.
49. The vow of morality—the retributions of killing and so on up to wrong view. When the bodhisattva practises śīlapāramitā, he sees beings who kill and so on up to hold wrong view, short-lived, much ill, of poor complexion, without majesty and virtue, poor in wealth, born into low and mean families, maimed and ugly in form, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no such matter. In this vow one must see a line of cause and effect: the marks listed are all retributions of breaking the precepts, and so what the vow remedies lies not in the mark but in the cause. The reader must not read it as the bodhisattva despising ugly people.
50. The vow of patience—hatred and abuse, harm by knives and staves. When the bodhisattva practises kṣāntipāramitā, he sees beings in hatred and abuse toward one another, harming one another and taking life with knives and staves, tiles and stones, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no such matter; and it goes a layer further: 「相視如父、如母，如兄、如弟，如姊、如妹，如善知識，皆行慈悲。」 tr. "May they look on one another as father, as mother, as elder brother, as younger brother, as elder sister, as younger sister, as good friends, all practising kindness and compassion." This vow does not stop at removing evil; it also establishes the wholesome mark that is wished for—the fruit of the perfection of patience is not that no one contends, but that everyone looks on everyone as kin.
51. The vow of vigour—laziness and abandoning the three vehicles. When the bodhisattva practises vīryapāramitā, he sees beings who are lazy, not diligent in vigour, and abandon the three vehicles, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no such matter, that all beings diligently cultivate vigour and each obtain deliverance in the paths of the three vehicles. Here the heading 「三乘」 tr. "three vehicles" is listed by the sūtra text itself—the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the Buddha vehicle. The difference among the three this treatise elsewhere judges by three matters: the condition by which one enters the path, the depth of awakening to emptiness, and the breadth of compassion for beings: the śrāvaka enters by hearing the Dharma from another, and from first entering the path up to the arhat all belong to this; it is the dharma of disciples; the pratyekabuddha does not hear from another, but either awakens by contemplating causes and conditions or awakens by himself in this life and accomplishes the path; his awakening to emptiness is somewhat deeper, but his mind of compassion for beings is still small; the Buddha vehicle, from the first arousing of the mind, makes the vow to deliver all beings, practises the six perfections, and gives rise to great kindness and great compassion, and its knowledge of the general mark and the specific mark knows all without exception. That the three each form one vehicle lies not in the height of the name of the fruit-station, but in the breadth of the arousing of the mind and in how far the knowledge reaches. What the vow grants is that each obtains deliverance, not that all equally enter one vehicle; it stands together with the later vow of purely the one Great Vehicle without obstruction, each spoken according to what it remedies.
52. The vow of meditation—the mind covered by the five hindrances, the meditative concentrations lost. When the bodhisattva practises dhyānapāramitā, he sees beings covered by the five hindrances, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no such matter. The headings of the five hindrances are listed by the sūtra text itself: lust, hatred, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, doubt—lust is the mind greedily stained by the realm of the five desires, fastening on what it loves and unable to draw back; hatred is the mind giving rise to loathing, anger, vexation, and harm toward an adverse realm; sleep is body and mind sunk in torpor and dull darkness, the power of clear illumination wholly lost, no different from death; restlessness and remorse are two joined into one: agitation is the mind floating, moving, scattered, and disordered, and cannot be held; regret is recalling what one has done or left undone and being vexed, as if an arrow were in the heart; the two alike have disturbance as their nature, and so are set up together as one hindrance; doubt is hesitating over the Dharma without deciding, the mind with nothing fixed, like entering a mountain of treasure with no hands to take it. That the five are called hindrances lies precisely in the single character 「覆」 tr. "cover"—they do not make people do evil; they keep the mind from clarity, and so what is lost is all the dharmas of concentration. What is lost is also listed by the text itself: the first dhyāna and so on up to the fourth dhyāna; kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity; the sphere of boundless space, the sphere of boundless consciousness, the sphere of nothing whatsoever, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. Kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity this treatise elsewhere glosses word by word: kindness is loving and holding beings in mind, always seeking matters of safety and happiness to benefit them—it is the mind that gives happiness; compassion is pitying and holding in mind the various sufferings of body and suffering of mind that beings undergo in the five destinies—it is the mind that removes suffering; joy is wishing that beings, from the happiness they have obtained, should give rise to further gladness, not stopping at giving them happiness; equanimity is letting go even of the preceding three minds, only keeping beings in mind without hating and without loving, keeping only equality. The four formless spheres too have their own sequence: constantly contemplating the emptiness of the body, keeping it in mind and not letting go, one passes beyond form and no longer sees the body, and what is contemplated is immeasurable and boundless—this is the sphere of boundless space; since space is boundless, taking it as object by consciousness makes the objects many and scattered, and so one gives up the object of space and takes only consciousness as object, with the one consciousness now present taking as object throughout the immeasurable consciousnesses of past and future—this is the sphere of boundless consciousness; the mark of consciousness too is like an illness, like a boil; breaking all the marks of consciousness, one binds the mind to nothing whatsoever—this is the sphere of nothing whatsoever; as for the highest sphere, because perception is already subtle and hard to be aware of, it is called not having perception, and because perception is really not yet severed, it is also called not without perception. These eight are none of them the doing of evil; they are precisely what the mind is able to obtain—once the five hindrances cover it, all eight are lost. What this vow sees is the subtlest—not seeing people do evil, but seeing people's minds covered and losing what they could obtain.
53. The vow of prajñā—folly and delusion and the loss of right view. When the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he sees beings in folly and delusion, having lost the worldly and the world-transcending right view, some saying there are no deeds and no causes and conditions of deeds, some saying the soul is permanent, some saying annihilation, some saying there is nothing existent, and should make the vow of purifying buddha-worlds and bringing beings to accomplishment. What this vow remedies is view, not conduct; the wrong views listed also come from the sūtra text itself. From this vow on, the phrase 「淨佛世界、成就眾生」 tr. "purifying buddha-worlds and bringing beings to accomplishment" appears in the vow-words, and the closing words too mostly become drawing near to the omniscience of all kinds—yet the change of form is not uniform: after it, the two vows of no attachment and of the four castes still close with 「近阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "draws near to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," and the vows further on no longer show the phrase 「淨佛世界、成就眾生」 tr. "purifying buddha-worlds and bringing beings to accomplishment." The reader should take note, and must not hold to one pattern to cover the whole passage.
54. The vow of the three groups—the rightly assured, the wrongly assured, the unassured. When the bodhisattva practises the six perfections, he sees beings abiding in the three groups, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no wrongly assured group, not even its name. The headings of the three groups are listed by the sūtra text itself: first, the rightly assured group; second, the wrongly assured group; third, the unassured group—those of the rightly assured group have roots of goodness already fixed, and though they meet adverse conditions they will in the end surely tend toward the right path and not retrogress; those of the wrongly assured group have wrong view already firm, and though they meet good conditions they do not turn their minds, and are certain to fall into the evil destinies; those of the unassured group are fixed in neither direction: meeting good conditions they enter the right, meeting evil conditions they enter the wrong, their going and taking wholly bound to what they meet. The division of the three lies not in the good or evil of a single moment, but in whether their facing toward or turning away is already fixed or not yet fixed. The vow removes only the wrongly assured group, not the rightly assured group or the unassured group—the wording is most carefully measured; 「乃至無其名」 tr. "not even its name" is a sentence-form seen again and again from this passage on—what is wished for is that not even the name is set up.
55. The vow of the three evil destinies—the hells, the animals, the hungry ghosts. When the bodhisattva practises the six perfections, he sees the beings in the hells, the beings among the animals and the hungry ghosts, and should make the vow that in my land there be not even the name of the three evil destinies. What is seen is the place of beings; what is vowed is that there be not even the name of the place. The power of the vow lies here: it is not moving the beings of the evil destinies away, but making the land have no such kind to begin with.
56. The vow of the mark of the ground—stumps and thorns, hills and ditches. The bodhisattva sees the great earth with stumps and thorns, hills and ditches, foul and evil places, and should make the vow that my land have no such evil: 「地平如掌」 tr. "the ground level as the palm of a hand." From here, for several vows, what is seen turns from beings to the vessel-world—the mark of the land too is within the vow. The reader must not read the vows of the pure land only as delivering beings; the mark of the vessel-realm is equally gathered into the bodhisattva's practice.
57. The vow of the jewelled ground—the great earth of pure soil, without gold, silver, or precious things. The bodhisattva sees the great earth of pure soil, without gold, silver, or precious things, and should make the vow that my land be spread with golden sand. This vow is easily read as greed and love for precious things, but read together with what comes before and after, it is plain: the vow above removes foulness and evil, this vow establishes adornment; both are so that the mark of the land accords with the path, not for enjoyment.
58. The vow of no attachment—seeing beings with something they are attached to. The bodhisattva sees beings with something they are attached to, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have nothing they are attached to. The two vows above have just established the adornment of golden sand spread on the ground, and this vow at once removes attachment—adornment and non-attachment standing together is precisely where the vows of the pure land differ from worldly wealth and pleasure. Read the two vows in succession, and the doubt about the earlier vow unties itself.
59. The vow of the four castes—kṣatriya and so on up to śūdra. The bodhisattva sees beings of the four castes, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no name of the four castes. The headings of the four castes are listed by the sūtra text itself: kṣatriya, brahmin, vaiśya, śūdra—the kṣatriya is the royal clan that rules; the brahmin is the clan that by hereditary practice performs sacrifices and recites the scriptures; the vaiśya is the clan that trades and works at business; the śūdra is the clan that serves and labours. The four are a worldly institution that judges people high and low by the place of birth, not divided by conduct and deeds, and so what is vowed lies not in changing their conduct, but in letting the name of this discrimination have nothing to stand on. What is removed is the name, which is to remove its discrimination; the vow lies not in changing people's bodies, but in letting the name of discrimination have nothing to stand on.
60. The vow of superior and inferior—low, middle, and high, and the families one is born into. The bodhisattva sees beings who are low, middle, and high, born into low, middle, and high families, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no such superior and inferior. This vow goes a layer deeper than the vow above: the vow above removes the name of clan and caste; this vow removes high and low between person and person. Read the two vows together, and one sees that the equality the bodhisattva vows for lies not only in institutions, but in the marks the mind takes as object.
61. The vow of wondrous form—all kinds of different forms. The bodhisattva sees beings with all kinds of different forms, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no such different forms, that all beings be upright, pure, and clean, accomplished in wondrous form. The measure of this vow lies in no difference, not in no form—what is removed is the mark of difference; what is established is one and the same wondrous form.
62. The vow of no master—seeing beings who have masters. The bodhisattva sees beings who have masters, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have not even the name of master, and not even its form and image: 「除佛法王」 tr. "except the Buddha, the Dharma King." The four Chinese characters rendered here as ‘except the Buddha, the Dharma King’ are most important: what is removed is the master of worldly rule and subjection, not having nothing to revere. The vow-words themselves keep this one exception, and the reader must not pass over it.
63. The vow of the six destinies—the hells and so on up to humans. The bodhisattva sees beings with the differences of the six destinies, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no name of the six destinies. The headings of the six destinies are listed by the sūtra text itself: these are the hells, these the animals, these the hungry ghosts, these the spirits, these the gods, these humans—each of the six has its mark: those in the hells, in great suffering and with minds disordered, cannot receive the Dharma; the animals, their minds covered by folly and delusion, cannot receive transformation; the hungry ghosts, their bodies burned by the fire of hunger and thirst, cannot receive the Dharma; these three are wholly places of sin. The spirits are the destiny of ghosts and spirits; this treatise does not set up the asuras separately as the name of a destiny, but includes them under ghosts and spirits; all ghosts and spirits are included within the destiny of ghosts and spirits, while the nāga kings enter the destiny of animals; where the treatise itself discusses the opening and combining of five destinies and six destinies, it says that the three evil destinies are wholly places of sin, while those whose merit is much and sin little, such as the asuras, the gandharvas, and the like, should have a separate place of birth, and therefore one should speak of six destinies—so this fourth, 「神」 tr. "spirits," is precisely a class in which sin and merit are combined and a separate place of birth is set up; it is not the preceding hungry ghosts. The treatise says elsewhere too that in the destiny of ghosts and spirits the eye-faculty and the rest are keen, yet the afflictions cover the mind, and so they cannot single-mindedly practise deep prajñā—from which it can be seen that it is a place where merit and wisdom are not matched. As for the gods, among the six destinies the destiny of the gods is highest, and receives the most excellent merit; humans have suffering and happiness combined—their suffering less than that of the three evil destinies, their happiness not equal to that of the gods, their faculties turbid and heavy, yet able to restrain the thoughts of suffering and happiness so as to practise prajñā, and so theirs is the body fit for cultivation. In the vow a practice to be wished for is further established: all beings alike share one and the same deed, cultivating the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path—no name of the six destinies, yet one and the same deed of the path.
64. The vow of birth by transformation—from eggs, from wombs, from moisture, by transformation. The bodhisattva sees beings with the four kinds of birth, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have none of the three kinds of birth, all alike born by transformation. The headings of the four kinds of birth are listed by the sūtra text itself: birth from eggs, birth from wombs, birth from moisture, birth by transformation—the marks of the four this treatise elsewhere brings out by events: birth from eggs is first forming an egg and then breaking the egg and coming out in bodily form, as when Viśākhā the Mother in one birth bore thirty-two eggs, and the eggs broke and thirty-two sons were born; birth from wombs is like the birth of ordinary people, dwelling in the womb and then coming out; birth from moisture is having bodily form by the condition of moisture and warmth, like the birth of the courtesan Āmrapālī and of the wheel-turning sage king Crown-born; birth by transformation is suddenly forming a body without anything to rely on, like the bhikṣuṇī Aluopo born by transformation from within the earth, and like people at the beginning of the kalpa, who were all born by transformation. The treatise further matches these four to the five destinies: the gods and the hells are wholly born by transformation; the hungry ghosts share the two kinds of womb and transformation; only the human destiny and the animals have all four kinds of birth. The reason birth by transformation alone is kept is that birth by transformation does not depend on the conditions of womb, moisture, and egg; at birth the body is formed and at once full-grown, without the suffering of gestation and nurture, and without the stage of weakness waiting to grow. Three are removed and one is kept; this vow is of one pattern with the vow above—removing difference and establishing equality.
65. The vow of supernormal powers—seeing beings without the five supernormal powers. The bodhisattva sees beings without the five supernormal powers, and should make the vow that the beings in my land all obtain the five supernormal powers. From this vow on, the closing words are mostly the abbreviation 「乃至近一切種智」 tr. "and so on up to drawing near to the omniscience of all kinds"—the sūtra text gathers it up with "and so on up to," abbreviating by carrying on the earlier wording of fulfilling the six perfections; it is not that the vow is lacking.
66. The vow of taking Dharma-joy as food—the trouble of excretion. The bodhisattva sees beings with the trouble of excretion, and should make the vow that the beings in my land all take Dharma-joy as food, without the trouble of excretion. What this vow sees is utterly ordinary, yet precisely shows the bodhisattva's fine-grained mind: the burdens of the body too are within the vow. What is established is not having no food, but changing the food into Dharma-joy.
67. The vow of light—seeing beings without light. The bodhisattva sees beings without light, and should make the vow that the beings in my land all have light. The vow-words are very short, and the meaning is of the same pattern as before; the reader may note that from here, for several vows, the sūtra text grows increasingly concise, what is seen and what is vowed each only a single sentence—the parallel ranging having come this far, the form is established, and the sūtra text no longer repeats the full pattern.
68. The vow of no sun and moon—the sun and moon, the seasons, and the years. The bodhisattva sees that there are the sun and moon, the seasons, and the years, and should make the vow that in my land there be no name of sun and moon, seasons, and years. What this vow removes is the measure of time. Viewed together with the vow below, measure and the measureless are precisely the theme of the several vows after this.
69. The vow of lifespan—seeing beings with short life. The bodhisattva sees beings with short life, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have a lifespan of immeasurable kalpas. The vow above removes the name of time; this vow establishes the measurelessness of life; the two vows follow on each other and do not contradict—what is removed is the discrimination of reckoning time; what is established is that life is not bounded by it.
70. The vow of the marks and minor signs—seeing beings without the marks and minor signs. The bodhisattva sees beings without the marks and minor signs, and should make the vow that the beings in my land all be accomplished in the thirty-two marks. The number of the marks comes from the sūtra text itself; what is vowed lies not in beings being handsome, but in their bodies being vessels of the path—the marks and minor signs are formed by merit, and so this vow is really a vow that beings be accomplished in merit.
71. The vow of roots of goodness—seeing beings apart from roots of goodness. The bodhisattva sees beings apart from roots of goodness, and should make the vow that the beings in my land be accomplished in roots of goodness, and by this merit make offerings to the buddhas. This vow goes a step further than the vow before: not only accomplishing roots of goodness, but making offerings to the buddhas with their merit—only when the use of roots of goodness has somewhere to return does it not become merit enjoyed for oneself.
72. The vow of no illness—the three poisons, the four illnesses. The bodhisattva sees beings with the three poisons and the four illnesses, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have none of the four kinds of illness or the illness of the three poisons. The headings of the four illnesses are listed by the sūtra text itself: cold, heat, wind illness, and the three kinds of mixed illness—this treatise elsewhere itself raises these four as the root of bodily illness, and matches them with the four elements: the four elements form the body and constantly harm one another; in each element one hundred and one illnesses arise, together making the four hundred and four sicknesses; among them the two hundred and two cold illnesses arise from the two elements of water and wind, and the two hundred and two heat illnesses arise from the two elements of earth and fire. Wind illness is when the wind element is out of balance and the whole body is thrown into disorder by it; the treatise says elsewhere that when wind illness and heat illness are severe they can make a person go mad, from which it can be seen that their power reaches even to the mind. Mixed illness is not arising from one element alone, but cold, heat, and wind breaking out together, and so the sūtra calls it the three kinds of mixed illness; when this treatise cites the sūtra it also has the words mixed heat, wind, and cold illness, meaning precisely that the three mix to form it. Removing bodily illness and the poisons of the mind together is what stands out in this vow—in terms of the body, the four illnesses; in terms of the mind, the three poisons; both within a single vow.
73. The vow of one vehicle—seeing beings with three vehicles. The bodhisattva sees beings with three vehicles, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no name of the two vehicles: 「純一大乘」 tr. "purely the one Great Vehicle." Read this vow together with the earlier vow of vigour, in which each obtains deliverance in the three vehicles, and one sees that they do not contradict: that vow remedies the laziness that abandons the three vehicles; what this vow establishes is the mark of the land. What the two vows remedy differs, and so what they say differs; they stand together without judgement.
74. The vow of no overweening pride. The bodhisattva sees beings with overweening pride, and should make the vow that the beings in my land have no name of overweening pride. Overweening pride is the illness of practitioners, not the illness of ordinary people; placed in the last section of the vows, it shows precisely that the land to be purified is without even the subtle illness of practitioners.
75. The vow of light, lifespan, and the number of the Saṅgha. In this vow the form turns: it does not start from seeing beings, but from self-examination—the bodhisattva should make this vow: if my light and lifespan are measured and the number of my Saṅgha is limited, he should make the vow that my light and lifespan be immeasurable and the number of my Saṅgha unlimited. All the vows before this were made facing the marks of beings; this vow is made facing the marks of his own body at the time of becoming a Buddha. There is a vow within the vow—a layering the sūtra text itself has.
76. The vow of a measureless land. Of the same pattern as before: if my land is measured, he should make the vow that my one land be like buddha-worlds as many as the sands of the Ganges. This vow and the vow above are both vows of self-examination, and what they vow is all measurelessness. At this point, the vow-words counted by the word "vow" in the sūtra text are exhausted.
77. Right recollection—the limit of birth and death is like space. The final passage speaks not of a vow but of a thought: when the bodhisattva practises the six perfections, he should have this thought—though the path of birth and death is long and the natures of beings are many, at that time he should rightly recollect thus: 「生死邊如虛空，眾生性邊亦如虛空，是中實無生死往來，亦無解脫者」 tr. "the limit of birth and death is like space, and the limit of the nature of beings is also like space; within this there is really no going and coming in birth and death, and no one who is liberated either." What the vows before remedied are the marks of beings and of the land; what this passage remedies is the mind-strength of the very one who practises the vows. Having come this far, the reader should look back at the first half of the chapter: the words birth and death are like space run on one road with what is seen in a dream not being real—the two halves of the whole chapter here close their seam.
78. The treatise-author sets up a question: by what order? Treatise ② at its very opening asks about the seam: by what order is it that the bodhisattva is said to see beings in hunger and cold, freezing and starvation, and the like? This question is exactly the doubt in the reader's mind on reaching Sūtra ②—the first half speaks of dreams and samādhi, the latter half suddenly speaks of the vows of the pure land; why do they follow one another? The treatise-author does not avoid it; he asks first and then answers.
79. He practises only purifying buddha-worlds and bringing beings to accomplishment. The treatise-author answers: the bodhisattva has passed beyond the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha grounds and obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and the prediction; he has no other matter left, and practises only purifying buddha-worlds and bringing beings to accomplishment; now the causes and conditions of purifying buddha-worlds are spoken of—seeing the marks of impure worlds, he vows that my land have no such matter—and therefore these matters are spoken of in order. The one phrase, he has no other matter left, sews the two halves into one matter: the mind that does not see and yet does not doubt, sealed in the first half, and what is practised in the latter half is precisely the whole of the work done holding this mind.
80. The extended explanation of the vow of giving. The treatise-author gives an extended explanation for the first vow alone, from which it can be seen that this vow is the sample for the whole passage. The bodhisattva sees beings in hunger and thirst, with clothes worn out and ruined, and at once has the thought: my merit and wisdom are now not yet accomplished, and I cannot supply in full what beings need; if I only practise the mind of kindness and compassion, it is of no benefit to beings. Therefore for however long it takes, 「深行三種福德，住三種福德中」 tr. "he deeply practises the three kinds of merit and abides within the three kinds of merit," and can make poor beings all obtain fulfilment—becoming a wheel-turning sage king, or becoming a king of the gods, or becoming a sage with supernormal powers, he can then guide beings in great numbers, break their firm greed, and make them abide in giving. As for the so-called three kinds of merit, the treatise's text does not list their names separately here; what comes out afterward is the use of the three kinds of body, and the reader must not supply a set of headings in the treatise-author's place. At the end the general principle is brought out: all conditioned dharmas belong to causes and conditions; because the wholesome causes and conditions are fulfilled, all obtain their retribution as wished—the reason the vows can be accomplished lies in this principle.
81. The brief explanation of the vow of morality. The treatise-author explains the second vow in only one sentence: because of the causes and conditions of beings breaking śīlapāramitā, they are short-lived, much ill, without majesty and virtue, and the like; the bodhisattva makes this vow: 「我自具足持戒，亦教眾生令持戒」 tr. "I myself fully keep the precepts, and also teach beings to keep the precepts." Keeping them oneself and teaching others raised together is the full form of the vow of the perfection of morality—only wishing that others keep the precepts while not keeping them oneself, the vow is not accomplished.
82. The remaining vows are to be discriminated according to their meaning. The treatise-author says plainly here: the remaining vows are likewise; discriminate them according to their meaning. These words are a rule of explanation the treatise-author sets for himself—not a passing-over, but showing people an example, so that the reader, by the pattern of the first two vows, explains the rest himself. In reading this treatise, meeting words of this kind, one must oneself push through the remaining vows one by one according to the pattern; only then does it count as having read it through.
83. Because the meaning of the last vow is not clear, it is explained briefly. The treatise-author singles out the last vow: the meaning of the last vow is not clear; now I shall explain it briefly. The marks of the earlier vows are evident; the words of this passage are hidden, and so it must be explained separately. Here too the treatise-author's naming can be seen—the sūtra text in this passage says should have this thought, and the treatise-author calls it a vow; this is recorded as it is, without forcing them to agree.
84. The mind of exhaustion and weariness is wrong recollection. The treatise-author first writes out the actual state of the mind of exhaustion and weariness: after the bodhisattva has made vows such as those above, a mind of exhaustion and weariness arises—the Buddha path can be obtained only after practising all the merits for immeasurable, countless asaṃkhyeya kalpas; yet the years of a single kalpa already cannot be counted, which is why the Buddha shows it to people by similes, how much more passing through birth and death and undergoing all sufferings and vexations for immeasurable, boundless asaṃkhyeya kalpas; beings too are immeasurable and boundless; beings equal to the atoms of the three-thousand great-thousand world are already hard to deliver, how much more beings equal to the atoms of the immeasurable worlds of the ten directions. Because of these matters, the mind may give rise to retreat and sinking: 「是名邪憶念」 tr. "this is called wrong recollection." What matters is that the treatise-author does not rebuke this mind; he first describes it with the utmost truth, and only then judges it to be wrong recollection—the wrongness lies not in the feeling of suffering and vexation, but in retreating and sinking because of it.
85. The three roads of right recollection. The treatise-author brings out the right recollection the Buddha teaches, speaking of it along three roads. First, though birth and death are long, all this is empty, 「如虛空、如夢中所見」 tr. "like space, like what is seen in a dream," not really long and far, and one should not give rise to a mind of weariness—this is exactly in accord with the first half of the chapter. Second, the future age too is what a single thought takes as object, and it too is not long and far—the feeling of length and distance arises from the mark taken as object. Third, because of the bodhisattva's power of immeasurable merit and wisdom, he can pass beyond immeasurable kalpas. Each of the three roads cures one illness: the first cures his clinging to length as real; the second cures his fear formed from the mark taken as object; the third cures his doubt that his own power to deliver is weak.
86. The Buddha speaks the great causes and conditions: delivering them is not hard either. The whole chapter closes with the great causes and conditions the Buddha himself speaks: 「生死如虛空，眾生亦如是；眾生雖多，亦無定實眾生。如眾生無量無邊，佛智慧亦無量無邊，度亦不難，是故菩薩不應生疲厭心。」 tr. "Birth and death are like space, and beings likewise; though beings are many, there are no fixed, real beings either. As beings are without measure and without limit, the Buddha's wisdom too is without measure and without limit, and delivering them is not hard either; therefore the bodhisattva should not give rise to a mind of exhaustion and weariness." This close has two layers. First, the beings to be delivered are not fixed and real, and so their being without measure does not become an obstruction. Second, the Buddha's wisdom that can deliver is also without measure, and so without measure matches without measure. The question at the chapter's head, whether the samādhi in a dream is beneficial or not, is by now far behind; yet one thread is unbroken—not taking what is seen as real, therefore not grasping; not taking the measureless as hard, therefore not retrogressing. Not grasping and not retrogressing are precisely the head and the tail of the whole chapter.
Do Not Misread
Do not read 「晝、夜夢中等無異」 tr. "day, night, and dream are equal and without difference" as the dream being as real as waking. If it were equally real, then killing someone in a dream would have the same retribution as killing someone when awake; yet the treatise-author goes on to explain that the wholesome and evil done in a dream 「無有勢力，不能集成果報」 tr. "have no strength and cannot gather to complete a retribution," precisely because the dream-mind is covered by sleep and is not free. From this it can be seen that equal and without difference is said with respect to prajñā not discriminating between day and night, not with respect to the reality of the dream-world. In reading the prajñā sūtras and treatises, whenever one meets words such as equal and without difference, without duality and without difference, one must first ask one question: with respect to which dharma is it said to be equal?
Do not read 「夢中無有法集成」 tr. "in a dream there is no dharma that gathers and comes to completion" as doing evil in a dream having no bearing at all. The treatise-author's gloss distinguishes most finely: because sleep covers the mind and it is not free, the deed in a dream has no strength and cannot complete a retribution by itself; yet when, after waking, one discriminates, recollects, imagines, and grasps at marks, and the wholesome or evil mind comes together with it, it can help to complete a retribution. So the dream itself does not form sin or merit; the grasping and clinging toward the dream after waking is the real gate. If a practitioner reproaches himself because of an evil dream, or congratulates himself because of a good dream, he falls exactly into the recollection, imagining, and discrimination at the time of waking of which the treatise-author speaks.
Do not read Maitreya's 「如是不證」 tr. "thus I do not realise it" as his not having obtained the Dharma or being unwilling to answer. The treatise-author himself answers the reason: Maitreya knows that the two men each have something they cling to and cannot penetrate it, and so does not answer; and he records two further views: one says Maitreya answers by this emptiness, one says that because he has not yet fulfilled the dharmas of a Buddha he says he does not realise it. The three views are set side by side and the treatise-author does not judge; the reader must not take one view as settled in the treatise-author's place. As for the meaning of not realising, the treatise-author himself brings out its principle: because nirvāṇa too is empty and there is nothing to be attained, he does not realise it—it is that the place of realisation itself has no mark that can be grasped, not that there is no realisation to be attained. The sūtra text itself is also clear: Śāriputra, hearing it, praises his wisdom as very deep; he does not mock his inability.
Do not read Śāriputra's 「不見」 tr. "not seeing" as knowing nothing at all. The treatise-author separates two roads word by word: the fleshly eye and the divine eye discriminate and grasp at marks, and so should not see; the wisdom-eye has no mark of discrimination, and so also does not see. The former is not fit to see; the latter has no mark to be seen. Śāriputra states of himself that he does not see, and the Buddha at once seals the bodhisattva's practice by this—not seeing and yet not doubting. If not seeing is read as bewilderment, then the latter half of the sentence, he knows of himself that he really obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, has nothing to rest on.
Do not read the vows of purifying buddha-worlds as the bodhisattva loathing the beings of defiled lands. The first half of every vow is seeing the marks of beings' suffering; the latter half is vowing that his land have no such matter; what is tied in between is the perfection being practised—seeing hunger and cold, he practises giving; seeing the breaking of precepts, he practises morality; seeing hatred and harm, he practises patience. What is removed is the marks of suffering and their causes, not the people who suffer; and in the vows the wholesome marks that are wished for are established again and again, such as looking on one another as father, mother, brothers, and sisters, all practising kindness and compassion, and being accomplished in roots of goodness so as to make offerings to the buddhas. The treatise-author further explains the first vow at length as the bodhisattva being ashamed that his merit and wisdom are not yet accomplished and deeply practising merit—the starting point of the vow is one's own insufficiency, not finding fault with others.
Do not read 「餘殘諸願亦如是，隨義分別」 tr. "the remaining vows are likewise; discriminate them according to their meaning" as meaning the other vows can be passed over. The treatise-author explains the first two vows and establishes their pattern, and then shows people the example, wanting the reader to explain the rest himself by the pattern. If these words are read as an abridgement, the specific marks of the twenty-odd vows are thrown away along with it—and that the marks of suffering seen in each vow differ, and the wholesome marks established differ, is precisely what is richest in this passage.
Do not read the mind of exhaustion and weariness as a fault and hurry to rebuke it. The treatise-author first writes out in full the reasons for the mind of exhaustion and weariness—the number of kalpas cannot be calculated, beings cannot be counted, beings equal to atoms are already hard to deliver—and only then judges it to be wrong recollection. The wrongness lies not in finding it hard, but in retreating and sinking because of the hardness. If the reader is right now troubled by this mind, let him see that what the treatise-author gives is three roads of right recollection, not a sentence of blame.
Bearing on Practice
The first use: dreams can be taken up for self-examination without self-reproach. The treatise-author says it plainly: what is seen in a dream is all because of prior seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing; a dream does not create new conditions, it only turns over old ones. So the greed and hatred that appear in a dream are shadows of what was practised in the daytime. The one who applies himself can make a gentle self-inquiry here—not asking what I did in the dream, but asking from which seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing this shadow came. As for what is done in a dream, because sleep covers the mind it has no strength and from the start does not form a retribution; what must really be watched is that one thought of recollection, imagining, and discrimination after waking.
The second use: the two characters rendered as ‘grasping at marks’ can serve as a daily watchfulness. The treatise-author lands the pivot of deeds arising from causes and conditions on grasping at marks: because of grasping at marks, with a condition a deed arises; if one does not grasp at marks, then without causes and conditions it does not arise. Its use at the gate of practice is very simple—when a realm comes, first do not hurry to judge it good or bad; look back to see whether one has already seized something on the mark. If one has seized it, the deed arises from there; if one does not seize it, the same realm passes, and passes away. By day and in a dream there is no difference—what this says is exactly this one place of no difference.
The third use: being able to say it and having realised it must be kept apart. Maitreya speaks most deeply and yet says of himself that he does not realise it, and Śāriputra for this reason praises his wisdom as very deep. What those who study the Dharma most easily fall into is taking speaking for realising—once they can explain clearly, they think they have arrived. The criterion this chapter gives lies not in eloquence but in nothing to be attained: whenever one feels one has seized some insight and will not let it go, that is exactly grasping at marks; only when one speaks the Dharma and the mind does not grasp a place of realisation is it Maitreya's kind of speaking.
The fourth use: not seeing and yet not doubting can be put to use directly. After long practice two illnesses often arise: either one seeks a clear proof of realisation and does not get it, and so gives rise to a retreating mind; or one fabricates a proof of realisation oneself and abides clinging within it. What the Buddha gives is two sentences standing together—he does not have the thought, this dharma will obtain the prediction; and he also does not give rise to the doubt that I shall not obtain the unsurpassed path. The first sentence takes down the fabricated proof; the latter sentence holds up the faith that does not retrogress. Lacking either of the two, it is either clinging or doubt.
The fifth use: the vows can be taken one by one as samples for making vows. Every vow follows the same method: seeing a mark of suffering, tying it to the perfection one is now cultivating, vowing that in the future land there be no such matter, and closing with this practice being able to fulfil this perfection and draw near to awakening. In daily use the making of vows is often vague and floating; this passage gives a most concrete pattern—what is the mark of suffering I have seen today, which perfection am I now cultivating, what is to be removed in the vow and what is to be established. Even such matters as the trouble of excretion and the absence of light are within the vows, from which it can be seen that there is no mark of suffering that cannot enter a vow.
The sixth use: when the mind of exhaustion and weariness comes, there are three roads to walk. What the treatise-author gives is not a single sentence about endurance: first, contemplate birth and death as like space, like what is seen in a dream, not really long and far—length is the mark taken as object, not the reality taken as object. Second, contemplate the future age too as what a single thought takes as object, and it too is not long and far—the length of the future appears only in this present thought. Third, recall that because of the bodhisattva's power of immeasurable merit and wisdom he can pass beyond immeasurable kalpas—do not measure the journey to come by the strength of the present. The three roads can be taken up as occasion requires; and at the very end there are also the great causes and conditions the Buddha himself speaks, to hold to: though beings are many, there are no fixed, real beings either; the Buddha's wisdom too is without measure and without limit; delivering them is not hard either.
Further Resonances
The backbone of this chapter is two sūtra sections and two treatise sections. Sūtra ① begins from Śāriputra's asking whether entering the three samādhi in a dream benefits prajñā or not, and Subhūti's answer that day, night, and dream are equal and without difference; next he asks whether the deed performed in a dream gathers and comes to completion or not; Subhūti sets up the case of killing someone in a dream and asks in return; Śāriputra himself brings out the criterion of having a condition or no condition; Subhūti approves it and extends it to the mind arising among the dharmas of seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing, and the mind having purity and stain; Śāriputra objects that all deeds and all constructions are separated from their own marks, and Subhūti answers that because of grasping at marks, with a condition a deed arises; at the end he asks whether the dedication of the six perfections in a dream is real or not, and Subhūti, because Maitreya is present before them and the Buddha gave him the prediction of non-retrogression, yields the question to Maitreya. Maitreya answers that the name, form, and the emptiness of form all cannot answer; he does not see one who can answer, does not see a dharma that can be given the prediction, does not see a place of the prediction; all dharmas are without duality and without difference; Śāriputra presses whether speaking thus is obtaining the dharma and realising it or not, and Maitreya answers thus I do not realise it; Śāriputra has the thought praising his wisdom as very deep, able to speak thus because he uses nothing to be attained. The Buddha then asks Śāriputra in return whether, by this dharma, he obtained arhatship and saw this dharma; Śāriputra answers that he does not see it, and the Buddha at once seals, by not seeing and yet not doubting, the mark of the bodhisattva practising prajñā. Treatise ① first sets up the question why Śāriputra poses the difficulty of the three samādhi by way of a dream, answering that a dream is false and deceptive, like madness, not a real seeing, while the three samādhi are real; it cites what is said elsewhere, that in a dream there are the three kinds, wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate; brings out Subhūti's meaning of leaving the two extremes and answering by the real mark of all dharmas; and closes with prajñā not discriminating between day and night; next, following the text, it glosses gathering and coming to completion, makes clear that the dream-mind is feeble and cannot gather and come to completion while discrimination after waking should gather and come to completion, restates the question of killing in a dream and the answer of having a condition or no condition, glosses word by word deed and construction, the four dharmas of seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing as the causes of the three deeds, and that the wholesome and evil in a dream, because sleep covers the mind, have no strength, while at the time of waking the coming together can help to complete a retribution; next it brings out Śāriputra's difficulty from emptiness and Subhūti's answer of grasping at marks, restates the question of dedication and the two-sided difficulty, and makes clear that because the two difficulties are deep the question is yielded; again it sets up the question why Maitreya only speaks of emptiness and does not answer, brings out the meaning that he does not answer because the two great disciples each have something they cling to, and records together the two views, again someone saying he answers by emptiness and someone saying he does not realise because he has not yet fulfilled the dharmas of a Buddha; it brings out the facing of Śāriputra's intent and Maitreya's intent, and at the end explains the intent of the Buddha's questioning Śāriputra in return, glosses word by word the not seeing of the fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the wisdom-eye, and closes with the Buddha sealing the bodhisattva of the acceptance of non-arising who does not see and yet does not doubt. In Sūtra ② the Buddha tells Subhūti that the bodhisattva, when practising the six perfections, sees the various marks of suffering, lack, and foulness of beings and vows one by one to purify his land—from the vow of giving with hunger and cold and freezing and starvation, the vow of morality with the retributions of broken precepts, the vow of patience with hatred and harm, the vow of vigour with laziness and abandoning the three vehicles, the vow of meditation with the five hindrances and loss of concentration, the vow of prajñā with folly and wrong view, to the three groups, the three evil destinies, the mark of the ground, the jewelled ground, no attachment, the four castes, superior and inferior, wondrous form, no master, the six destinies, the four kinds of birth, the five supernormal powers, taking Dharma-joy as food, light, no sun and moon, seasons, and years, lifespan, the marks and minor signs, roots of goodness, no illness, one vehicle, no overweening pride; at the end come the two vows of self-examination, light, lifespan, and the number of the Saṅgha being measureless, and the land being like the sands of the Ganges; and it closes with the passage of right recollection in the form should have this thought. Treatise ② first sets up the question by what order, answering that after the bodhisattva has passed beyond the grounds of the two vehicles and obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and the prediction he has no other matter left and practises only purifying buddha-worlds and bringing beings to accomplishment; next it explains at length the vow of giving, bringing out the marks of the bodhisattva being ashamed that his merit and wisdom are not yet accomplished, deeply practising the three kinds of merit, and becoming a wheel-turning sage king, a king of the gods, or a sage with supernormal powers to guide beings and break their firm greed, closing with conditioned dharmas belonging to causes and conditions and so obtaining their retribution as wished; it briefly explains the vow of morality as keeping the precepts oneself and teaching others, and makes clear that the remaining vows are to be discriminated according to their meaning; at the end it explains the last vow alone, writes out in full the actual state of the mind of exhaustion and weariness and judges it to be wrong recollection, and brings out the three roads of right recollection—birth and death are all empty, like space, like what is seen in a dream; the future age too is what a single thought takes as object; the bodhisattva's power of merit and wisdom can pass beyond immeasurable kalpas—closing the whole chapter at last with the great causes and conditions the Buddha himself speaks, 「度亦不難」 tr. "delivering them is not hard either."
The doctrinal veins between this chapter and the chapters before and after can be seen along three lines. First, continuing what came before: the opening sentence of Sūtra ① continues the previous chapter's matter of the bodhisattva entering the three samādhi and poses the difficulty by way of a dream, and so the first half of this chapter does not separately establish the meaning of the three samādhi, but only asks about its bounds within a dream. Second, the seam within the chapter: the first half discusses dream and reality, the latter half discusses the vows of the pure land; they seem not to belong together, and the treatise-author's very first question at the opening of his explanation mends this seam—after obtaining the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and the prediction, there is no other matter left; he practises only purifying buddha-worlds and bringing beings to accomplishment; so the mind sealed in the first half is precisely the support of the work practised in the latter half. Third, reaching ahead: the 「生死邊如虛空，眾生性邊亦如虛空」 tr. "the limit of birth and death is like space, and the limit of the nature of beings is also like space" of the final passage of right recollection runs in one line with what is seen in a dream not being real at the chapter's head, and the meaning that the bodhisattva should not give rise to a mind of exhaustion and weariness is also what the chapters after this rest on when they speak at length of the places of the bodhisattva's practice.
Of the explanations of the ancient masters, two houses are worth recording for this chapter. The first is Jizang. His Commentary titles this chapter 「夢行品第五十八」 tr. "Chapter Fifty-eight: Dream Conduct," differing from the title in this treatise's base text; explaining the chapter's name, he says: 「若凡夫覺果夢，覺行是行，夢行非行。菩薩了夢覺不二，夢覺既行，覺夢亦行」 tr. "For ordinary people, waking bears fruit and dreaming does not: practice while awake is practice, practice in a dream is not practice. The bodhisattva understands that dream and waking are not two; since he practises in dream and in waking, in waking and in dream alike he practises," and again: 「今正明菩薩夢覺不二行，故云夢行亦」 tr. "Now it is precisely making clear the bodhisattva's practice in which dream and waking are not two; therefore it is called Dream Conduct"—explaining why the chapter bears its name by dream and waking being not two. His sectional division of this chapter says: 「又此亦文中具論三種義：一步論夢中行有益無益，二論夢中行集成不集成，三論夢迴向非迴向」 tr. "Further, this text fully discusses three meanings: first, it discusses whether practice in a dream is beneficial or not beneficial; second, whether practice in a dream gathers and comes to completion or does not; third, whether dedication in a dream is dedication or not dedication"—the three divisions correspond exactly to the three rounds of question and answer in this treatise's Sūtra ① and Treatise ①. This is Jizang's own division and explanation, and it and this treatise-author's explanation following the text each have their own emphasis; they are recorded together without judgement. The second is Huiying. His Commentary titles it 「釋夢中入三昧品第五十八」 tr. "Explaining Chapter Fifty-eight: Entering Samādhi in a Dream," identical character for character with the title in this treatise's base text; his sectional division of this chapter says: 「爾時舍利弗已下，就此品中大有二意：第一明乘於前品入三三昧廣化眾生，則因生論義齊於夢覺；第二從佛告須菩提有菩薩摩訶薩行檀波羅蜜時已下竟品，明菩薩之行淨佛國願」 tr. "From ‘At that time Śāriputra’ onward, within this chapter there are broadly two intentions: the first makes clear that, carrying on from the previous chapter's entering the three samādhi and widely transforming beings, a discussion arises in which dream and waking are made equal; the second, from ‘the Buddha told Subhūti: there is a bodhisattva-mahāsattva who, when practising dānapāramitā’ onward to the end of the chapter, makes clear the bodhisattva's practice of the vow to purify the buddha-land"—dividing this chapter in two, the first half making dream and waking equal and the latter half the vow to purify the buddha-land, which corresponds exactly to this treatise's division into Sūtra ① and Treatise ①, Sūtra ② and Treatise ②. Explaining the intent of Śāriputra's first question, he says: 「意謂夢是誑法，三昧是實」 tr. "The idea is that a dream is a deceptive dharma, while samādhi is real"—the same line of reasoning as this treatise-author's answer that the dream is false and deceptive while the three samādhi are real. The two houses use different chapter names; the examination of the variant names of the chapter, the division into fascicles in the various editions, and the collation of the starred notes are given in detail in the apparatus layer.
恒伽提婆品Gaṅgadevī
全文五層 →Full five layers →恒伽提婆品：大眾同聞淨土之行何以獨一女人發言取願，論主說「女人性輕躁好勝」是不是貶抑，有人言『得道不擇貴賤』何以緊接其後，佛何以不默然授記而要待她自說，「恒伽提婆」之名何以先答「何足求義」再出父母供恒伽神之說，名義既不足求何以又細訓河與天，小因緣何以起大事而佛微笑，福德既久何以方於阿閦佛國乃轉女身，「經說女人五礙」何以不成不得受記之難，不轉女身而得受記與畢女身受男子形何以並存不相違，阿難歎未曾有歎的是什麼，佛末答定光佛授記本源何以是全品之結
在問什麼
這一品短，事也單純：一個女人在會中站起來，發願行六波羅蜜、取淨佛世界，拿華與金縷織成的疊供佛，空中化成寶臺；佛微笑放光，阿難問笑的因緣，佛便為她授記——當來作佛，劫名星宿，佛號金花。全品的經文，說到底只有這麼一件事。
難處不在事，在事背後的一串疑。前面諸品廣說淨佛世界之行，聽的人不止一個，何以偏偏只有這一位女人站起來把願說出口？佛既已知她的深心，何不逕自授記，何必等她自說？她的名字叫恒伽提婆，這名字有沒有義？若有，何以論主第一句答的是「一切皆有名字，為識故，何足求義」；若無，何以隨後又有人細訓「恒伽是河名，提婆名天」？再者，這女人的福德既然從然燈佛所一路積來，中間無量劫供養不絕，何以要等到生於阿閦佛國才轉女身？而「經說女人五礙」一語橫在那裡，豈不正好成為『女人不得受記』的現成把柄？
論主三番問答，問的就是這幾樁。第一番問「何以但一女人取淨國土願」，第二番問「何以名為『恒伽提婆』」，第三番問「是女福德應久轉女人，何以方於阿閦佛國乃轉女身」。三問之後，論主不再設難，改以隨文之釋收束全品：釋阿難何以歎未曾有，釋阿難等何以更問德本所從，釋佛末後所答的那一段本源——定光佛授記之時，此女持金華散佛而發願，從彼種善根，今得果報。
三番問答之中，最要看的是論主答語的排法。他從不用一個答把事說盡：第一番先出一個近乎世情的答語，隨即以「有人言」翻出「佛法不然，隨眾生業因緣」；第二番先答「何足求義」，再以「有人言」補出名之所從來；第三番先答「著欲情多」，再以「有人言」翻出「願女身受記」，末又以「復次」引經文封住最後一個難。一品之中三度如此，讀者若只取每番的第一答，便會把本論讀成與其宗旨相反的樣子。這一點，是本品讀法的關鍵。
逐段解明
一、女人於眾中起座自陳願行。 經文起首極細地描出她的身儀：「在眾中坐」「從坐起」「偏袒右肩，右膝著地，合掌白佛言」。所發之願也說得明白——「我當行六波羅蜜，取淨佛世界，如般若波羅蜜中所說，我盡當行。」隨後是供養：金銀之華、水陸生華、種種莊嚴供養之具、金縷織成疊兩張，散在佛上，於佛頂虛空中化成四柱寶臺。末一句最要緊——「是女人持是功德，與一切眾生共之，迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」讀此段先立定一事：她所行的次第是願、供、迴向三節俱全，不是單獨一個供養的動作。「六波羅蜜」之目，本論此品未逐一列出，她自陳的是「如般若波羅蜜中所說」——即前諸品所已說者，此處不另立名數。
二、佛知深心因緣而微笑放光。 佛不立即答話，先微笑。「爾時，世尊知是女人深心因緣，即時微笑」——微笑的所因，經文自己點出是「深心因緣」，不是那一臺寶臺。隨後是放光之相：「如諸佛法種種色光從口中出，青、黃、赤、白、紅、縹，遍照十方無量無邊佛國，還遶佛三匝，從頂上入。」此段之所以不可略，是因為它把「微笑」定為諸佛之常法而非一時之情態——經文明說「如諸佛法」。讀者於此段只須認得一事：笑是有法度的，所以下一段阿難纔問得出口。
三、阿難問笑之因緣。 阿難「從座起，右膝著地，合掌白佛」，所問是：「佛何因緣微笑？諸佛法不以無因緣而笑。」此問的力量全在後半句——他不是好奇，是依據一條他已知的法度來請問。凡讀經見佛現異相而弟子發問，可學阿難此式：先確認這相有法度，再問這一次的法度落在何處。
四、佛授記——劫名星宿、佛號金花、生阿閦佛國、輪王從一觀至一觀。 佛所答的記，內含數節。其一、記其果位：「是恒伽提婆姊未來世中當作佛，劫名星宿，佛號金花。」其二、記其轉身與生處：「是女人畢女身，受男子形，當生阿閦佛阿毘羅提國土，於彼淨修梵行。」其三、記其中間之行：在彼國亦號金花，於彼壽終復至他方佛國，「從一佛國至一佛國，不離諸佛」。其四、出喻：「譬如轉輪聖王，從一觀至一觀，從生至終，足不蹈地。」此喻是經文自出，喻的著眼不在尊貴，在「足不蹈地」四字——中間沒有一段落在無佛之處。末結：「乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，未甞不見佛。」讀此段要記住「畢女身，受男子形」一句，後文論主第三番問答正是為它而設。
五、阿難心念其會如佛會。 阿難此處不是出聲請問，經文明說「作是念言」：「是金華菩薩摩訶薩後作佛時，諸菩薩摩訶薩會，當知為如佛會。」他心中所度量的，是這位未來佛的菩薩眾會之盛。此段之所以要分出來讀，是因為它是心念不是言語——下一段佛之所答，正由「知阿難意所念」而起。
六、佛知其念而印可——比丘僧無量、國土無諸眾惡。 「佛知阿難意所念，告阿難言」——佛先以「如是！如是！」逐字印可阿難所念，再添二節：其一、「是金花佛比丘僧無量無邊、不可數不可數，若干百千萬億那由他」；其二、「是金花菩薩作佛時，其國土無有是諸眾惡，如上所說」。「如上所說」一語表明所謂諸眾惡之目在前文已具，此品不重列。讀者於此可見一種答法：佛答心念之問，不多不少，只把所念者證實並補其未盡。
七、阿難問德本所從。 阿難再出聲請問：「世尊！是女人從何處殖德本、種善根？」問的方向從果轉到因——前面所問是笑的因緣，此處所問是這一記的宿因。此問看似順口，實是全品後半的樞紐：沒有這一問，便沒有然燈佛一段，也沒有論主末後那一段的釋。
八、佛答然燈佛所初發心——以己之受記為對照。 佛之答分三節。其一、出其種善根之處：「是女人從然燈佛所種善根，初發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，以是功德，迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；亦以金華散然燈佛上……」其二、以自身為對照：「如我爾時以五華散然燈佛上，求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。然燈佛知我善根成就，與我受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記。」其三、出她發心之實際：「是女人聞我受記，發心言：『我當來世亦如是菩薩，得受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記。』」三節合看，她的初發心不是憑空而起，是見人受記而起——所見者即是今日為她授記的這位佛。此一結構要記牢，因為論①末段佛再答一次時，正是把這三節壓成一句話。
九、阿難言此女久習行。 阿難聞答而下一斷語：「世尊！是女人久習行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」此語不是再問，是承佛所說而作的領解——既從然燈佛所發心，中間經無量劫，自是久習。
十、佛印可久習行。 佛不添一字，只重牒：「如是！如是！是女人久習行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」經文至此而止。全段經文之收束方式值得一記：以佛印可弟子之領解作結，不另立新義；下文一切分疏，讓與論主。
十一、論主第一番設問——大眾同聞，何以但一女人取願。 論主開卷即設難：「如是大眾聞說淨國土行，何以但一女人取淨國土願？」此問問得極準——它抓的不是這女人做了什麼，是『何以只有她』。前諸品廣說淨佛世界之行，會中聽者無量，若淨土之行人人可行，發願者不應只一人；若不是人人可行，那前品之說又對誰說？論主把讀者心裡未必說得出口的不安，先替他說成一個正式的難。
十二、答語之標。 論主以答曰起下文。本論之體，難與釋各自成段，讀者循標即知以下是釋不是難；本品三番問答，三標三答，格式一貫，不可把設難之辭誤作正義。
十三、第一答——多有發願者但不發言、女人性輕躁好勝世世習氣。 論主的第一答分兩節。其一、先破問語的暗設：「多有發淨國土願者，但不發言」——會中發願的並非只有她一人，只是別人不出聲。這一節極要緊，它把難處從『只有她發願』改成『只有她發言』，問題的體量立刻縮小。其二、纔說何以獨她發言：「女人性輕躁好勝，世世習氣故發言。」讀此第二節，須把第一節按住一起讀：論主所解釋的是「發言」這一行為之所從來，不是『得記』之所以然；得記之所以然，論主留到下一段纔說。此一答語若被抽出單讀，便成一句評斷人的話；擺回它在段中的位置，它只是一個關於習氣的說明。
十四、有人言——得道不擇貴賤、良藥療病喻、心生欲說故佛聽自說。 論主隨即以「復次，有人言」翻出另一路，且這一路正面立義。先出所破：「大人有得道分，餘人無分」——這是世間現成的成見。次出正義：「佛法不然，隨眾生業因緣。」再出喻：「譬如良藥療治諸病，不擇貴賤。」喻得極平實：藥只認病，不認人的身分。末落到這女人身上：「雖復女人淺智，而先世業因緣，應得受記；心生欲說，故佛聽自說。」此段是全品第一個轉折點，也是讀上一段的解藥——上段說的是她何以「發言」，此段說的是她何以「應得受記」，而所依者是業因緣，不是人的類別。兩段合起來纔是論主的完整答案。
十五、復次——若默然授記則人生疑，故因其自說而與受記。 論主再添一層，回答一個尚未有人問出來的問題：佛既知其深心，何不默然授記？「若佛默然與受記者，人則生疑」，所疑之語是「有何因緣故，獨與此女受記？」，故論主結云：「是故佛因其自說故而與受記。」這一層把『她自說』從一個性情上的偶然，提為一個教化上的必要——她說出口，旁人纔看見所依之因，記便不成一件無端之事。讀者由此可回頭看第十三段：所謂「世世習氣故發言」，在此處成了佛所順用之緣，不是一個要被責備的短處。
十六、論主第二番設問——何以名為「恒伽提婆」。 論主轉問名義：「何以名為『恒伽提婆』？」此問在本論中屬常見之型——凡經中出一人名、一法名，論主往往一問其所以。設此問的用意，不在滿足好奇，在替讀者先把名與義的關係擺正。
十七、答語之標。 論主以答曰起下文，格式同第十二段。
十八、第一答——一切皆有名字為識故，何足求義。 論主的第一答極峻：「一切皆有名字，為識故，何足求義？」名字的職能是辨識，不是承載意義；既為辨識而立，便不必逐名追其義。這一答的分量，遠過於本品一人之名——它是讀一切名相的通則。讀者最易在此處讀偏：以為論主在說名字全無來歷。下一段即見不然。
十九、有人言——父母供養恒伽神而得此女、恒伽是河名提婆名天。 「有人言：是女父母供養恒伽神，得此女故，言恒伽提婆。恒伽是河名，提婆名天。」此節補出名之所從來，並把二字分訓——恒伽是河之名，提婆之義為天。與上段合看，兩節並不相違：上段說的是『不必以名求義』，此段說的是『此名實有其緣起』。分際在於，名之緣起是一樁可考的事，名之義卻不是法的義。論主把二者一併錄出而不判孰是，讀者亦當兩存之。
二十、福德因緣生富家、以寶華金縷衣瓔珞供養。 論主回到經文的供養一節加以釋：「是女人福德因緣，生於富家，聞佛法信樂故，能以金銀寶華、金縷織成上下衣，并莊嚴自身瓔珞具，用供養上佛。」此釋補出兩件經文未明言者：其一、她何以拿得出這樣的供具——福德因緣生於富家；其二、她何以肯拿出來——聞佛法信樂。兩件缺一不可：有物而無信，不供；有信而無物，供不出這樣的物。論主並點出所供之中含「莊嚴自身瓔珞具」，即身上所佩者亦解下而供。
廿一、佛報以受記、觀宿世所行而微笑、小因緣起大事。 論主釋佛之微笑：「佛報以受記，觀是女人宿世所行，便微笑。微笑義如先說。此中小因緣而起大事，故佛微笑。」三節。其一、佛之所報者是受記——供與記相酬。其二、笑之所觀是「宿世所行」，不是眼前之供，這與經文所說「知是女人深心因緣」正相應。其三、笑之義：「小因緣而起大事」。「微笑義如先說」一句表明微笑之通義本論前文已具，此處只補本品之別義。這一句別義是本段的眼——所謂小因緣，指的是散華發願這樣一件在旁人看來極小的事；所謂大事，指的是由此而來的一佛之記。
廿二、論主第三番設問——福德既久，何以方於阿閦佛國乃轉女身。 論主設全品最尖的一問：「是女福德應久轉女人，何以方於阿閦佛國乃轉女身？」此難有力處在於它承前段而來——既說她福德因緣深厚、宿世所行可觀，且從然燈佛所發心已歷無量劫，那麼女身早該轉了，何必等到生阿閦佛國。設此問等於替讀者問：福德與轉身之間，究竟是什麼關係？
廿三、答語之標。 論主以答曰起下文，格式同第十二、十七段。
廿四、第一答——五欲難斷著欲情多故不得男子身、今得受記煩惱折薄。 論主答：「世間五欲難斷，女人著欲情多故，雖世世行諸福德，不能得男子身；今得受記，諸煩惱折薄，是故於阿閦佛國方得男子身。」此答的關節在『雖……不能……』三字之間所立的分判：福德與煩惱是兩事，福德可以世世累積而煩惱未必隨之而薄；轉身所待者是煩惱折薄，不是福德滿足。所以問中「福德應久轉女人」的推論本身有一處未立——它把福德當成轉身的直接因。「五欲」之目，本論此段未列，只以「難斷」二字總說，讀者不必於此處求其名數。
廿五、有人言——宿世以人多輕女人故願女身受記。 論主再以「有人言」翻出全然不同的一路：「此女宿世以人多輕女人故，願女身受記。」照這一路說，她之未轉身根本不是不能，是自願——正因世人多輕女人，她纔發願以女身受記。此一節與上一節方向相反：上節說的是障，此節說的是願。論主並列而不判，讀者兩存之，不可取一廢一。
廿六、結——如是等因緣，不轉女身而得受記。 論主以一句收前二節：「如是等因緣，不轉女身而得受記。」「如是等」三字指的正是上面兩路因緣。此句所立之義極清楚：受記與轉身是兩件事，受記不以轉身為前提。讀者於此須把它與經文第四段「畢女身，受男子形」合看——經說的是她此後的去向，論說的是她受記之時的身，二說各有所指，並不相違。
廿七、復次——經說女人五礙，不說不得受記。 論主末添一節封住最後一個難：「復次，經說女人五礙，不說不得受記，是故不應生難。」此節的作法值得學：他不去駁「女人五礙」之說，而是指出這一說的範圍——經所說者是五礙，經沒有說不得受記；把經未說者當成經已說者，那個難本身就不成立。「五礙」之目，本論此處僅舉其名而未列其事，故此處亦不代為開列；本段所用者只是它的範圍，不是它的內容。讀者於此可得一條通用的排難法：先問這句經到底說了什麼、沒說什麼，再問難處是不是從沒說的地方生出來的。
廿八、論主釋阿難歎未曾有。 三番問答畢，論主改以隨文之釋收束全品。先釋阿難之歎：「阿難聞是女人無量劫中從一佛國至一佛國廣集功德，當來得淨佛世界，其中菩薩皆有三十二相、八十種隨形好、無量光明，是故阿難歎未曾有」，所歎之語是「能如是淨佛國土，便為如佛會。」此釋補出阿難所歎之所由——不是歎她一人得記，是歎那個由無量劫廣集功德而來的國土之相。所舉「三十二相」「八十種隨形好」之目，本論此處僅舉其總名，不列其細目。讀者由此可知第五段那一句心念的分量：阿難所度量的不是一場法會的人數，是一國菩薩皆如佛相的景象。
廿九、佛可其言、阿難等疑希有而難問。 論主釋下一轉：「佛可其言已，阿難等疑此女人希有，聞少法而得大果報，是故難問」，所問之語是「是女人從何處殖諸德本？」此釋點出第七段那一問的內在動機——不是單純求知，是「疑」：所聞之法如此之少，所得之報如此之大，二者不相稱。論主用「難問」二字，明白把它定為一個帶著疑的問，而不是隨口一問。讀者於此可見本論釋經的一種細處：同一句經文，論主往往先為它安上問者的心態，讀者纔知這一問的重量。
三十、佛答定光佛授記本源——彼女作願、從彼種善根今得果報。 全品收於論主所引之佛答，其語曰：「定光佛授我記時，是女人持金華散佛，彼作是願：『此人後成佛時，亦當受與我記。』從彼種善根，今得果報。」此段把經①第八段的三節壓成一句，而所加者在「彼作是願」之內容——她當時所願，是要在此人成佛之時得他授記。於是全品成環：所願者，正是今日所得者；而所求之人，正是今日為她授記的這位佛。「聞少法而得大果報」之疑，至此得解——所聞雖少，所願甚專，而其願所繫者非他，即是眼前之佛。此處另有一事誌而不判：經文一段稱「然燈佛」，論主此處稱「定光佛」，所指者同是為佛授記之時的那一佛、同是此女散華發願之事，本論兩名並用，讀者知其所指為一事即可。
不要讀錯
不要把「女人性輕躁好勝，世世習氣故發言」讀成本論對女人的判語。這一句在段中的位置十分確定：它前面有一句「多有發淨國土願者，但不發言」，所解釋的對象已被限定為「發言」而非『發願』，更不是『得記』。而緊接其後，論主便以「有人言」立起「大人有得道分，餘人無分；佛法不然，隨眾生業因緣」，並出良藥不擇貴賤之喻，正面說明得記所依者是業因緣。再往下，「心生欲說，故佛聽自說」與「若佛默然與受記者，人則生疑」兩節，更把這一「發言」轉為佛所順用之教化緣。若只取第一答而棄其後三節，所得的便與本論自己的結論相反。
不要把「一切皆有名字，為識故，何足求義」讀成名字全無來歷。緊接的下一節即是「有人言：是女父母供養恒伽神，得此女故，言恒伽提婆。恒伽是河名，提婆名天」——論主自己把名的緣起與二字之訓一併錄出。兩節所說者不同層：前者說的是不必以名相求法義，後者說的是此名有其世間的來歷。把前者讀成『不許考名』，則後者無處安放；把後者讀成『名中有法義』，則前者成了空話。兩存之，纔是本論之意。
不要把「是故於阿閦佛國方得男子身」讀成受記須待轉身。論主在同一番問答之內即自出反面：「有人言：此女宿世以人多輕女人故，願女身受記」，並以「如是等因緣，不轉女身而得受記」作結。可見受記與轉身在本論中是兩事——經文所記「畢女身，受男子形」說的是她受記之後的去向，論文所立「不轉女身而得受記」說的是受記當時。若讀成必先轉身纔堪受記，則本論此段之結語便無著落，經中佛當場為她授記一事亦無從安立。
不要把「經說女人五礙」讀成本論在此申說五礙之義。論主引此一句只用其範圍，不用其內容——他的話是「不說不得受記」，所作的是指出經未說之事不可被當作經已說之事。本論此處既未開列五礙之目，讀者亦不應於此段自行補足；本段之用，全在排難之法，不在五礙之相。
不要把「小因緣而起大事」讀成因小果大可以不修。論主此語所釋者是佛何以微笑，且他同時說明佛所觀者是「是女人宿世所行」，經文亦明說佛所知者是「深心因緣」。再看末段之答：此女從定光佛授記之時即已散華發願，中間「無量劫中從一佛國至一佛國廣集功德」。可見所謂小，指的是當下這一供養之事相小；所謂大，指的是果報大；中間那一段無量劫的廣集功德，經論皆未省去。若讀成一供即足，正好把本論自己說的那一段長行抹掉。
修行作用
第一件受用，是把『發願』與「發言」分開來看。本論第一答先立的是「多有發淨國土願者，但不發言」——發願的人本多，出聲的人少。用功人於此可自省兩面：其一、不必因他人不言而以為無人同行；其二、亦不必以自己出聲與否判優劣。而下文更給出一個出聲的正當理由——「心生欲說，故佛聽自說」，以及若默然則「人則生疑」。可知在有須令人見因之處，說出來是有其用的；在無此須要之處，不說亦無過。
第二件受用，是良藥不擇貴賤之喻可作日用之勘。「大人有得道分，餘人無分」這一成見，換成今日的說法，便是以身分、資歷、根器的高下預判自己或他人能不能行。論主的答只有一句：「佛法不然，隨眾生業因緣。」喻曰良藥療治諸病不擇貴賤——藥認的是病。行門上的用法是：起修之時不先秤自己配不配，只問所行是否對治現前之病。
第三件受用，是「何足求義」可治名相之執。日用中讀經、讀論，遇一名相便要追問它的深義，往往追到最後所得的只是另一串名。論主此語給的是一個止處：名為識故而立，識得所指即可。但要與下一節合用——名的來歷該考則考，只是不要把來歷當成法義。二者分清，讀書便省去大半虛耗。
第四件受用，是「福德」與「煩惱折薄」之分判可作進度的自檢。人於行道久了，常以所積之福德自估進境，以為福厚則障自除。論主明說：「雖世世行諸福德，不能得男子身」，轉身所待者是「諸煩惱折薄」。移到自己身上便是：所作之善事多寡，不能替代煩惱是否真的變薄這一項自檢。兩項要分開來看，纔不致以其一掩其二。
第五件受用，是末段之願可作發願的樣式。此女當時所發者不是一個泛泛的善願，是「此人後成佛時，亦當受與我記」——所願之事明確，所繫之人明確。論主以「從彼種善根，今得果報」作結，把果報直接繫在那一願上。於日用中發願，可學這個樣式：願要說得出所願何事、所向何處，纔是可以種下去的善根；泛願雖好，難以成種。而此女之例同時提醒——願下之後，中間仍是「無量劫中從一佛國至一佛國廣集功德」，願是種，不是收成。
承衍
本品的骨幹，是一段經文與一段論釋。經文自「爾時，有一女人，字恒伽提婆」起，敘其起座自陳願行、散華供佛而化成四柱寶臺、持功德迴向；次敘佛知深心因緣而微笑放光，阿難問笑之因緣，佛為授記——劫名星宿、佛號金花、畢女身受男子形、生阿閦佛阿毘羅提國土、從一佛國至一佛國不離諸佛，並出轉輪聖王從一觀至一觀足不蹈地之喻；次敘阿難心念其會如佛會，佛知其念而印可並補比丘僧無量、國土無諸眾惡；末敘阿難問德本所從，佛答從然燈佛所種善根初發心、以己五華散佛受記為對照、此女聞記而發心，阿難言久習行，佛印可作結。論釋以三番問答為主：一問何以但一女人取淨國土願，答以多有發願者但不發言、女人性輕躁好勝世世習氣，次以有人言立得道不擇貴賤並出良藥之喻，末以若默然授記則人生疑故因其自說而與受記；二問何以名為恒伽提婆，答以一切皆有名字為識故何足求義，次以有人言出父母供恒伽神之緣起並訓河與天，隨釋其福德生富家、聞法信樂而能以寶華金縷衣瓔珞供養，並釋佛報以受記、觀宿世所行而微笑、小因緣起大事；三問福德既久何以方於阿閦佛國乃轉女身，答以五欲難斷著欲情多故不得男子身、今得受記煩惱折薄，次以有人言出願女身受記之說，結以不轉女身而得受記，末以復次引經說女人五礙不說不得受記封難。三番畢，改以隨文之釋收束：釋阿難歎未曾有之所由、釋阿難等疑希有而難問、末引佛答定光佛授記之本源作結，接卷七十五之卷尾。
本品與前後諸品的義脈，可見者有二線。其一、承前：前諸品廣說淨佛世界之行，本品之經文即以一人之發願承之——論主開卷第一問「如是大眾聞說淨國土行，何以但一女人取淨國土願」，明白把本品繫在前品的淨土之說上；讀本品而不知前品說過什麼，這一問便無由成立。其二、垂後：經文既記此女當生阿閦佛國、當來作佛號金花，其人其行皆待後文更說；本品所立『受記不待轉身』一義，亦是後文論不退轉諸義的前置。讀者可合前後諸品觀之。
古德之釋，本品可誌者二家。其一、吉藏。其科判本品為三分，云：「品三：初、明願行成二；二、得受記；三、出因釋得記所由也。初三：一、餘悟；二、供養；三、迴向。」——以願行成、得受記、出因釋得記所由三分本品，而以餘悟、供養、迴向三分其初，與本論經文之次第相應。其釋品名，另出兩解，云：「一解云：此女父母就何天神求此女？故神若名為河天也。二云：令名為定也。」——前解與本論「有人言」所出之緣起相近，後解則是吉藏自家之訓，並錄不判。吉藏又以己語約述本論第一番問答，云：「多有發淨土願去不發言，女人性輕疎好勝世世習氣，故獨發言。亦解云：諸外道云大人有得道分，餘人無分，佛法不爾，不簡大小同悟，便為受記也。」——此是吉藏約引，非本論原文，其中「諸外道云」與「不簡大小同悟」諸語為吉藏所加，讀者當與本論正文分開看。其二、慧影。其釋本品起句云：「此品以人為名，名為恒伽提婆品。」並科判為四分，云：「就此品中大有四分：第一、明恒伽女人白佛興淨土行願；第二、明供養於佛；第三、明佛授其記；第四、明其發心行行。」——以興願、供養、授記、發心行行四分本品，與吉藏之三分角度不同，並錄不判，讀者兩存之。慧影又於次品之首回顧本品，云：「何故次河天品後明於此品？明金華是不退菩薩」——以本品所記之金華為不退菩薩，而繫其義於次品。至於均正之疏與天台二家之釋，於本品皆查無片語，如實誌闕。其品目異稱、諸本編次與校勘之考，詳考據層。
Gaṅgadevī: Why, When the Great Assembly Heard Together the Practice of the Pure Land, Only One Woman Spoke Out and Took Up the Vow; Whether the Treatise-Author's Saying 「女人性輕躁好勝」 tr. "a woman's nature is light and impulsive and fond of winning" Is Disparagement; Why Someone's Saying ‘Attaining the Path Does Not Choose between the Noble and the Base’ Follows Immediately After; Why the Buddha Does Not Give the Prediction in Silence but Waits for Her to Speak for Herself; Why, for the Name 「恒伽提婆」 tr. "Gaṅgadevī", the Answer Is First 「何足求義」 tr. "why go looking for a meaning" and Only Then the Account of Her Parents' Offerings to the Spirit of the Gaṅgā; Why, If the Meaning of the Name Is Not Worth Seeking, River and Goddess Are Nevertheless Glossed in Detail; Why a Small Cause and Condition Gives Rise to a Great Matter and the Buddha Smiles; Why, Her Merit Being Long-standing, She Turns Her Woman's Body Only in the Land of Akṣobhya Buddha; Why 「經說女人五礙」 tr. "the sūtra speaks of the five obstacles of women" Does Not Make the Difficulty That She Cannot Receive the Prediction; Why Receiving the Prediction without Turning Her Woman's Body and Ending Her Woman's Body to Receive the Form of a Man Stand Together without Contradiction; What It Is That Ānanda Exclaims Had Never Been; and Why the Buddha's Final Answer on the Origin in Dīpaṃkara Buddha's Prediction Is the Knot That Closes the Whole Chapter
What Is Being Asked
This chapter is short, and its matter is simple: a woman in the assembly stands up, vows to practise the six perfections and take up a pure buddha-world, and offers the Buddha flowers and cloths woven of gold thread, which in the air turn into a jewelled terrace; the Buddha smiles and emits light, Ānanda asks the cause and condition of the smile, and the Buddha then gives her the prediction—that in the future she will become a Buddha, the kalpa named Constellation, the Buddha called Golden Flower. The sūtra text of the whole chapter, when all is said, has only this one event.
The difficulty lies not in the event but in a string of doubts behind it. The preceding chapters broadly taught the practice of purifying buddha-worlds, and those listening were not just one; why was it only this one woman who stood up and spoke the vow aloud? Since the Buddha already knew her deep mind, why not give the prediction directly—why wait for her to speak for herself? Her name is Gaṅgadevī; does this name have a meaning? If it does, why is the treatise-author's first answer 「一切皆有名字，為識故，何足求義」 tr. "everything has a name, for the sake of recognition; why go looking for a meaning"? If it does not, why does someone afterwards gloss it in detail, 「恒伽是河名，提婆名天」 tr. "Gaṅgā is the name of a river; devī means a deity"? Further, since this woman's merit has been accumulating all the way from the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, with offerings unbroken through immeasurable kalpas in between, why must she wait until she is born in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha to turn her woman's body? And the phrase 「經說女人五礙」 tr. "the sūtra speaks of the five obstacles of women" lies right across the way—does it not become precisely a ready-made handle for ‘women cannot receive the prediction’?
The treatise-author's three rounds of question and answer ask exactly these few matters. The first round asks 「何以但一女人取淨國土願」 tr. "why did only one woman take up the vow of a pure land", the second asks 「何以名為『恒伽提婆』」 tr. "why is she named ‘Gaṅgadevī’", the third asks 「是女福德應久轉女人，何以方於阿閦佛國乃轉女身」 tr. "by her merit this woman should long ago have turned from being a woman; why does she turn her woman's body only in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha". After the three questions the treatise-author sets no further difficulty, and instead closes the whole chapter with explanations that follow the text: explaining why Ānanda exclaimed at what had never been, explaining why Ānanda and the others went on to ask where her roots of virtue came from, and explaining that account of the origin which the Buddha gave in answer at the last—at the time Dīpaṃkara Buddha gave the prediction, this woman, holding golden flowers, scattered them over the Buddha and made a vow; from that she planted roots of goodness, and now obtains the fruit.
Among the three rounds of question and answer, what most needs to be looked at is how the treatise-author arranges his answers. He never uses a single answer to say the matter out entirely: in the first round he first gives an answer close to worldly sentiment, and then at once, with 「有人言」 tr. "someone says", turns out 「佛法不然，隨眾生業因緣」 tr. "the Buddha's Dharma is not so; it follows the beings' causes and conditions of deeds"; in the second round he first answers 「何足求義」 tr. "why go looking for a meaning", then with 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" supplies where the name came from; in the third round he first answers 「著欲情多」 tr. "clinging to desire and passion is much", then with 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" turns out 「願女身受記」 tr. "vowed to receive the prediction in a woman's body", and at the end, with 「復次」 tr. "furthermore", cites the sūtra text to seal off the last difficulty. Three times in one chapter it is so; if the reader takes only the first answer of each round, he will read this treatise into the opposite of its own purport. This point is the key to how this chapter is to be read.
Passage by Passage
1. The woman rises from her seat in the assembly and states her own vow and practice. The opening of the sūtra text depicts her bodily deportment in fine detail: 「在眾中坐」 tr. "seated in the assembly", 「從坐起」 tr. "rose from her seat", 「偏袒右肩，右膝著地，合掌白佛言」 tr. "bared her right shoulder, set her right knee on the ground, joined her palms, and said to the Buddha". The vow she makes is also stated clearly—「我當行六波羅蜜，取淨佛世界，如般若波羅蜜中所說，我盡當行。」 tr. "I shall practise the six perfections and take up a pure buddha-world; as it is taught in prajñāpāramitā, I shall practise it all." Then comes the offering: flowers of gold and silver, flowers born of water and land, all kinds of adorned implements of offering, and two cloths woven of gold thread, scattered over the Buddha, which in the space above the Buddha's head turned into a jewelled terrace with four pillars. The last sentence matters most—「是女人持是功德，與一切眾生共之，迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "This woman, holding this merit, shares it with all beings and dedicates it to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." In reading this passage, first settle one thing: the sequence she carries out has all three steps complete—vow, offering, and dedication—and is not a single act of offering alone. The items of the 「六波羅蜜」 tr. "six perfections" this chapter of the treatise does not list one by one; what she herself states is 「如般若波羅蜜中所說」 tr. "as it is taught in prajñāpāramitā"—that is, what the preceding chapters have already taught; here no separate names and numbers are set up.
2. The Buddha, knowing the causes and conditions of her deep mind, smiles and emits light. The Buddha does not answer at once; first he smiles. 「爾時，世尊知是女人深心因緣，即時微笑」 tr. "At that time the World-Honored One, knowing the causes and conditions of this woman's deep mind, at once smiled"—the cause of the smile the sūtra text itself points out as 「深心因緣」 tr. "the causes and conditions of her deep mind", not that jewelled terrace. Then comes the appearance of the emitted light: 「如諸佛法種種色光從口中出，青、黃、赤、白、紅、縹，遍照十方無量無邊佛國，還遶佛三匝，從頂上入。」 tr. "As is the way of the buddhas, light of various colours issued from his mouth—blue, yellow, red, white, crimson, and pale blue—illuminating everywhere the immeasurable and boundless buddha-lands of the ten directions, came back, circled the Buddha three times, and entered at the crown of his head." The reason this passage cannot be skipped is that it fixes the 「微笑」 tr. "smile" as a constant way of the buddhas and not a passing mood—the sūtra text says plainly 「如諸佛法」 tr. "as is the way of the buddhas". In this passage the reader need only recognise one thing: the smile has its rule, and that is why, in the next passage, Ānanda is able to ask.
3. Ānanda asks the cause and condition of the smile. Ānanda 「從座起，右膝著地，合掌白佛」 tr. "rose from his seat, set his right knee on the ground, joined his palms, and said to the Buddha", and what he asks is: 「佛何因緣微笑？諸佛法不以無因緣而笑。」 tr. "For what cause and condition does the Buddha smile? The buddhas' way is not to smile without cause and condition." The force of this question lies wholly in its second half—he is not being curious; he is asking on the basis of a rule he already knows. Whenever, in reading a sūtra, one sees the Buddha manifest an unusual mark and a disciple ask about it, one can learn Ānanda's form here: first confirm that this mark has its rule, then ask where the rule falls this time.
4. The Buddha gives the prediction—the kalpa named Constellation, the Buddha called Golden Flower, birth in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha, the wheel-turning king going from one tower to another. The prediction the Buddha gives in answer contains several sections. First, it predicts her fruit and station: 「是恒伽提婆姊未來世中當作佛，劫名星宿，佛號金花。」 tr. "This sister Gaṅgadevī will in a future age become a Buddha; the kalpa will be named Constellation, and the Buddha will be called Golden Flower." Second, it predicts her turning of body and her place of birth: 「是女人畢女身，受男子形，當生阿閦佛阿毘羅提國土，於彼淨修梵行。」 tr. "This woman will end her woman's body and receive the form of a man, and will be born in Abhirati, the land of Akṣobhya Buddha, and there purely cultivate pure conduct." Third, it predicts her practice in between: in that land she is also called Golden Flower; when her life there ends she goes on again to the buddha-lands of other directions, 「從一佛國至一佛國，不離諸佛」 tr. "from one buddha-land to another buddha-land, not apart from the buddhas". Fourth, it gives a simile: 「譬如轉輪聖王，從一觀至一觀，從生至終，足不蹈地。」 tr. "It is like a wheel-turning sage king, who goes from one tower to another tower, and from birth to the end his feet do not tread the ground." This simile the sūtra text gives of itself; its point is not nobility but the four Chinese characters rendered here as 「足不蹈地」 tr. "his feet do not tread the ground"—there is no stretch in between that lands in a place without a Buddha. The close: 「乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，未甞不見佛。」 tr. "all the way to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, there is never a time when he does not see a Buddha." In reading this passage, remember the sentence 「畢女身，受男子形」 tr. "will end her woman's body and receive the form of a man"; the treatise-author's third round of question and answer later on is set up precisely for it.
5. Ānanda thinks in his mind that her assembly will be like the Buddha's assembly. Here Ānanda does not ask aloud; the sūtra text says plainly 「作是念言」 tr. "had this thought": 「是金華菩薩摩訶薩後作佛時，諸菩薩摩訶薩會，當知為如佛會。」 tr. "When this bodhisattva-mahāsattva Golden Flower later becomes a Buddha, the assembly of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas should be known to be like the Buddha's assembly." What he measures in his mind is the fullness of this future Buddha's assembly of bodhisattvas. The reason this passage must be read on its own is that it is a thought and not speech—the Buddha's answer in the next passage arises precisely from 「知阿難意所念」 tr. "knowing what Ānanda was thinking in his mind".
6. The Buddha, knowing his thought, confirms it—a bhikṣu Saṅgha without measure, a land without all these evils. 「佛知阿難意所念，告阿難言」 tr. "The Buddha, knowing what Ānanda was thinking in his mind, told Ānanda"—the Buddha first confirms what Ānanda thought, word for word, with 「如是！如是！」 tr. "Just so! Just so!", and then adds two sections: first, 「是金花佛比丘僧無量無邊、不可數不可數，若干百千萬億那由他」 tr. "the bhikṣu Saṅgha of this Buddha Golden Flower will be immeasurable and boundless, uncountable, uncountable—so many hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭi of nayutas"; second, 「是金花菩薩作佛時，其國土無有是諸眾惡，如上所說」 tr. "when this bodhisattva Golden Flower becomes a Buddha, his land will be without these various evil things, as was said above". The phrase 「如上所說」 tr. "as was said above" shows that the items of these so-called evil things are already complete in the earlier text; this chapter does not list them again. Here the reader can see one way of answering: when the Buddha answers a question that was only thought, he gives neither more nor less; he only confirms what was thought and fills in what it had not reached.
7. Ānanda asks where her roots of virtue come from. Ānanda asks aloud once more: 「世尊！是女人從何處殖德本、種善根？」 tr. "World-Honored One! Where did this woman plant roots of virtue and sow roots of goodness?" The direction of the question turns from fruit to cause—what was asked before was the cause and condition of the smile; what is asked here is the past cause of this prediction. The question seems to come out casually, but it is in fact the pivot of the whole latter half of the chapter: without this question there would be no passage on Dīpaṃkara Buddha, nor the treatise-author's explanation of that passage at the very end.
8. The Buddha answers with the first arousing of the mind at the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha—taking his own receiving of the prediction as the counterpart. The Buddha's answer is in three sections. First, it brings out where she planted roots of goodness: 「是女人從然燈佛所種善根，初發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，以是功德，迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；亦以金華散然燈佛上……」 tr. "This woman planted roots of goodness at the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha and first aroused the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; with this merit she dedicated it to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; she also scattered golden flowers over Dīpaṃkara Buddha …" Second, it takes himself as the counterpart: 「如我爾時以五華散然燈佛上，求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。然燈佛知我善根成就，與我受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記。」 tr. "Just as I at that time scattered five flowers over Dīpaṃkara Buddha, seeking anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Dīpaṃkara Buddha, knowing that my roots of goodness were accomplished, gave me the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Third, it brings out the actual occasion of her arousing the mind: 「是女人聞我受記，發心言：『我當來世亦如是菩薩，得受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記。』」 tr. "This woman, hearing that I received the prediction, aroused the mind and said: ‘In an age to come I too, like this bodhisattva, shall receive the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.’" Taking the three sections together: her first arousing of the mind did not arise out of nowhere; it arose from seeing another receive the prediction—and the one she saw is none other than the Buddha who today gives her the prediction. This structure must be kept firmly in mind, because when the Buddha answers once more in the last passage of Treatise ①, it is exactly these three sections pressed into one sentence.
9. Ānanda says that this woman has long trained. Hearing the answer, Ānanda gives a verdict: 「世尊！是女人久習行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "World-Honored One! This woman has long trained in and practised anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." These words are not a further question; they are an understanding reached by following what the Buddha said—since she aroused the mind at the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha and passed through immeasurable kalpas in between, she has naturally long trained.
10. The Buddha confirms the long training. The Buddha adds not a word, and only repeats: 「如是！如是！是女人久習行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! This woman has long trained in and practised anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Here the sūtra text stops. The way the whole sūtra passage closes is worth noting: it concludes with the Buddha confirming a disciple's understanding and sets up no new meaning; all the analysis that follows is left to the treatise-author.
11. The treatise-author's first question—the great assembly heard it together; why did only one woman take up the vow. At the opening the treatise-author sets up a difficulty: 「如是大眾聞說淨國土行，何以但一女人取淨國土願？」 tr. "When so great an assembly heard the practice of purifying the land taught, why did only one woman take up the vow of a pure land?" This question is asked with great precision—what it seizes on is not what this woman did, but ‘why only she’. The preceding chapters broadly taught the practice of purifying buddha-worlds, and the listeners in the assembly were without measure; if the practice of the pure land is one that everyone can practise, those making the vow should not be only one; if it is not one that everyone can practise, then to whom was the teaching of the preceding chapters addressed? The unease that the reader may not be able to put into words, the treatise-author first voices for him as a formal difficulty.
12. The marker of the answer. The treatise-author opens what follows with the marker of the answer. In the form of this treatise, difficulty and explanation each make their own paragraph; following the marker, the reader knows that what follows is explanation and not difficulty. The three rounds of question and answer in this chapter—three markers, three answers—are consistent in form, and the words of a difficulty that has been set up must not be mistaken for the proper meaning.
13. The first answer—many made the vow but did not speak aloud; a woman's nature is light and impulsive and fond of winning, the habitual residue of life after life. The treatise-author's first answer has two sections. First, it breaks the hidden assumption of the question: 「多有發淨國土願者，但不發言」 tr. "many made the vow of a pure land, but did not speak it aloud"—those in the assembly who made the vow were not she alone; the others simply did not speak. This section is of the utmost importance: it changes the difficulty from ‘only she made the vow’ to ‘only she spoke aloud’, and the size of the problem at once shrinks. Second, only then does it say why she alone spoke: 「女人性輕躁好勝，世世習氣故發言。」 tr. "A woman's nature is light and impulsive and fond of winning; because of the habitual residues of life after life she spoke aloud." In reading this second section one must hold the first section down and read the two together: what the treatise-author explains is where the act of 「發言」 tr. "speaking aloud" comes from, not the reason for ‘obtaining the prediction’; the reason for obtaining the prediction the treatise-author leaves until the next passage. If this answer is pulled out and read alone, it becomes a sentence passing judgement on people; put back in its place in the passage, it is only an explanation about habitual residue.
14. Someone says—attaining the path does not choose between the noble and the base; the simile of good medicine curing illness; her mind gave rise to the wish to speak, so the Buddha let her speak for herself. The treatise-author at once, with 「復次，有人言」 tr. "furthermore, someone says", turns out another road, and this road establishes the meaning positively. First it brings out what is refuted: 「大人有得道分，餘人無分」 tr. "great persons have a share in attaining the path, and the rest have none"—this is a ready-made prejudice of the world. Next it brings out the proper meaning: 「佛法不然，隨眾生業因緣。」 tr. "The Buddha's Dharma is not so; it follows the beings' causes and conditions of deeds." Then it gives a simile: 「譬如良藥療治諸病，不擇貴賤。」 tr. "As good medicine cures the various illnesses without choosing between the noble and the base." The simile is perfectly plain: medicine recognises only the illness, not the person's standing. Finally it lands on this woman: 「雖復女人淺智，而先世業因緣，應得受記；心生欲說，故佛聽自說。」 tr. "Though this woman is of shallow wisdom, yet by the causes and conditions of deeds in former lives she should receive the prediction; her mind gave rise to the wish to speak, and so the Buddha let her speak for herself." This passage is the first turning point of the whole chapter, and also the antidote for how the previous passage is read—the previous passage said why she 「發言」 tr. "spoke aloud"; this passage says why she 「應得受記」 tr. "should receive the prediction", and what it relies on is the causes and conditions of deeds, not the category of the person. Only the two passages together make up the treatise-author's complete answer.
15. Furthermore—if the prediction were given in silence people would give rise to doubt; therefore he gave her the prediction because she herself had spoken. The treatise-author adds one more layer, answering a question that no one has yet asked aloud: since the Buddha knew her deep mind, why not give the prediction in silence? 「若佛默然與受記者，人則生疑」 tr. "If the Buddha were to give the prediction in silence, people would give rise to doubt"; the words of the doubt are 「有何因緣故，獨與此女受記？」 tr. "For what cause and condition does he give the prediction to this woman alone?"; and so the treatise-author concludes: 「是故佛因其自說故而與受記。」 tr. "Therefore the Buddha gave her the prediction because she herself had spoken." This layer lifts ‘her speaking for herself’ from an accident of temperament into a necessity of teaching—once she has spoken aloud, the bystanders see the cause relied upon, and the prediction does not become a matter without grounds. From here the reader can look back at passage 13: the so-called 「世世習氣故發言」 tr. "because of the habitual residues of life after life she spoke aloud" becomes, in this place, a condition the Buddha makes use of, not a shortcoming to be blamed.
16. The treatise-author's second question—why is she named 「恒伽提婆」 tr. "Gaṅgadevī". The treatise-author turns to ask about the meaning of the name: 「何以名為『恒伽提婆』？」 tr. "Why is she named ‘Gaṅgadevī’?" In this treatise this question is of a common type—whenever a person's name or the name of a dharma appears in the sūtra, the treatise-author often asks the reason for it. The intent of setting this question is not to satisfy curiosity, but to set the relation between name and meaning right for the reader in advance.
17. The marker of the answer. The treatise-author opens what follows with the marker of the answer, in the same form as passage 12.
18. The first answer—everything has a name, for the sake of recognition; why go looking for a meaning. The treatise-author's first answer is most severe: 「一切皆有名字，為識故，何足求義？」 tr. "Everything has a name, for the sake of recognition; why go looking for a meaning?" The function of a name is to distinguish, not to carry meaning; since it is set up for distinguishing, there is no need to chase after the meaning of each name. The weight of this answer goes far beyond the one person's name in this chapter—it is a general rule for reading all names and marks. It is here that readers most easily read askew, thinking the treatise-author is saying that names have no origin at all. The next passage shows that it is not so.
19. Someone says—her parents made offerings to the spirit of the Gaṅgā and obtained this daughter; Gaṅgā is the name of a river, devī means a deity. 「有人言：是女父母供養恒伽神，得此女故，言恒伽提婆。恒伽是河名，提婆名天。」 tr. "Someone says: this woman's father and mother made offerings to the spirit of the Gaṅgā and obtained this daughter; therefore she is called Gaṅgadevī. Gaṅgā is the name of a river; devī means a deity." This section supplies where the name comes from and glosses its two elements separately—Gaṅgā is the name of a river; the meaning of devī is goddess. Taken together with the previous passage, the two sections do not conflict: the previous passage says ‘one need not seek meaning through the name’; this passage says ‘this name really has its origin’. The dividing line is that the origin of the name is a matter that can be investigated, whereas the meaning of the name is not the meaning of the Dharma. The treatise-author records the two together and does not judge which is right, and the reader too should keep both.
20. By the causes and conditions of merit she was born into a wealthy family; she makes offerings of jewelled flowers, garments of gold thread, and necklaces. The treatise-author returns to the offering in the sūtra text and explains it: 「是女人福德因緣，生於富家，聞佛法信樂故，能以金銀寶華、金縷織成上下衣，并莊嚴自身瓔珞具，用供養上佛。」 tr. "This woman, by the causes and conditions of her merit, was born into a wealthy family, and because she heard the Buddha-Dharma and believed and delighted in it, she was able to take jewelled flowers of gold and silver, upper and lower garments woven of gold thread, together with the necklaces that adorned her own body, and use them as an offering to the Buddha." This explanation supplies two things the sūtra text did not state plainly: first, how she could produce such implements of offering—by the causes and conditions of merit she was born into a wealthy family; second, why she was willing to produce them—she heard the Buddha-Dharma and believed and delighted in it. Neither can be lacking: having the things without faith, one does not offer; having faith without the things, one cannot offer such things. The treatise-author also points out that what she offered included 「莊嚴自身瓔珞具」 tr. "the necklaces that adorned her own body"—even what she wore on her body she took off and offered.
21. The Buddha repays her with the prediction; contemplating her conduct in former lives, he smiles; a small cause and condition gives rise to a great matter. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's smile: 「佛報以受記，觀是女人宿世所行，便微笑。微笑義如先說。此中小因緣而起大事，故佛微笑。」 tr. "The Buddha repaid her with the prediction; contemplating this woman's conduct in former lives, he smiled. The meaning of the smile is as explained before. Here a small cause and condition gives rise to a great matter; therefore the Buddha smiled." Three sections. First, what the Buddha repays her with is the prediction—offering and prediction answer each other. Second, what the smile contemplates is 「宿世所行」 tr. "conduct in former lives", not the offering before his eyes; this corresponds exactly to what the sūtra text says, 「知是女人深心因緣」 tr. "knowing the causes and conditions of this woman's deep mind". Third, the meaning of the smile: 「小因緣而起大事」 tr. "a small cause and condition gives rise to a great matter". The sentence 「微笑義如先說」 tr. "the meaning of the smile is as explained before" shows that the general meaning of the smile is already complete in the earlier text of this treatise; here only this chapter's particular meaning is added. This particular meaning is the eye of the passage—the so-called small cause and condition refers to a matter that to bystanders seems very small, such as scattering flowers and making a vow; the so-called great matter refers to the prediction of Buddhahood that comes from it.
22. The treatise-author's third question—since her merit is long-standing, why does she turn her woman's body only in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha. The treatise-author sets the sharpest question of the whole chapter: 「是女福德應久轉女人，何以方於阿閦佛國乃轉女身？」 tr. "By her merit this woman should long ago have turned from being a woman; why does she turn her woman's body only in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha?" The force of this difficulty lies in its following on from the previous passage—since it has been said that her causes and conditions of merit are deep and her conduct in former lives worth contemplating, and that immeasurable kalpas have passed since she aroused the mind at the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, then her woman's body should have been turned long ago; why wait until she is born in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha? Setting this question is asking on the reader's behalf: between merit and the turning of the body, what in the end is the relation?
23. The marker of the answer. The treatise-author opens what follows with the marker of the answer, in the same form as passages 12 and 17.
24. The first answer—because the five desires are hard to sever and clinging to desire and passion is much, she does not obtain a man's body; now, having received the prediction, her afflictions are broken and thinned. The treatise-author answers: 「世間五欲難斷，女人著欲情多故，雖世世行諸福德，不能得男子身；今得受記，諸煩惱折薄，是故於阿閦佛國方得男子身。」 tr. "The five desires of the world are hard to sever; because a woman's clinging to desire and passion is much, though life after life she practises the various merits, she cannot obtain a man's body; now, having received the prediction, her afflictions are broken and thinned; therefore in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha she at last obtains a man's body." The joint of this answer lies in the distinction set up across the three Chinese characters rendered here as ‘though … cannot …’: merit and affliction are two matters; merit can accumulate life after life while affliction does not necessarily grow thin along with it; what the turning of the body waits for is the breaking and thinning of the afflictions, not the fullness of merit. So the inference in the question, 「福德應久轉女人」 tr. "by her merit she should long ago have turned from being a woman", has in itself a step that does not stand—it takes merit as the direct cause of the turning of the body. The items of the 「五欲」 tr. "five desires" this passage of the treatise does not list; it only speaks of them in sum with the two Chinese characters rendered here as 「難斷」 tr. "hard to sever", and the reader need not seek their names and numbers here.
25. Someone says—in a former life, because people mostly despise women, she vowed to receive the prediction in a woman's body. With 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" the treatise-author again turns out an entirely different road: 「此女宿世以人多輕女人故，願女身受記。」 tr. "This woman in a former life, because people mostly despise women, vowed to receive the prediction in a woman's body." By this road, her not having turned her body was not at all an inability but her own wish—precisely because the world mostly despises women, she vowed to receive the prediction in a woman's body. This section runs in the opposite direction to the previous one: the previous section spoke of obstruction; this section speaks of vow. The treatise-author sets them side by side without judging, and the reader keeps both; one may not take the one and discard the other.
26. Conclusion—by such causes and conditions, she receives the prediction without turning her woman's body. The treatise-author gathers up the two preceding sections with one sentence: 「如是等因緣，不轉女身而得受記。」 tr. "By such causes and conditions she receives the prediction without turning her woman's body." The three Chinese characters rendered here as 「如是等」 tr. "such" point precisely to the two roads of causes and conditions above. The meaning this sentence establishes is very clear: receiving the prediction and turning the body are two matters; receiving the prediction does not take turning the body as its precondition. Here the reader must view it together with the sentence of the fourth sūtra passage, 「畢女身，受男子形」 tr. "will end her woman's body and receive the form of a man"—the sūtra speaks of where she goes afterwards; the treatise speaks of her body at the time she receives the prediction; each account has its own reference, and they do not conflict.
27. Furthermore—the sūtra speaks of the five obstacles of women; it does not say that they cannot receive the prediction. The treatise-author adds a final section to seal off the last difficulty: 「復次，經說女人五礙，不說不得受記，是故不應生難。」 tr. "Furthermore, the sūtra speaks of the five obstacles of women; it does not say that they cannot receive the prediction; therefore one should not raise the difficulty." The method of this section is worth learning: he does not refute the teaching of the 「女人五礙」 tr. "five obstacles of women"; he points out the scope of that teaching—what the sūtra speaks of is five obstacles; the sūtra has not said that they cannot receive the prediction; to take what the sūtra has not said as what the sūtra has said—that difficulty itself does not stand. The items of the 「五礙」 tr. "five obstacles" the treatise here only names without listing their matters, and so here too they are not listed on its behalf; what this passage uses is only their scope, not their content. Here the reader can gain a general method for removing difficulties: first ask what exactly this sentence of the sūtra says and does not say, and then ask whether the difficulty arises from what it did not say.
28. The treatise-author explains Ānanda's exclaiming at what had never been. The three rounds of question and answer finished, the treatise-author instead closes the whole chapter with explanations that follow the text. First he explains Ānanda's exclamation: 「阿難聞是女人無量劫中從一佛國至一佛國廣集功德，當來得淨佛世界，其中菩薩皆有三十二相、八十種隨形好、無量光明，是故阿難歎未曾有」 tr. "Ānanda heard that this woman, through immeasurable kalpas, goes from one buddha-land to another buddha-land broadly gathering merit, and in the future will obtain a pure buddha-world in which the bodhisattvas all have the thirty-two marks, the eighty kinds of minor marks, and immeasurable light; therefore Ānanda exclaimed at what had never been", and the words of the exclamation are 「能如是淨佛國土，便為如佛會。」 tr. "To be able thus to purify a buddha-land is to make it like the Buddha's assembly." This explanation supplies where Ānanda's exclamation comes from—he is not exclaiming that she alone obtains a prediction, but at the appearance of that land which comes from broadly gathering merit through immeasurable kalpas. The items named, 「三十二相」 tr. "the thirty-two marks" and 「八十種隨形好」 tr. "the eighty kinds of minor marks", the treatise here names only by their general names and does not list their details. From this the reader can know the weight of that one thought in passage 5: what Ānanda measured was not the number of people at one Dharma assembly, but the sight of a whole land of bodhisattvas all with the marks of a Buddha.
29. The Buddha approves his words; Ānanda and the others, doubting that it is rare, raise the difficulty and ask. The treatise-author explains the next turn: 「佛可其言已，阿難等疑此女人希有，聞少法而得大果報，是故難問」 tr. "After the Buddha had approved his words, Ānanda and the others doubted, finding this woman rare—that hearing little of the Dharma she should obtain a great fruit—and so they raised the difficulty and asked", and the words of the question are 「是女人從何處殖諸德本？」 tr. "Where did this woman plant the roots of virtue?" This explanation points out the inner motive of that question in passage 7—it is not simply seeking to know; it is 「疑」 tr. "doubt": the Dharma heard is so little and the fruit obtained so great that the two do not match. The treatise-author uses the two Chinese characters rendered here as 「難問」 tr. "raised the difficulty and asked", plainly fixing it as a question carrying doubt and not a casual question. Here the reader can see one of the fine points of how this treatise explains the sūtra: for one and the same sentence of the sūtra text, the treatise-author often first supplies the state of mind of the one who asks, and only then does the reader know the weight of the question.
30. The Buddha answers with the origin in Dīpaṃkara Buddha's prediction—she made a vow then; from that she planted roots of goodness and now obtains the fruit. The whole chapter closes on the Buddha's answer as the treatise-author cites it; its words are: 「定光佛授我記時，是女人持金華散佛，彼作是願：『此人後成佛時，亦當受與我記。』從彼種善根，今得果報。」 tr. "When Dīpaṃkara Buddha gave me the prediction, this woman, holding golden flowers, scattered them over the Buddha, and she made this vow: ‘When this person later becomes a Buddha, may he also give the prediction to me.’ From that she planted roots of goodness, and now obtains the fruit." This passage presses the three sections of passage 8 of Sūtra ① into one sentence, and what it adds lies in the content of 「彼作是願」 tr. "she made this vow"—what she vowed then was to receive this person's prediction at the time he became a Buddha. So the whole chapter forms a ring: what was vowed is exactly what is obtained today; and the one she sought is exactly the Buddha who today gives her the prediction. The doubt of 「聞少法而得大果報」 tr. "hearing little of the Dharma she should obtain a great fruit" is resolved here—though what she heard was little, what she vowed was wholly single-minded, and what her vow was bound to was no other than the Buddha before her eyes. Here there is also one matter recorded without judgement: one passage of the sūtra text calls him 「然燈佛」 tr. "Dīpaṃkara Buddha", while the treatise-author here calls him 「定光佛」 tr. "Dīpaṃkara Buddha"; what is referred to is the same Buddha, the one who gave the Buddha the prediction, and the same event of this woman scattering flowers and making a vow; this treatise uses the two names side by side, and it is enough for the reader to know that they refer to one event.
Do Not Misread
Do not read 「女人性輕躁好勝，世世習氣故發言」 tr. "a woman's nature is light and impulsive and fond of winning; because of the habitual residues of life after life she spoke aloud" as this treatise's verdict on women. The position of this sentence in its passage is quite fixed: before it stands the sentence 「多有發淨國土願者，但不發言」 tr. "many made the vow of a pure land, but did not speak it aloud", and the object being explained has already been limited to 「發言」 tr. "speaking aloud", not ‘making the vow’, still less ‘obtaining the prediction’. And immediately after it the treatise-author, with 「有人言」 tr. "someone says", sets up 「大人有得道分，餘人無分；佛法不然，隨眾生業因緣」 tr. "great persons have a share in attaining the path, and the rest have none; the Buddha's Dharma is not so; it follows the beings' causes and conditions of deeds", and gives the simile of good medicine not choosing between the noble and the base, stating positively that what obtaining the prediction relies on is the causes and conditions of deeds. Further on, the two sections 「心生欲說，故佛聽自說」 tr. "her mind gave rise to the wish to speak, and so the Buddha let her speak for herself" and 「若佛默然與受記者，人則生疑」 tr. "if the Buddha were to give the prediction in silence, people would give rise to doubt" turn this 「發言」 tr. "speaking aloud" further into a condition of teaching that the Buddha makes use of. If one takes only the first answer and discards the three sections after it, what one obtains is the opposite of this treatise's own conclusion.
Do not read 「一切皆有名字，為識故，何足求義」 tr. "everything has a name, for the sake of recognition; why go looking for a meaning" as saying that names have no origin at all. The very next section is 「有人言：是女父母供養恒伽神，得此女故，言恒伽提婆。恒伽是河名，提婆名天」 tr. "someone says: this woman's father and mother made offerings to the spirit of the Gaṅgā and obtained this daughter; therefore she is called Gaṅgadevī. Gaṅgā is the name of a river; devī means a deity"—the treatise-author himself records the origin of the name and the gloss of its two elements together. What the two sections say lies on different levels: the former says that one need not seek the meaning of the Dharma through names and marks; the latter says that this name has its worldly origin. Read the former as ‘investigating names is not allowed’, and the latter has nowhere to be placed; read the latter as ‘there is Dharma-meaning in the name’, and the former becomes empty words. Only keeping both is the intent of this treatise.
Do not read 「是故於阿閦佛國方得男子身」 tr. "therefore in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha she at last obtains a man's body" as meaning that receiving the prediction must wait for the turning of the body. Within the same round of question and answer the treatise-author himself brings out the opposite side: 「有人言：此女宿世以人多輕女人故，願女身受記」 tr. "someone says: this woman in a former life, because people mostly despise women, vowed to receive the prediction in a woman's body", and concludes with 「如是等因緣，不轉女身而得受記」 tr. "by such causes and conditions she receives the prediction without turning her woman's body". So in this treatise receiving the prediction and turning the body are two matters—what the sūtra text records, 「畢女身，受男子形」 tr. "will end her woman's body and receive the form of a man", speaks of where she goes after receiving the prediction; what the treatise text establishes, 「不轉女身而得受記」 tr. "receives the prediction without turning her woman's body", speaks of the time of receiving the prediction. If it is read as meaning that one must first turn the body before being fit to receive the prediction, then the concluding words of this passage of the treatise have nothing to rest on, and the event in the sūtra of the Buddha giving her the prediction on the spot has no ground to stand on either.
Do not read 「經說女人五礙」 tr. "the sūtra speaks of the five obstacles of women" as this treatise here expounding the meaning of the five obstacles. The treatise-author cites this sentence using only its scope, not its content—his words are 「不說不得受記」 tr. "it does not say that they cannot receive the prediction", and what he does is point out that what the sūtra has not said may not be taken as what the sūtra has said. Since this treatise does not list the items of the five obstacles here, the reader too should not supply them himself in this passage; the whole use of this passage lies in the method of removing a difficulty, not in the marks of the five obstacles.
Do not read 「小因緣而起大事」 tr. "a small cause and condition gives rise to a great matter" as meaning that, the cause being small and the fruit great, one need not cultivate. What this phrase of the treatise-author explains is why the Buddha smiled, and he states at the same time that what the Buddha contemplated is 「是女人宿世所行」 tr. "this woman's conduct in former lives"; the sūtra text too says plainly that what the Buddha knew is 「深心因緣」 tr. "the causes and conditions of her deep mind". Look again at the answer of the last passage: this woman had already scattered flowers and made a vow from the time of Dīpaṃkara Buddha's prediction, and in between, 「無量劫中從一佛國至一佛國廣集功德」 tr. "through immeasurable kalpas, going from one buddha-land to another buddha-land, she broadly gathers merit". So what is called small refers to the smallness of the outward form of this present act of offering; what is called great refers to the greatness of the fruit; that stretch in between, of broadly gathering merit through immeasurable kalpas, neither the sūtra nor the treatise leaves out. If it is read as one offering being enough, it wipes out precisely that long course which the treatise itself speaks of.
Bearing on Practice
The first use is to look at ‘making the vow’ and 「發言」 tr. "speaking aloud" separately. What this treatise's first answer first establishes is 「多有發淨國土願者，但不發言」 tr. "many made the vow of a pure land, but did not speak it aloud"—those who make the vow are many to begin with; those who speak aloud are few. Here the practitioner can examine himself on two sides: first, one need not think that no one walks alongside because others do not speak; second, one also need not judge superior and inferior by whether or not one speaks aloud oneself. And the text below further gives a proper reason for speaking aloud—「心生欲說，故佛聽自說」 tr. "her mind gave rise to the wish to speak, and so the Buddha let her speak for herself", as well as that, if he were silent, 「人則生疑」 tr. "people would give rise to doubt". From this one can know that where it is necessary to let people see the cause, speaking out has its use; where there is no such necessity, not speaking is no fault either.
The second use is that the simile of good medicine not choosing between the noble and the base can serve as an everyday check. The prejudice 「大人有得道分，餘人無分」 tr. "great persons have a share in attaining the path, and the rest have none", put in today's terms, is to prejudge whether oneself or others can practise by the height or lowness of standing, seniority, and faculties. The treatise-author's answer is only one sentence: 「佛法不然，隨眾生業因緣。」 tr. "The Buddha's Dharma is not so; it follows the beings' causes and conditions of deeds." The simile says that good medicine cures the various illnesses without choosing between the noble and the base—what the medicine recognises is the illness. Its use on the path of practice is this: when beginning cultivation, do not first weigh whether one is worthy; only ask whether what one practises treats the illness now present.
The third use is that 「何足求義」 tr. "why go looking for a meaning" can cure clinging to names and marks. In daily reading of sūtras and treatises, whenever one meets a name or mark one wants to pursue its deep meaning, and often what one gets at the end of the pursuit is only another string of names. This phrase of the treatise-author gives a stopping-place: a name is set up for the sake of recognition; recognising what it points to is enough. But it must be used together with the next section—the origin of a name should be investigated where it should be, only one must not take the origin for the meaning of the Dharma. Once the two are kept distinct, reading is spared more than half its wasted effort.
The fourth use is that the distinction between 「福德」 tr. "merit" and 「煩惱折薄」 tr. "the breaking and thinning of the afflictions" can serve as a self-check on progress. When one has practised the path for a long time, one often estimates one's progress by the merit accumulated, thinking that when merit is thick the obstructions will remove themselves. The treatise-author says plainly: 「雖世世行諸福德，不能得男子身」 tr. "though life after life she practises the various merits, she cannot obtain a man's body"; what the turning of the body waits for is 「諸煩惱折薄」 tr. "her afflictions are broken and thinned". Carried over to oneself, this means: how many good deeds one has done cannot take the place of the self-check of whether one's afflictions have really grown thin. The two items must be looked at separately; only then does one not let the one cover the other.
The fifth use is that the vow of the last passage can serve as a model for making vows. What this woman made at that time was not a vague good vow but 「此人後成佛時，亦當受與我記」 tr. "when this person later becomes a Buddha, may he also give the prediction to me"—the matter vowed is definite, and the person it is bound to is definite. The treatise-author concludes with 「從彼種善根，今得果報」 tr. "from that she planted roots of goodness, and now obtains the fruit", binding the fruit directly to that one vow. In making vows in daily use one can learn from this model: a vow must be able to say what is vowed and where it is directed; only then is it a root of goodness that can be planted; a vague vow, though good, hardly becomes a seed. And this woman's example is at the same time a reminder—after the vow has been made, there is still, in between, 「無量劫中從一佛國至一佛國廣集功德」 tr. "through immeasurable kalpas, going from one buddha-land to another buddha-land, she broadly gathers merit"; the vow is the seed, not the harvest.
Further Resonances
The backbone of this chapter is one sūtra section and one treatise section. The sūtra text begins from 「爾時，有一女人，字恒伽提婆」 tr. "At that time there was a woman named Gaṅgadevī" and recounts her rising from her seat and stating her own vow and practice, her scattering flowers as an offering to the Buddha which turned into a jewelled terrace with four pillars, and her dedicating the merit she held; next it recounts the Buddha, knowing the causes and conditions of her deep mind, smiling and emitting light, Ānanda asking the cause and condition of the smile, and the Buddha giving her the prediction—the kalpa named Constellation, the Buddha called Golden Flower, ending her woman's body and receiving the form of a man, being born in Abhirati, the land of Akṣobhya Buddha, going from one buddha-land to another buddha-land without being apart from the buddhas—and gives the simile of the wheel-turning sage king going from one tower to another tower with his feet never treading the ground; next it recounts Ānanda thinking in his mind that her assembly will be like the Buddha's assembly, and the Buddha, knowing his thought, confirming it and adding that the bhikṣu Saṅgha will be without measure and the land without all these evils; last it recounts Ānanda asking where her roots of virtue came from, the Buddha answering that she planted roots of goodness and first aroused the mind at the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, taking as the counterpart his own scattering of five flowers over that Buddha and receiving the prediction, and saying that this woman, hearing of that prediction, aroused the mind; Ānanda says she has long trained, and the Buddha confirms it and concludes. The treatise's explanation is mainly three rounds of question and answer. The first asks why only one woman took up the vow of a pure land; it answers that many made the vow but did not speak aloud and that a woman's nature is light and impulsive and fond of winning, the habitual residue of life after life; next, with someone says, it establishes that attaining the path does not choose between the noble and the base and gives the simile of good medicine; finally it says that if the prediction were given in silence people would give rise to doubt, and so he gave her the prediction because she herself had spoken. The second asks why she is named Gaṅgadevī; it answers that everything has a name for the sake of recognition, so why go looking for a meaning; next, with someone says, it brings out the origin in her parents' offerings to the spirit of the Gaṅgā and glosses river and goddess; following on, it explains that by her merit she was born into a wealthy family and, hearing the Dharma, believed and delighted in it, and so could make offerings of jewelled flowers, garments of gold thread, and necklaces; and it explains that the Buddha repaid her with the prediction, contemplated her conduct in former lives and smiled, a small cause and condition giving rise to a great matter. The third asks why, since her merit is long-standing, she turns her woman's body only in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha; it answers that because the five desires are hard to sever and her clinging to desire and passion is much she does not obtain a man's body, and that now, having received the prediction, her afflictions are broken and thinned; next, with someone says, it brings out the account that she vowed to receive the prediction in a woman's body; it concludes that she receives the prediction without turning her woman's body; and at the end, with furthermore, it cites the sūtra's speaking of the five obstacles of women without saying they cannot receive the prediction, to seal off the difficulty. The three rounds finished, it closes instead with explanations following the text: explaining where Ānanda's exclamation at what had never been comes from, explaining that Ānanda and the others doubted it was rare and raised the difficulty and asked, and at the last citing the Buddha's answer on the origin in Dīpaṃkara Buddha's prediction as the conclusion, meeting the end of the seventy-fifth fascicle.
The doctrinal veins between this chapter and the chapters before and after can be seen along two lines. First, continuing what came before: the preceding chapters broadly taught the practice of purifying buddha-worlds, and the sūtra text of this chapter takes it up with one person's vow—the treatise-author's very first question, 「如是大眾聞說淨國土行，何以但一女人取淨國土願」 tr. "when so great an assembly heard the practice of purifying the land taught, why did only one woman take up the vow of a pure land", plainly ties this chapter to the teaching on the pure land in the preceding chapters; if one reads this chapter without knowing what the preceding chapters said, this question has no way to stand. Second, reaching toward what comes after: since the sūtra text records that this woman will be born in the land of Akṣobhya Buddha and in the future become a Buddha called Golden Flower, her person and her practice both await further telling in the text that follows; and the meaning this chapter establishes, ‘receiving the prediction does not wait on turning the body’, is likewise a preliminary to the later text's discussion of the meanings of non-retrogression. The reader may view it together with the chapters before and after.
Of the ancient masters' explanations, two can be recorded for this chapter. The first is Jizang. He divides this chapter into three parts, saying: 「品三：初、明願行成二；二、得受記；三、出因釋得記所由也。初三：一、餘悟；二、供養；三、迴向。」 tr. "The chapter is in three: first, making clear the accomplishment of vow and practice—two; second, obtaining the prediction; third, bringing out the cause, explaining the reason the prediction was obtained. The first is in three: one, the awakening of the others; two, the offering; three, the dedication."—dividing this chapter into three parts, the accomplishment of vow and practice, obtaining the prediction, and bringing out the cause to explain the reason the prediction was obtained, and dividing its first part into three, the awakening of the others, the offering, and the dedication, which corresponds to the order of the sūtra text in this treatise. In explaining the chapter's name he gives two further explanations, saying: 「一解云：此女父母就何天神求此女？故神若名為河天也。二云：令名為定也。」 tr. "One explanation says: to which heavenly spirit did this woman's parents go to seek this daughter? Hence the spirit was named, as it were, River Goddess. The second says: the name was made to be fixed."—the former explanation is close to the origin that this treatise brings out with 「有人言」 tr. "someone says"; the latter is Jizang's own gloss; both are recorded without judgement. Jizang also summarises in his own words this treatise's first round of question and answer, saying: 「多有發淨土願去不發言，女人性輕疎好勝世世習氣，故獨發言。亦解云：諸外道云大人有得道分，餘人無分，佛法不爾，不簡大小同悟，便為受記也。」 tr. "Many made the vow of a pure land but did not speak aloud; a woman's nature is light and careless and fond of winning, the habitual residue of life after life, and so she alone spoke aloud. Another explanation says: those of the outside paths say that great persons have a share in attaining the path and the rest have none; the Buddha's Dharma is not so—not choosing between great and small, all alike awaken, and so she was given the prediction."—this is Jizang's summarising citation, not the original text of this treatise; the words 「諸外道云」 tr. "those of the outside paths say" and 「不簡大小同悟」 tr. "not choosing between great and small, all alike awaken" among them were added by Jizang, and the reader should keep them apart from the text proper of this treatise. The second is Huiying. He explains the opening of this chapter, saying: 「此品以人為名，名為恒伽提婆品。」 tr. "This chapter takes a person as its name: it is called the Gaṅgadevī chapter." And he divides it into four parts, saying: 「就此品中大有四分：第一、明恒伽女人白佛興淨土行願；第二、明供養於佛；第三、明佛授其記；第四、明其發心行行。」 tr. "Within this chapter there are broadly four parts: first, making clear that the woman Gaṅgā addresses the Buddha and raises the practice and vow of a pure land; second, making clear the offering to the Buddha; third, making clear the Buddha's giving her the prediction; fourth, making clear her arousing of the mind and her practising of the practices."—dividing this chapter into four parts, raising the vow, the offering, giving the prediction, and arousing the mind and practising the practices, which takes a different angle from Jizang's three parts; both are recorded without judgement, and the reader keeps both. At the head of the next chapter Huiying also looks back on this chapter, saying: 「何故次河天品後明於此品？明金華是不退菩薩」 tr. "Why is this chapter made clear next, after the River Goddess chapter? To make clear that Golden Flower is a non-retrogressing bodhisattva"—taking the Golden Flower predicted in this chapter as a non-retrogressing bodhisattva, and tying its meaning to the next chapter. As for Junzheng's commentary and the explanations of the two Tiantai masters, not a word on this chapter is found in any of them, and the gap is recorded as it is. The variant names of the chapter title, the ordering in the various editions, and the study of collation are detailed in the Apparatus.
學空不證品Training in Emptiness without Realising It
全文五層 →Full five layers →學空不證品：學空與入空何以要分成二道，心不亂何以反成不作證之因，不有餘不有分說的是什麼，學時非證時何以不是拖延，不專攝心繫在緣中何以不是散心，壯夫過險道喻何以不是勸人不斷煩惱，有翼之鳥何以既不墮也不住，後箭射前箭何以是方便力的樣子，四重復次何以都從眾生說起，試問之法何以能驗阿鞞跋致，深入禪定不令心亂與不專心何以不相違，執菅草緩急之喻何以說的是深入，若聞若不聞能如是答何以都算，諸法實相惟佛能遍知何以是全品之結
在問什麼
這一品的難處，全在一個「不」字上：不作證。前此諸品一路教人學空、入空、行三解脫門，本品忽然加上一個限制——學它、入它，卻不可以證它。難處立刻現前：空是所學，證是學成，既學而不許證，豈不是學而不成？又，三解脫門與三十七品本是聲聞、辟支佛趣涅槃的道路，佛卻敕命菩薩去行；行人家的路而不許到人家的終點，這條路要怎麼走？須菩提開口第一問，問的正是這個：菩薩想行般若波羅蜜，究竟怎樣學空三昧、怎樣入空三昧，乃至怎樣學修八聖道分。
佛的答語出人意料地不從「空」上說，而從「心」上說：應觀色乃至三界皆空，作是觀時不令心亂；心若不亂，則不見是法；不見是法，則不作證。三句一路遞下，不作證不是外加的禁令，是觀行深到極處的自然結果——不是行者硬忍著不證，是深觀之中根本尋不到一個可證之法、一個能證之人。所以佛接著說出理由：善學自相空故，不有餘、不有分，證法、證者皆不可見。全品的樞紐在此一句。須菩提隨即再問一層：既然住在空法之中，怎麼會不作證？佛乃出『學時非證時』之願、「不專攝心繫在緣中」之行，並連出三喻——壯夫勁健而能扶老弱過險道、有翼之鳥飛空而不墮不住、健人善射以後箭拄前箭——喻中所共明的，只有一事：以方便力故，諸善根未具足時不於實際作證。
品的後半把「不證」落到發心上。須菩提歎其甚難，佛答得極簡：不捨一切眾生故，作如是願。以下四重「復次」，一重一重從眾生說起——為眾生斷諸相、為眾生破四顛倒、為眾生破著得法、為眾生破著諸相——每一重都以同一句收尾：未具足佛法之前不於實際作證。可見「不證」的力量不在壓抑，在悲願。末後佛又立一個可操作之法：試問。問他菩薩云何學是法、觀空而不證實際；聽他怎麼答，便知他是不是阿鞞跋致。論主承此逐層申釋，先辨學空入空之別，再辨「深入禪定，不令心亂」與「不專心」何以不相違，逐一還原三喻之所喻，末以「諸法實相，惟佛能遍知」收束全品。
逐段解明
一、學空入空之問。 須菩提問：菩薩摩訶薩欲行般若波羅蜜，云何學空三昧、云何入空三昧，無相無作亦爾，乃至云何學四念處、云何修四念處，云何學八聖道分、云何修八聖道分。此問有一個常被讀過去的形式：每一法都問兩遍——一問「學」，一問「入」或「修」。讀者若只看見所問之法而看不見這一雙，本品全部的分際便無處可立。先記住：問的不是空是什麼，是學它與入它有何不同。
二、佛答觀空不令心亂——不見是法故不作證、善學自相空故不有餘不有分。 佛答不直接說學與入，先給觀法：行般若時應觀色空、受想行識空，十二入、十八界乃至欲界色界無色界皆空。隨後一句纔是全答之骨：作是觀時，不令心亂。心不亂則不見是法，不見是法則不作證。此處最易讀錯的是把「不令心亂」當作定力的附帶條件；實則它是不作證的正因——心愈不亂，觀愈周遍，可證之相愈無處可得。末句佛自出所以然：善學自相空故，不有餘、不有分，證法、證者皆不可見。「不有餘」者，觀不留剩下的角落；「不有分」者，觀不留可切分的一小塊。餘與分既盡，能所俱不可見，證於何處安立。
三、住空中而不作證之問。 須菩提聞答即追一層：如佛所說，菩薩不應空法作證；世尊，云何菩薩住空法中而不作證。此問問得極準——他不再問理由，問的是「住」與「不證」如何同時。凡讀般若，遇見兩個看似相排的詞被放在一句裡，可學須菩提此問：不是要求取消其一，是要問二者並存的分寸在哪裡。
四、先作是願學時非證時——不專攝心繫在緣中、遍歷諸度諸品皆非證時。 佛答分三節。其一、先作是願：我今不應空法作證；我今學時，非是證時。其二、不專攝心繫在緣中——不把心死死繫在一個所緣上。其三、遍歷諸法而一一結以「非是證時」：檀波羅蜜乃至禪波羅蜜、四念處乃至八聖道分、空無相無作三昧、佛十力四無所畏四無礙智十八不共法大慈大悲、乃至學一切種智之時，都不是得須陀洹果乃至辟支佛道之證的時候。此段不要讀成拖延——「非是證時」不是把證推到以後纔要，是說此時的用功本身不以取證為事。佛更明說果效：以是故於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提中不退，亦不取漏盡證；末句總收：雖學三十七品、雖行三十七品，而不作須陀洹果證乃至辟支佛道。學而不證，至此成立為一種正行，不是一種欠缺。
五、壯夫扶老弱過險道喻。 佛出第一喻。壯夫勁勇猛健，善於兵法與六十四能，堅持器仗，安立不動，巧諸伎術，端正淨潔，人所愛敬，少修事業而得報利多；因少有因緣當至他處，扶將老弱，過諸險難恐怖之處，安慰父母、曉喻妻子莫有恐懅；險道之中多有怨賊潛伏劫害，其人智力具足故能度惡道，還歸本處，不遇賊害，歡喜安樂。喻畢即合：菩薩於一切眾生中慈悲喜捨遍滿具足，住四無量心，具足六波羅蜜，不取漏盡證；學一切種智，入空、無相、無作解脫門，不隨一切諸相，亦不證無相三昧；以不證故，不墮聲聞辟支佛地。此喻之要在「扶將」二字——壯夫之所以不獨自輕身而過，正因手上有人。
六、有翼之鳥飛空不墮不住喻。 第二喻極短：有翼之鳥飛騰虛空而不墮墜，雖在空中亦不住空。合法亦短：菩薩學空、無相、無作解脫門而不作證；以不作證故不墮二乘地；未具足佛十力、大慈大悲、無量諸佛法、一切種智，亦不證三解脫門。此喻雙遮：不墮，遮的是退落；不住，遮的是停駐。讀者若只取一邊，便成兩種偏差——只記不墮，便以為空可久留；只記不住，便以為空不可入。鳥之在空，正是既不落地也不停步。
七、健人善射後箭拄前箭喻。 第三喻最工：健人學諸射法，善於射術，仰射空中，復以後箭射於前箭，箭箭相拄，不令箭墮，隨意自在；若欲令墮，便止後箭，爾乃墮地。合法：菩薩行般若，以方便力故，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，諸善根未具足，不於實際作證；若善根成就，是時便於實際作證。此喻與前二喻不同處，在它把『何時可證』也說了——箭之墮不墮，全在後箭續不續；證之取不取，全在善根具不具。所以不證不是永不證，是時節未至。經①末佛結云：行般若波羅蜜時，應如是觀諸法法相。
八、須菩提歎所為甚難。 經②起於須菩提之歎：菩薩摩訶薩所為甚難——雖學諸法相、學實際、學如、學法性、學畢竟空，乃至學自相空及三解脫門，終不中道墮落，是甚希有。此歎不是讚辭而已，是把難處點名：所學之法門門通向寂滅，而行者偏偏一門也不入住。歎中已含問，故佛下文即答其所以。
九、不捨一切眾生故作如是願。 佛答只一句而根柢全出：是菩薩摩訶薩不捨一切眾生故，作如是願。續言其相：若作是念——我不應捨一切眾生，眾生沒在無所有法中，我應當度——爾時即入三解脫門。當知是菩薩成就方便力，未得一切種智，行是解脫門，亦不中道取實際證。要看清此段的次第：先有不捨眾生之念，後纔入解脫門；入時所持者是此念，故雖入而不取證。方便力之所以名為力，正在此處。
十、第一重復次——欲觀甚深法而先生斷眾生諸相之心。 菩薩欲觀內空乃至無法有法空、四念處乃至三解脫門諸甚深法，爾時應生如是心：是諸眾生長夜行我相乃至知者見者相，著於得法；為眾生斷是諸相故得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，當說法。爾時行三解脫門而不取實際證；以不證故，不墮須陀洹果乃至辟支佛道。佛更說其利：以是心欲成就善根故，不中道實際作證，不失四禪、四無量心、四無色定、四念處乃至八聖道分、空無相無作、佛十力乃至十八不共法；成就一切助道法乃至菩提終不耗減；有方便力故常增益善法，諸根通利，勝於阿羅漢辟支佛根。此處須留意：不證的果報不是停滯，是諸功德一項不失而諸根轉利。
十一、第二重復次——為破四顛倒。 菩薩作是念：眾生長夜著四顛倒——常想、樂想、我想、淨想；為是眾生故求薩婆若，我得菩提時當為說無常法、苦、不淨、無我法。四顛倒之目在此段由經文自身列出，不假他處。成就是心，以方便力行般若，未得佛三昧、未具足佛十力乃至十八不共法，亦不實際作證；爾時修無作解脫門，雖未得菩提亦不實際作證。四重復次之中，第一重三門並出（「行空解脫門，無相、無作解脫門，亦不取實際證」），後三重乃各配一門；此一重配的是無作。
十二、第三重復次——為破著得法。 菩薩作是念：眾生長夜著得法，所謂我、眾生乃至知者見者，是色、是受想行識、是入、是界，是四禪、四無量心、四無色定；我如是行，如我得菩提時令眾生無是得法。是心成就，以方便力行般若，未具足佛十力乃至十八不共法，不於實際作證；爾時具足修空三昧。此一重配空三昧——所破是『有所得』，故對之以空。
十三、第四重復次——為破著諸相，並立試問之辭。 菩薩作是念：眾生長夜行諸相，所謂男相、女相、色相、無色相；我如是行，如我得菩提時令眾生無是諸相過失。是心成就，以方便力行般若，未具足佛十力乃至十八不共法，不於實際作證；爾時具足修無相三昧——此一重配無相，所破是相。四重既畢，佛續言智慧成就之相：學六波羅蜜、學內空乃至無法有法空、學四念處乃至三解脫門、學佛十力乃至十八不共法，如是智慧成就，若著作法、若住三界，無有是處。末乃立法：是菩薩學助道法、行助道法時，應當試問——諸菩薩欲得菩提，云何學是法、觀空不證實際，以不證故不墮須陀洹果乃至辟支佛道，觀無相無作無起無生無所有亦不取證而修行般若。應如是問。此問之所以能驗，在它把本品全部分際壓成一句，答者稍有偏側即現。
十四、答語二途——未授記之答與阿鞞跋致之答。 佛出失答之相：若答云菩薩摩訶薩但應觀空、但應觀無相無作無起無生無所有，不應學是諸法、不應學是助道法——當知是菩薩諸佛未授阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記。何以故？是人不能說阿鞞跋致菩薩所學相，不能示、不能答。反之，能說、能示、能答者，當知已習學菩薩道入薄地，如餘阿鞞跋致菩薩之阿鞞跋致相。失處要看準：失不在他說空，在他把「觀」與「學」對立起來——只許觀而不許學，正是本品所遮的偏。
十五、頗有未得阿鞞跋致能如是答不。 須菩提問：頗有未得阿鞞跋致菩薩能如是答不。此問的分量在「未得」二字——若答語只有已得者說得出，試問之法便只能事後追認，不能及時識人。
十六、佛答有——六波羅蜜若聞若不聞。 佛答：有。是菩薩摩訶薩，六波羅蜜若聞、若不聞，能如是答如阿鞞跋致菩薩摩訶薩。答中「若聞、若不聞」一雙不可略過：不以聽聞之有無為限，故所驗者是見地不是學歷。
十七、多有求佛道少能如是答。 須菩提申言：多有菩薩求佛道，少有菩薩能如是答如阿鞞跋致菩薩於學道、無學道中。多與少一對照，試問之法的意義乃明——它不是普查，是揀別。
十八、佛印可而說其故——得授記者能如是答。 佛言如是如是，是菩薩甚少；何以故？菩薩摩訶薩少有如是得授記行阿鞞跋致慧地；若有得授記，是人能如是答；是人善根明了，諸天世人所不能壞。經②收於此。須注意佛給的因由是「得授記」與「善根明了」，不是聰辯——能答之所以難，難在根，不在口。
十九、論主開論第一問——學空入空有何差別。 論主起論即問：學空、入空有何差別。答出四句：初名學空，後是入空；因是學空，果是入空；方便名學空，得名入空——如是等二道。四句實是一義之四面：時之先後、因之與果、方便之與所得。二道之名由此立。經①開口處一問兩遍的形式，至此得其解。
二十、無相無作與三十七品亦如是。 論主一句推廣：無相、無作、三十七品亦如是。經文所問者不止空一門，故此二道之分通於諸門，不可只作空門之特例讀。
廿一、二乘涅槃道而佛敕菩薩行之。 論主點出全品之難所從生：三解脫門、三十七品是聲聞、辟支佛涅槃道，佛敕菩薩應行是道。所行之道與所不取之果同在一處，難處由此而立——此一句是下文一切問答的根。
廿二、須菩提之疑——此是涅槃道云何不取涅槃證。 論主重述經意：須菩提作是念——此是涅槃道，云何菩薩行是道法而不取涅槃證。此處是論主複述經中問答以申因緣，不是另有一人發言，讀時當作論主引經。
廿三、佛答深入禪定故不見是空法。 論主重述佛答：菩薩觀色等一切法空；是菩薩以深入禪定，心不可亂，得利智慧力故，不見是空法；以不見故無所證。答語把「不證」歸到「不見」，把「不見」歸到「深入」與「利智」——三環相扣，一環也不是靠抑制。
廿四、二乘與菩薩之別——直趣涅槃與善學自相空。 論主出對照：聲聞、辟支佛斷吾我、捨愛著，直趣涅槃；是菩薩善學自相空，色法中乃至微塵不留遺餘微細之分，無色法中乃至不留一念，直入畢竟空中，乃至不見是空法可以為證。經①「不有餘、不有分」一語，至此得其訓解——不留微塵之分是不有分，不留一念是不有餘。對照之要不在勤惰，在觀之周遍與否。
廿五、須菩提未達佛意而更問。 論主續述：佛雖答，須菩提未達佛意，更問——如佛所說菩薩不應空法作證，今入空中云何不作證。同一問而問第二遍，論主明說其故是「未達佛意」；可見前答之「不見」尚須再落一層，纔算說透。
廿六、佛答以深入故——具足即是深入、執菅草緩急喻。 論主重述佛答：以深入故能不作證；具足者即是深入。隨出一喻：譬如執菅草，捉緩則傷手，若急捉則無傷；菩薩亦如是，深入空故，知空亦空、涅槃亦空，故無所證。此喻是論主一邊獨出之喻，經側三喻之外別成一枝。喻意極切：菅草鋒利，半提半放纔割手，握到底反而無傷——空亦如此，淺嘗則被空所傷而取證，深入則知空亦空而無可證。
廿七、未入空時之思惟——故不專心攝念繫在空緣。 論主釋經①「不專攝心繫在緣中」：菩薩未入空時作是思惟——我應遍觀諸法空，不應不具足知而取證；是故不專心攝念入禪、繫在空緣中。所以者何？若專心繫在空緣中，則心柔軟，不能從空自出。「心柔軟」是此段的關鍵語：非謂心不堪任，謂其久繫一緣而順熟於彼，出離便難。
廿八、深入禪定不令心亂與不專心之辨。 論主自設第二問：上言「深入禪定，不令心亂」，今云何言「不專心」。答曰：今言「不專心」，是初入時，為不能自出故；上言「深入」者，入已深，知空亦空，不令心在餘事，故言不亂。一語破之——二說不同時。初入之際說不專，是防其陷；入已深後說不亂，是言其定。凡見論中前後語似相違，可學此法：先問二語各屬何位。
廿九、未具相好十力云何取證。 論主更出一重：是菩薩應作是念——我今未具三十二相、八十種隨形好、十力、四無所畏諸佛法，云何取涅槃證？我今是學時，薄諸煩惱，教化眾生令入佛道；若我得佛事具足，是時當取證。是故菩薩雖入三解脫門而不取證。此段把「學時」的內容說實了：學時不是空等，是薄煩惱、是教化眾生——兩件事都在做，只是不取證。
三十、壯夫喻之所喻。 論主逐字還原第一喻：「壯夫」是菩薩，「父母親族」是可度眾生，「險道」是三界生死，「惡賊」是魔民及諸煩惱，「器仗」是菩薩五神通等種種方便力，「還歸本處」是菩薩所行道，「安立不動」是菩薩住畢竟空；以四無量心運致可度眾生著涅槃安樂處。七目一一對配，喻中無一閒筆。尤要看「安立不動」配「住畢竟空」——壯夫之不動不是不行，是立處不搖。
卅一、鳥喻之所喻——時會者之疑。 論主先出設疑之機：時會者疑——空中無所有，云何可行。是故佛說鳥喻：如鳥飛虛空，無所依止而遠逝不墜。續合第二義：是菩薩未具足道法、未至佛道，於其中間而不作證；如鳥未到所至，終不中住。末出所為：學是空法，為自斷煩惱、為度眾生故。鳥喻在論中得兩義——不墜對治『空中不可行』之疑，不中住對治『中道取證』之失。
卅二、善射喻之所喻。 論主釋第三喻：又為明了故說善射譬喻，如人善於射術；「弓」是菩薩禪定，「箭」是智慧，「虛空」是三解脫門，「地」是涅槃。是菩薩以智慧箭射三解脫門虛空，更以方便力故以後箭射前箭，不令墮涅槃地；未具足十力等佛事故，終不取證。四目對配之外，另有一層：後箭之為方便力，正說明不證是一種持續的用功，不是一次的決定。
卅三、須菩提歡喜歎與佛答本願大悲所持。 論主重述經②之起：須菩提歡喜白佛言——諸菩薩所為甚難，實為希有，所謂行空而不作證。佛答：是菩薩本願諸一切眾生令得離苦，以是本願、大悲心所持故，雖行空，不作證。「所持」二字是全品最重之語——不證之力不出於行者一己之忍，出於本願與大悲的任持。
卅四、方便力故行三解脫門而不捨眾生。 論主釋第一重復次：若菩薩作是念——一切眾生處在苦中，為顛倒所縛，沒在無所有中——是時即行空、無相、無作解脫門。當知是菩薩有方便力，行三解脫門而不捨眾生。行與不捨同時，方便力之名乃實。
卅五、欲觀甚深法先生悲心——長夜之訓、作願、諸根猛利。 論主續釋：菩薩欲觀甚深法，所謂十八空、三十七品、三解脫門，先應作是念——眾生長夜著我相等。此處論主說出所以先者：行者若直觀甚深法，或得聲聞道、或墮邪見，以無憐愍心、不能深入自相空故。故欲觀是法先生悲心，所謂眾生長夜著吾我心諸煩惱。隨出一訓：長夜名久遠——無量劫來是我必不可得，但空虛誑顛倒故受諸憂惱。菩薩見是已作願：我當為眾生成佛道，斷是眾生著我顛倒。是時即是行空等三解脫門而不證實際。末出果效：是善根成就，菩薩不取實際證，亦不失四禪等諸功德；深入空故諸根猛利，勝於二乘。此段要合前讀：直觀而無悲，正是墮處；有悲而後觀，纔是本品之行。
卅六、破四顛倒與著得法二重亦如上說。 論主於第二、第三重復次不重立文，逕云：破四顛倒義，亦如上說。又云：菩薩作是念——眾生長夜著得法，所謂我、眾生乃至若著作法、若住三界無有是處——義皆同觀空而不取證。此非略過，是論主自明其義同；讀者當回取卅五段之文以充之。
卅七、云何知未得道而能行深空——經中自說因緣。 論主自設第三問：云何知是菩薩未得道而能行此深空。答曰：經中自說因緣——是菩薩應試問：云何菩薩應學空而不取證。論主明說驗法不是自立，是經中已有；此即經②末「應當試問」之文。
卅八、失答之相——但應念空一心習行。 論主釋失答：若菩薩答云但應念空、一心習行，如聲聞辟支佛法，不但學知而已——乃至無生、無所有亦如是——當知是菩薩未為諸佛所授記。所以者何？不說方便學知故觀空。失處論主點得極準：他不說『以方便學知故觀空』，故其空成了與二乘同一路的空。
卅九、得答之相——阿鞞跋致、學習與薄地之訓。 論主釋得答：若是菩薩異於上答者，當知是阿鞞跋致，已習學入於薄地。隨出二訓：學習名先學知空；薄地名阿鞞跋致地中諸煩惱薄。二訓皆論主自出，不假外求；「薄」之為地，說的是煩惱之量，不是位次之名。
四十、未得阿鞞跋致而能如是答——若聞若不聞之別。 論主重述經文問答：須菩提聞阿鞞跋致相、非阿鞞跋致相已，白佛言——頗有菩薩未得阿鞞跋致能如是答不。佛言有——菩薩若聞六波羅蜜、若不聞，能如阿鞞跋致答。論主續訓二途：若聞者，但從師聞，自未具足菩薩地；若不聞者，自思惟、正憶念，雖未得無生忍，能求諸法相，如阿鞞跋致菩薩答。二途各有其路，一從師教入，一從自思入，所至同而所由異。
四一、多有求佛道少能如是答——學地無學地之訓。 論主重述：須菩提言，多有人求佛道，少能如是答如阿鞞跋致菩薩學地、無學地中。隨出一訓：未得無生法忍名學地，得無生法忍名無學地。此訓要記牢——此處之學地、無學地是就無生法忍而分，與二乘所立之學無學名同而所指異。
四二、佛答少——諸法實相惟佛能遍知。 全品收於論主釋佛之末答：佛言少；何以故？少有菩薩從諸佛受記；已從諸佛受記者，能如是答。論主更出其故：諸法實相，惟佛能遍知；佛知此人能如法答，故懸與受記。末結其德：是菩薩雖少，善根明了，能廣利益眾生，無能壞者。「懸與受記」四字是全品之眼——受記在能答之前，非因能答而得記，是因佛遍知其能如法答而先與之記。品首『學而不證』之難，至此歸於佛智：不證之所以可能，根在實相本無可證；實相之遍知，唯佛而已。
不要讀錯
不要把「不作證」讀成壓抑或推遲。經文給的次第是觀→心不亂→不見是法→不作證，論主更把「不見」歸於「深入禪定」與「得利智慧力」。可見不證是觀行深處的自然結果，不是行者咬牙不取。若讀成壓抑，則『學時非證時』便成一種苦等，而經文明說此時要薄諸煩惱、教化眾生令入佛道——正是最用力處，不是最消極處。執菅草之喻尤可為證：捉緩傷手，急捉無傷——傷在半吊，不在用力。
不要把「不專攝心繫在緣中」讀成散心修行。論主的理由說得分明：若專心繫在空緣中，則心柔軟，不能從空自出；而所以不專，是「我應遍觀諸法空，不應不具足知而取證」。所遮的是把心久繫一緣而順熟於彼，不是遮定。更有第二問的明文為據：今言不專心，是初入時；上言深入，是入已深——二語各屬一位，並不相違。若讀成不必修定，則佛答本身「以深入禪定，心不可亂」一句先自相違。
不要把壯夫喻讀成不須斷煩惱。論主配喻時把「惡賊」配魔民及諸煩惱，把「器仗」配五神通等方便力——壯夫是帶著器仗度惡道，不是與賊相安。經文亦明說菩薩住四無量心、具足六波羅蜜而「不取漏盡證」：不取的是那個證，不是不斷煩惱；論主另處更說學是空法「為自斷煩惱、為度眾生故」，二事並舉。若讀成留惑不斷，則喻中「不遇賊害，歡喜安樂」一句無處安放。
不要把鳥喻的「不住空」讀成不許入空。喻文自身是雙的：飛騰虛空而不墮墜，雖在空中亦不住空——先說在空，後說不住。論主配此喻亦雙——不墜答「空中無所有，云何可行？」之疑，不中住答中道取證之失。經文更明說菩薩「學空解脫門」「具足修空三昧」「具足修無相三昧」——入是要入的，不住而已。若讀成不可入空，則後三重復次一一配無作、空、無相三門之文便全成空話。
不要把「若善根成就，是時便於實際作證」讀成本品自相矛盾。善射喻已把分際說明：箭之墮不墮全在後箭續不續，若欲令墮，便止後箭爾乃墮地。所遮者是『諸善根未具足而於實際作證』，不是永不作證。論主釋之亦同：未具足十力等佛事故終不取證；菩薩自念若得佛事具足，是時當取證。可見不證是時節之語，不是絕對之禁。
不要把試問之法只讀成考問他人，也不要只讀成自驗。經文本有問他、辨答之結構——「是菩薩若如是答」，據其答而辨相；然此法亦可回用於學助道法、行助道法的菩薩自身之驗處；論主也明說「經中自說因緣」，所驗者是一句答語所透出的見地——是把觀與學打成兩橛，還是以方便學知故觀空。若拿去衡量他人，本品所說「多有菩薩求佛道，少有菩薩能如是答」一語便成論斷之資，而佛給的因由明明是「得授記」「善根明了」，不是辯才高下。
不要把「若聞、若不聞」讀成聽聞無用。論主訓此二途時，於「若聞者」明說「但從師聞，自未具足菩薩地」，於「若不聞者」明說「自思惟、正憶念」——兩路都要下功夫，不是憑空能答。所破的只是以聽聞之有無為唯一判準，不是廢聞。經文既自說六波羅蜜可聞可不聞而皆能如是答，正是要人回到答語所依之見地。
修行作用
第一件受用，是把「學時」與「證時」分清楚。日用中一坐下來，心裡往往暗暗期待一個結果——今日要相應、要得力、要見一個境界。本品給的對治極簡：作是願，我今學時，非是證時。此願不是取消進步，是取消『這一座要收成』的心。經文更把它遍歷到每一法上——行檀時、持戒時、修念處時、修三昧時，都是學時。願一立定，用功便從追討變成耕耘。
第二件受用，是「不有餘、不有分」可作觀行的準繩。論主的訓解具體可用：色法中乃至微塵，不留遺餘微細之分；無色法中，乃至不留一念。觀時可自勘兩處——所觀的境上，有沒有一小塊被我默許為實而繞開了？能觀的心上，有沒有一念被我當作立足處而未觀？餘與分若還留著，所謂空只是局部之空，正是取證之根。
第三件受用，是執菅草之喻可解『用功用不到位反而受傷』之惑。許多人初學空觀，觀了一段反覺心無著落、生畏或生慢——這正是捉緩之相。喻中之方是急捉，論主之方是深入：知空亦空、涅槃亦空。遇此境時不要退，要再入一層——空若還是一個可依可怕的東西，便還沒深入。
第四件受用，是悲心先行之法可以照搬。論主說得極明白：行者若直觀甚深法，或得聲聞道、或墮邪見，以無憐愍心、不能深入自相空故；是以欲觀是法，先生悲心。行門上的用法是——每次要作深觀之前，先起一念：眾生長夜著吾我心諸煩惱，無量劫來是我必不可得，但空虛誑顛倒故受諸憂惱。一念既起，觀便有所持，不至觀而生冷。
第五件受用，是三喻可作三種自處。心怯而不敢深入者，取壯夫喻——手上有人，故能過險道。心疑空中無可用功者，取鳥喻——無所依止而遠逝不墜，不落也不停。心急欲見效者，取善射喻——後箭續前箭，一枝一枝地續，不必問何時落地。三喻各治一病，遇何病取何喻。
第六件受用，是試問之法可以自問。不必等人來考，自己拿那一句問自己：我如今學是法、觀空，是不是把「觀」與「學」打成了兩橛，只肯觀而不肯學諸助道法？或反過來，只肯學而所學一一皆成所得？論主指出的失處是「不說方便學知故觀空」——自問時便問這一句：我的觀，是以方便學知而觀，還是為了了結而觀。
承衍
本品的骨幹，是兩段經文與一段論釋。經①自須菩提問「云何學空三昧？云何入空三昧？」乃至「云何學八聖道分？云何修八聖道分？」起，佛答以觀色等乃至三界皆空而不令心亂、心不亂則不見是法、不見是法則不作證，出「善學自相空故，不有餘、不有分」之理；須菩提再問住空中云何不作證，佛出「我今學時，非是證時」之願與「不專攝心繫在緣中」之行，遍歷六度、四念處乃至八聖道分、三三昧、十力乃至大慈大悲而一一結以非是證時，續出壯夫扶老弱過險道、有翼之鳥飛空不墮不住、健人善射後箭拄前箭三喻，明以方便力故諸善根未具足不於實際作證。經②自須菩提歎「所為甚難」起，佛答以不捨一切眾生故作如是願，續以四重「復次」——欲觀甚深法而生為眾生斷諸相之心、破四顛倒、破著得法、破著諸相——各配無作、空、無相諸門而皆結以不於實際作證，末立試問之辭，出失答與得答二相，並以「六波羅蜜若聞、若不聞」明未得阿鞞跋致者亦能如是答，終以「少有如是得授記行阿鞞跋致慧地」收經。論段以「學空、入空有何差別」開論，出初後、因果、方便與得四句而立二道，推及無相無作與三十七品；指出三解脫門與三十七品本是二乘涅槃道而佛敕菩薩行之，乃生全品之難；次以三番問曰答曰逐層申釋——學空入空之別、「深入禪定，不令心亂」與「不專心」之辨、『云何知未得道而能行此深空』之驗——其間別出執菅草緩急一喻以明深入，並逐一還原經側三喻之所喻；末釋試問之失答得答二相，訓「學習」「薄地」「學地」「無學地」諸名，以「諸法實相，惟佛能遍知」與「懸與受記」收束全品。
本品與前後諸品的義脈，可見者有二線。其一、承前：本品開卷不另立緣起，逕就前品所說阿鞞跋致之事續說驗知之法——經②末與論末兩處皆以「能如是答」為阿鞞跋致之徵，可見本品後半與前此說阿鞞跋致諸品是一事之相續。其二、垂後：本品所立『學而不證』之義，於次品更就夢中一境重加勘驗；本品言覺時之不證，次品言夢中之不證，二品合看，纔見此義之徹。讀者可合觀之。
古德之釋，本品可誌者二家。吉藏科判本品，其釋學空入空之分云：「初明學空，終名入空也。」又以二乘為對照設難云：「既學空入空，云何不證耶？二乘在空觀時亦能不取空相，云何獨證耶？」其釋「具足」一語云：「具足是深入空，不見空故不見涅槃。」三語與本論「初名學空，後是入空」「具足者即是深入」之訓相契。吉藏又於所釋經前品〈深奧品〉科文中預言本品之位云：「然自行化他二行成者，要由學空不證故，不墮二乘地亦不墮凡夫地」——以學空不證為自行化他二行得成之所由。其釋試問一段云：「上來明學空不證，已明其內行空，今欲驗之，當觀其所說相秤以不，故試問也。」以「內行」與「驗之」分本品前後兩節，與本論「經中自說因緣」之釋各有所重，並錄不判。
慧影疏本品，以品次相承發問云：「何故次河天品後明於此品？」其科本品為三分，前二分云：「第一、以法、喻兩周，明菩薩善入三脫而不住空；第二、明三三昧別有所益，各有所治」——以法喻兩周分經①、以三三昧各有所治分經②之四重復次，與本論首重三門並出、後三重逐重配無作、空、無相之文相應。其釋「不有餘、不有分」云：「菩薩不化城中止取小涅槃，故云不有餘；不住實際，故云不有分也。」此與本論「色法中乃至微塵，不留遺餘微細之分；無色法中，乃至不留一念」之訓不同——論主就觀之周遍訓之，慧影就所不住之處訓之，並錄不判。其釋深入與不專之辨云：「上云不令心亂者，據明菩薩善解學空入三三昧；今言不專攝心繫在緣中者，據菩薩不專住空實際中證也。」亦與本論「初入時」「入已深」之分位訓法各成一說，兩存之。又慧影標本品云：「第五十九品者，名為學空不證品。」其自訂科判編號較底本所題品次少一，係其疏自身之編號體例，如實誌錄不判。其品目異稱、諸本分卷、卷題與卷末之考，詳考據層。
Training in Emptiness without Realising It: Why Training in Emptiness and Entering Emptiness Must Be Divided into Two Paths; Why the Mind Not Being Disordered Becomes Instead the Cause of Not Realising; What No Remainder and No Part Speaks Of; Why the Time of Training Not Being the Time of Realising Is Not Procrastination; Why Not Exclusively Gathering the Mind and Binding It to the Object Is Not a Scattered Mind; Why the Simile of the Stalwart Man Crossing the Dangerous Road Is Not an Exhortation Not to Sever the Afflictions; Why the Bird with Wings Neither Falls nor Abides; Why the Later Arrow Shooting the Earlier Arrow Is the Very Shape of the Power of Skilful Means; Why the Four Rounds of Furthermore All Begin from Beings; Why the Method of Testing by Asking Can Verify the Avaivartika; Why Entering Deeply into Meditative Concentration without Letting the Mind Be Disordered Does Not Contradict Not Being Exclusively Attentive; Why the Simile of Grasping Coarse Grass Loosely or Tightly Speaks of Entering Deeply; Why Being Able to Answer Thus, Whether One Has Heard or Has Not Heard, Counts Either Way; and Why the Real Mark of All Dharmas, Which Only the Buddha Can Know Completely, Is the Conclusion of the Whole Chapter
What Is Being Asked
The difficulty of this chapter lies entirely in a single word, 「不」 tr. "not": not realising. The chapters before this one have all along taught people to train in emptiness, to enter emptiness, and to practise the three gates of liberation; this chapter suddenly adds a restriction—one trains in it and enters it, yet may not realise it. The difficulty appears at once: emptiness is what is trained in, and realisation is the training's completion; if one trains and yet is not permitted to realise, is that not training without completion? Again, the three gates of liberation and the thirty-seven limbs of the path are properly the road by which the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha tend toward nirvāṇa, yet the Buddha commands the bodhisattva to walk it; to walk another's road and not be permitted to reach that other's destination—how is this road to be walked? Subhūti's first question, as he opens his mouth, asks exactly this: if the bodhisattva wishes to practise prajñāpāramitā, how, in the end, does he train in the emptiness samādhi, how does he enter the emptiness samādhi, and so on up to how does he train in and cultivate the eightfold noble path.
The Buddha's answer, unexpectedly, does not speak from 「空」 tr. "emptiness" but from 「心」 tr. "the mind": one should contemplate form and so on up to the three realms as all empty, and when making this contemplation not let the mind be disordered; if the mind is not disordered, then he does not see this dharma; if he does not see this dharma, then he does not realise it. The three clauses pass down in one line; not realising is not a prohibition imposed from outside but the natural result of contemplative practice reaching its very depth—it is not that the practitioner forcibly holds back from realising; it is that within deep contemplation there is simply no dharma to be realised and no person who realises to be found. So the Buddha goes on to state the reason: because he has trained well in the emptiness of specific marks, there is no remainder and no part; the dharma realised and the one who realises are both not to be seen. The pivot of the whole chapter lies in this one sentence. Subhūti at once asks a further layer: since he abides in the dharma of emptiness, how can he not realise it? The Buddha then brings out the vow ‘the time of training is not the time of realising’ and the practice 「不專攝心繫在緣中」 tr. "does not exclusively gather the mind and bind it to the object," and sets out three similes in a row—the stalwart man, strong and robust, able to help the old and the weak across a dangerous road; the bird with wings flying in space, neither falling nor abiding; the strong man skilled at archery, propping the earlier arrow with the later arrow—and what the similes together make clear is only one thing: by the power of skilful means, while the roots of goodness are not yet fulfilled, he does not realise the limit of reality.
The latter half of the chapter brings 「不證」 tr. "not realising" down onto the arousing of the mind. Subhūti sighs at how very hard it is, and the Buddha answers with the utmost brevity: because he does not abandon any being, he makes this vow. Below this, the four rounds of 「復次」 tr. "furthermore" each begin, one round after another, from beings—for the sake of beings severing the marks, for the sake of beings breaking the four inversions, for the sake of beings breaking the clinging to attaining a dharma, for the sake of beings breaking the clinging to the marks—and every round closes with the same sentence: before the dharmas of a Buddha are fulfilled, he does not realise the limit of reality. From this it can be seen that the strength of 「不證」 tr. "not realising" lies not in suppression but in the vow of compassion. At the end the Buddha sets up a further, workable method: testing by asking. Ask him how the bodhisattva trains in this dharma, contemplating emptiness and not realising the limit of reality; listen to how he answers, and one knows whether or not he is an avaivartika. The treatise-author, taking this up, explains it layer by layer: first he distinguishes training in emptiness from entering emptiness, then distinguishes why 「深入禪定，不令心亂」 tr. "entering deeply into meditative concentration, he does not let the mind be disordered" and 「不專心」 tr. "not exclusively attentive" do not contradict each other, restores one by one what the three similes stand for, and at the end draws the whole chapter together with 「諸法實相，惟佛能遍知」 tr. "the real mark of dharmas only the Buddha can know completely."
Passage by Passage
1. The question of training in emptiness and entering emptiness. Subhūti asks: if the bodhisattva-mahāsattva wishes to practise prajñāpāramitā, how does he train in the emptiness samādhi, how does he enter the emptiness samādhi—the signless and non-action likewise—and so on up to how does he train in the four foundations of mindfulness, how does he cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness, how does he train in the eightfold noble path, how does he cultivate the eightfold noble path. This question has a form that is often read straight past: of every dharma it asks twice—once asking about 「學」 tr. "training," once about 「入」 tr. "entering" or 「修」 tr. "cultivating." If the reader sees only the dharma asked about and does not see this pair, the whole measure of this chapter has nowhere to stand. Remember this first: what is asked is not what emptiness is, but how training in it differs from entering it.
2. The Buddha answers that in contemplating emptiness he does not let the mind be disordered—because he does not see this dharma he does not realise it, and because he has trained well in the emptiness of specific marks there is no remainder and no part. The Buddha's answer does not speak directly of training and entering; he first gives the method of contemplation: when practising prajñā, one should contemplate form as empty, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness as empty, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, and so on up to the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm as all empty. Only the sentence that follows is the bone of the whole answer: when making this contemplation, he does not let the mind be disordered. If the mind is not disordered, then he does not see this dharma; if he does not see this dharma, then he does not realise it. What is most easily misread here is to take 「不令心亂」 tr. "does not let the mind be disordered" as an attendant condition of the power of concentration; in fact it is the proper cause of not realising—the less disordered the mind, the more all-pervading the contemplation, and the less anywhere a mark to be realised can be found. In the last sentence the Buddha himself gives the reason why: because he has trained well in the emptiness of specific marks, there is no remainder and no part; the dharma realised and the one who realises are both not to be seen. 「不有餘」 tr. "No remainder" means the contemplation leaves no corner left over; 「不有分」 tr. "no part" means the contemplation leaves no small piece that could be cut off. Once remainder and part are exhausted, and neither the realiser nor the realised can be seen, where could realisation be set up?
3. The question of abiding in emptiness and yet not realising it. On hearing the answer Subhūti at once presses a further layer: as the Buddha says, the bodhisattva should not realise the dharma of emptiness; World-Honored One, how does the bodhisattva abide in the dharma of emptiness and yet not realise it? This question is asked with the utmost precision—he no longer asks the reason; what he asks is how 「住」 tr. "abiding" and 「不證」 tr. "not realising" can hold at the same time. Whenever, in reading the prajñā texts, one meets two words that seem to exclude each other placed within one sentence, one may learn from Subhūti's question here: the point is not to demand that one of them be cancelled, but to ask where the measure lies by which the two stand together.
4. First he makes the vow that the time of training is not the time of realising—not exclusively gathering the mind and binding it to the object, and going through all the perfections and all the limbs, none of which is the time of realising. The Buddha's answer falls into three parts. First, he first makes the vow: I should not now realise the dharma of emptiness; now is my time of training, not the time of realising. Second, he does not exclusively gather the mind and bind it to the object—he does not bind the mind rigidly to a single object. Third, he goes through all the dharmas and closes each one with 「非是證時」 tr. "it is not the time of realising": dānapāramitā and so on up to dhyānapāramitā, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, the emptiness samādhi, the signless samādhi, and the non-action samādhi, the ten powers of a Buddha, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, great kindness and great compassion, and so on up to the time of training in the omniscience of all kinds—none of these is the time for the realisation of obtaining the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the pratyekabuddha path. Do not read this passage as procrastination—「非是證時」 tr. "it is not the time of realising" is not pushing realisation off to be wanted only later; it says that the effort of this time is not itself about taking realisation. The Buddha further states the effect plainly: for this reason he does not retrogress from anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and also does not take the realisation of the exhaustion of outflows; the last sentence gathers it all: though he trains in the thirty-seven limbs of the path, though he practises the thirty-seven limbs of the path, he does not make the realisation of the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the pratyekabuddha path. Training without realising is established here as a kind of right practice, not as a kind of lack.
5. The simile of the stalwart man helping the old and the weak across the dangerous road. The Buddha brings out the first simile. A stalwart man, strong, brave, fierce, and robust, skilled in the arts of war and the sixty-four skills, firmly holding his weapons, standing steady and unmoved, adept in all the crafts, upright and clean, loved and respected by people, doing little work and gaining much reward; because of some small cause and condition he must go to another place, and helping along the old and the weak, he passes through places of danger, difficulty, and terror, comforting his father and mother and telling his wife and children not to be afraid; on the dangerous road many enemies and thieves lie in ambush to rob and kill, but because this man is fully endowed with wisdom and strength he can cross the evil road and return to his own place, meeting no harm from the thieves, glad and at ease. The simile finished, it is at once matched: the bodhisattva, among all beings, is completely and fully endowed with kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity, abides in the four immeasurable minds, fulfils the six perfections, and does not take the realisation of the exhaustion of outflows; he trains in the omniscience of all kinds, enters the gates of liberation of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, does not follow any of the marks, and also does not realise the signless samādhi; because he does not realise it, he does not fall to the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha ground. The key to this simile lies in the two Chinese characters rendered here as 「扶將」 tr. "helping along"—the reason the stalwart man does not cross lightly on his own is precisely that he has people in his hands.
6. The simile of the bird with wings flying in space, neither falling nor abiding. The second simile is extremely short: a bird with wings flies up into space and does not fall; though it is in space it also does not abide in space. The matching to the Dharma is short as well: the bodhisattva trains in the gates of liberation of emptiness, the signless, and non-action and does not realise them; because he does not realise them he does not fall to the ground of the two vehicles; while he has not yet fulfilled the ten powers of a Buddha, great kindness and great compassion, the immeasurable dharmas of the buddhas, and the omniscience of all kinds, he also does not realise the three gates of liberation. This simile negates on both sides: not falling negates dropping back; not abiding negates stopping to stay. If the reader takes only one side, two deviations result—remembering only not falling, one supposes that emptiness can be lingered in for long; remembering only not abiding, one supposes that emptiness cannot be entered. The bird's being in space is exactly this: it neither drops to the ground nor stops its course.
7. The simile of the strong man skilled at archery, the later arrow propping the earlier arrow. The third simile is the most finely made: a strong man, having trained in the arts of archery and being skilled in the archer's craft, shoots upward into space, and then with a later arrow shoots the earlier arrow, arrow propping arrow, not letting the arrows fall, at will and unhindered; if he wishes them to fall, he simply stops the later arrow, and only then do they fall to the ground. The matching to the Dharma: the bodhisattva practises prajñā, and by the power of skilful means, for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, while the roots of goodness are not yet fulfilled, does not realise the limit of reality; if the roots of goodness are accomplished, then at that time he realises the limit of reality. Where this simile differs from the two before it is that it also tells ‘when realising may take place’—whether the arrows fall or not rests wholly on whether the later arrows continue or not; whether realisation is taken or not rests wholly on whether the roots of goodness are complete or not. So not realising is not never realising; it is that the season has not yet come. At the close of Sūtra ① the Buddha concludes: when practising prajñāpāramitā, one should contemplate the dharma-marks of dharmas in this way.
8. Subhūti sighs that what is done is very hard. Sūtra ② begins from Subhūti's sigh: what the bodhisattva-mahāsattva does is very hard—though he trains in the marks of dharmas, trains in the limit of reality, trains in suchness, trains in the nature of dharmas, trains in ultimate emptiness, and so on up to training in the emptiness of specific marks and the three gates of liberation, he never falls midway—this is most rare. This sigh is not merely words of praise; it calls the difficulty by name: every one of the dharma-gates trained in leads toward quiescence, and yet the practitioner enters and abides in not a single one of them. The question is already contained in the sigh, so the Buddha, below, answers why.
9. Because he does not abandon any being, he makes this vow. The Buddha's answer is only one sentence, yet the whole root comes out: because this bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not abandon any being, he makes this vow. He goes on to state its marks: if he makes this thought—I should not abandon any being; beings are sunk in the dharma of nothing whatsoever; I should deliver them—then at that time he enters the three gates of liberation. Know that this bodhisattva has accomplished the power of skilful means; not yet having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, he practises these gates of liberation and also does not take the realisation of the limit of reality midway. The order of this passage must be seen clearly: first there is the thought of not abandoning beings, and only afterwards does he enter the gates of liberation; what he holds to as he enters is this thought, so though he enters he does not take realisation. The reason the power of skilful means is called a power lies exactly here.
10. The first round of furthermore—wishing to contemplate the very deep dharmas, he first gives rise to the mind of severing the marks of beings. When the bodhisattva wishes to contemplate the very deep dharmas—inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the three gates of liberation—at that time he should give rise to this mind: these beings, through the long night, practise the mark of self and so on up to the mark of a knower and a seer, and cling to attaining a dharma; for the sake of beings, to sever these marks, I will obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and will teach the Dharma. At that time he practises the three gates of liberation and does not take the realisation of the limit of reality; because he does not realise it, he does not fall to the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the pratyekabuddha path. The Buddha further speaks of its benefit: because with this mind he wishes to accomplish the roots of goodness, he does not realise the limit of reality midway, and does not lose the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, emptiness, the signless, and non-action, the ten powers of a Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; he accomplishes all the dharmas that aid the path, and so on up to awakening, without ever diminishing; because he has the power of skilful means he constantly increases wholesome dharmas, and his faculties are penetrating and keen, surpassing the faculties of the arhat and the pratyekabuddha. Here one must take note: the fruit of not realising is not stagnation; it is that not one of the merits is lost, while the faculties grow ever keener.
11. The second round of furthermore—to break the four inversions. The bodhisattva makes this thought: beings through the long night cling to the four inversions—the notion of permanence, the notion of happiness, the notion of self, the notion of purity; for the sake of these beings I seek sarvajñā, and when I obtain awakening I will teach them the dharma of impermanence, suffering, impurity, and the dharma of no-self. The items of the four inversions are listed in this passage by the sūtra text itself, not borrowed from elsewhere. Having accomplished this mind, he practises prajñā by the power of skilful means; not yet having obtained the samādhi of a Buddha, not yet having fulfilled the ten powers of a Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, he also does not realise the limit of reality; at that time he cultivates the gate of liberation of non-action, and though he has not yet obtained awakening, he also does not realise the limit of reality. Among the four rounds of furthermore, in the first round the three gates come out together (「行空解脫門，無相、無作解脫門，亦不取實際證」 tr. "he practises the gate of liberation of emptiness, the gates of liberation of the signless and of non-action, and also does not take the realisation of the limit of reality"), while each of the latter three rounds is paired with one gate; this round is paired with non-action.
12. The third round of furthermore—to break the clinging to attaining a dharma. The bodhisattva makes this thought: beings through the long night cling to attaining a dharma—namely self, beings, and so on up to a knower and a seer; this is form, this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, this is a sense-field, this is an element; this is the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions; I practise thus, so that when I obtain awakening I may bring beings to be without this attaining of dharmas. This mind accomplished, he practises prajñā by the power of skilful means; not yet having fulfilled the ten powers of a Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, he does not realise the limit of reality; at that time he fully cultivates the emptiness samādhi. This round is paired with the emptiness samādhi—what is broken is ‘having something attained’, and so emptiness is set against it.
13. The fourth round of furthermore—to break the clinging to the marks, together with the setting up of the words of testing by asking. The bodhisattva makes this thought: beings through the long night practise the marks—namely the mark of male, the mark of female, the mark of form, the mark of the formless; I practise thus, so that when I obtain awakening I may bring beings to be without the faults of these marks. This mind accomplished, he practises prajñā by the power of skilful means; not yet having fulfilled the ten powers of a Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, he does not realise the limit of reality; at that time he fully cultivates the signless samādhi—this round is paired with the signless; what is broken is marks. The four rounds finished, the Buddha goes on to speak of the marks of the accomplishment of wisdom: training in the six perfections, training in inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, training in the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the three gates of liberation, training in the ten powers of a Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—when wisdom is accomplished in this way, that he should cling to a made dharma or abide in the three realms—there is no such case. At the end he sets up the method: when this bodhisattva trains in the dharmas that aid the path and practises the dharmas that aid the path, one should test him by asking—when bodhisattvas wish to obtain awakening, how do they train in this dharma, contemplating emptiness without realising the limit of reality, and because of not realising it not falling to the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the pratyekabuddha path, contemplating the signless, non-action, non-origination, non-arising, and being without anything existent, also not taking realisation, and so practising prajñā? One should ask in this way. The reason this question can verify is that it presses the whole measure of this chapter into a single sentence; if the one answering leans even slightly to one side, it shows at once.
14. The two courses of the answer—the answer of one not yet given the prediction, and the answer of the avaivartika. The Buddha brings out the marks of a failed answer: if he answers that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should only contemplate emptiness, should only contemplate the signless, non-action, non-origination, non-arising, and being without anything existent, should not train in these dharmas, should not train in these dharmas that aid the path—know that this bodhisattva has not been given by the buddhas the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Why? This person cannot speak of the marks of what the avaivartika bodhisattva trains in; he cannot show them, cannot answer. Conversely, one who can speak, can show, can answer—know that he has already trained in the bodhisattva path and entered the ground of thinning, like the marks of the avaivartika of the other avaivartika bodhisattvas. The place of failure must be seen accurately: the failure lies not in his speaking of emptiness, but in his setting 「觀」 tr. "contemplating" and 「學」 tr. "training" against each other—permitting only contemplation and not permitting training is exactly the one-sidedness that this chapter negates.
15. Is there one who has not yet obtained avaivartika and yet can answer thus, or not? Subhūti asks: is there a bodhisattva who has not yet obtained avaivartika and yet can answer thus, or not? The weight of this question lies in the two Chinese characters rendered here as 「未得」 tr. "not yet obtained"—if the answer could be spoken only by one who has already obtained it, the method of testing by asking could only confirm after the fact and could not recognise a person in good time.
16. The Buddha answers that there is—whether or not he has heard the six perfections. The Buddha answers: there is. This bodhisattva-mahāsattva, whether he has heard the six perfections or has not heard them, can answer thus, as the avaivartika bodhisattva-mahāsattva does. In the answer the pair 「若聞、若不聞」 tr. "whether he has heard or has not heard" must not be passed over: it is not limited by whether or not one has heard, so what is verified is one's view, not one's schooling.
17. Many seek the Buddha path; few can answer thus. Subhūti states: many bodhisattvas seek the Buddha path; few bodhisattvas can answer thus, as the avaivartika bodhisattva does, within the path of training and the path beyond training. With many and few set against each other, the meaning of the method of testing by asking becomes clear—it is not a general survey; it is a sifting out.
18. The Buddha affirms it and speaks of the reason—one who has obtained the prediction can answer thus. The Buddha says: just so, just so; such bodhisattvas are very few. Why? Few bodhisattva-mahāsattvas have thus obtained the prediction and practise the avaivartika ground of wisdom; if there is one who has obtained the prediction, this person can answer thus; this person's roots of goodness are clear and bright, and the gods and the people of the world cannot break them. Sūtra ② closes here. Note that the reasons the Buddha gives are 「得授記」 tr. "having obtained the prediction" and 「善根明了」 tr. "roots of goodness clear and bright," not quickness of argument—the reason being able to answer is hard is that the difficulty lies in the root, not in the mouth.
19. The treatise-author opens the treatise with the first question—what difference is there between training in emptiness and entering emptiness. The treatise-author, beginning his treatise, at once asks: what difference is there between training in emptiness and entering emptiness? He answers with four phrases: at first it is called training in emptiness; afterwards it is entering emptiness; the cause is training in emptiness, the fruit is entering emptiness; skilful means is called training in emptiness, attainment is called entering emptiness—such are the two paths. The four phrases are in fact four faces of one meaning: before and after in time, cause and fruit, skilful means and what is attained. The name of the two paths is established from this. The form at the opening of Sūtra ①, where each question is asked twice, here finds its explanation.
20. The signless, non-action, and the thirty-seven limbs of the path are likewise. The treatise-author extends it in one sentence: the signless, non-action, and the thirty-seven limbs of the path are likewise. What the sūtra text asks about is not only the one gate of emptiness, so this division into two paths runs through all the gates and must not be read as a special case of the gate of emptiness alone.
21. The path of nirvāṇa of the two vehicles, which the Buddha commands the bodhisattva to practise. The treatise-author points out where the difficulty of the whole chapter arises from: the three gates of liberation and the thirty-seven limbs of the path are the nirvāṇa path of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha; the Buddha commands the bodhisattva to practise this path. The path that is practised and the fruit that is not taken are in one and the same place; the difficulty is established from this—this one sentence is the root of all the questions and answers below.
22. Subhūti's doubt—this is the path of nirvāṇa; how does one not take the realisation of nirvāṇa? The treatise-author restates the sūtra's meaning: Subhūti makes this thought—this is the path of nirvāṇa; how does the bodhisattva practise this path-dharma and yet not take the realisation of nirvāṇa? Here the treatise-author is retelling the question and answer in the sūtra in order to lay out the causes and conditions; it is not that some other person speaks; in reading, take it as the treatise-author citing the sūtra.
23. The Buddha answers that because he enters deeply into meditative concentration he does not see this dharma of emptiness. The treatise-author restates the Buddha's answer: the bodhisattva contemplates form and all the other dharmas as empty; because this bodhisattva enters deeply into meditative concentration, his mind cannot be disordered, and by the power of keen wisdom he does not see this dharma of emptiness; because he does not see it, there is nothing realised. The answer returns 「不證」 tr. "not realising" to 「不見」 tr. "not seeing," and returns 「不見」 tr. "not seeing" to 「深入」 tr. "entering deeply" and 「利智」 tr. "keen wisdom"—three links locking into one another, not one link of which relies on restraint.
24. The difference between the two vehicles and the bodhisattva—going straight toward nirvāṇa, and training well in the emptiness of specific marks. The treatise-author sets out a contrast: the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha sever I and mine, abandon love and clinging, and go straight toward nirvāṇa; this bodhisattva trains well in the emptiness of specific marks: among the dharmas of form, even down to an atom, he leaves no subtle part remaining; among the formless dharmas, he leaves not even a single thought; he enters straight into ultimate emptiness, and does not even see this dharma of emptiness as something that could be taken as realisation. The phrase of Sūtra ①, 「不有餘、不有分」 tr. "no remainder and no part," here receives its gloss—leaving no part even of an atom is no part; leaving not even a single thought is no remainder. The key to the contrast lies not in diligence or laxity but in whether or not the contemplation is all-pervading.
25. Subhūti, not having reached the Buddha's meaning, asks again. The treatise-author continues the account: though the Buddha had answered, Subhūti had not reached the Buddha's meaning and asked again—as the Buddha says, the bodhisattva should not realise the dharma of emptiness; now, entering emptiness, how does he not realise it? The same question asked a second time—the treatise-author states plainly that the reason is 「未達佛意」 tr. "he had not reached the Buddha's meaning"; from this it can be seen that the 「不見」 tr. "not seeing" of the earlier answer still had to be brought down one layer further before it counted as fully spoken.
26. The Buddha answers that it is because he enters deeply—fulfilment is entering deeply; the simile of grasping coarse grass loosely or tightly. The treatise-author restates the Buddha's answer: because he enters deeply he is able not to realise; fulfilment is entering deeply. Then he brings out a simile: as when one grasps a blade of coarse grass: hold it loosely and it wounds the hand; grip it tightly and there is no wound; the bodhisattva is also like this: because he enters deeply into emptiness, he knows that emptiness too is empty and nirvāṇa too is empty; therefore there is nothing realised. This simile is one the treatise-author brings out on his own side alone, forming a separate branch outside the three similes on the sūtra side. The sense of the simile is most apt: the coarse grass is sharp; only when held half up and half let go does it cut the hand, and gripped all the way it does no harm—emptiness is also like this: tasted shallowly, one is wounded by emptiness and takes realisation; entered deeply, one knows that emptiness too is empty and there is nothing to be realised.
27. His thinking before entering emptiness—therefore he does not exclusively attend and gather his thought, binding it to the object of emptiness. The treatise-author explains 「不專攝心繫在緣中」 tr. "does not exclusively gather the mind and bind it to the object" of Sūtra ①: before the bodhisattva enters emptiness he thinks thus—I should contemplate all dharmas everywhere as empty, and should not take realisation without complete knowing; therefore he does not exclusively attend and gather his thought to enter dhyāna, binding it to the object of emptiness. Why is this? If the mind is exclusively bound to the object of emptiness, then the mind becomes soft and cannot come out of emptiness by itself. 「心柔軟」 tr. "the mind becomes soft" is the key phrase of this passage: it does not mean the mind is incapable; it means that, bound long to one object, it grows accustomed and familiar with it, and leaving it becomes hard.
28. The distinction between entering deeply into meditative concentration without letting the mind be disordered, and not being exclusively attentive. The treatise-author himself sets up the second question: above it was said 「深入禪定，不令心亂」 tr. "entering deeply into meditative concentration, he does not let the mind be disordered"; now, why is it said 「不專心」 tr. "not exclusively attentive"? He answers: the 「不專心」 tr. "not exclusively attentive" spoken of now is at the time of first entering, lest he be unable to come out by himself; the 「深入」 tr. "entering deeply" spoken of above is that, having entered deeply, he knows that emptiness too is empty and does not let the mind rest on any other matter; therefore it is said not to be disordered. One phrase breaks the difficulty—the two statements are not of the same time. At the moment of first entering, not exclusive is said, to guard against his sinking in; after having entered deeply, not disordered is said, to speak of his concentration. Whenever one sees earlier and later words in the treatise that seem to contradict each other, one can learn this method: first ask to which position each of the two statements belongs.
29. Not yet endowed with the marks and minor signs and the ten powers, how could he take realisation? The treatise-author brings out one more layer: this bodhisattva should think thus—I am not yet endowed with the thirty-two marks, the eighty minor marks, the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and all the dharmas of the buddhas; how could I take the realisation of nirvāṇa? Now is my time of training; I thin the afflictions and teach and transform beings so that they enter the Buddha path; if I obtain the complete matters of a Buddha, then at that time I shall take realisation. Therefore, though the bodhisattva enters the three gates of liberation, he does not take realisation. This passage makes the content of 「學時」 tr. "the time of training" concrete: the time of training is not a time of waiting in vain; it is thinning the afflictions, it is teaching and transforming beings—both things are being done; it is only that realisation is not taken.
30. What the simile of the stalwart man stands for. The treatise-author restores the first simile word by word: the 「壯夫」 tr. "stalwart man" is the bodhisattva; the 「父母親族」 tr. "father, mother, and kin" are the beings who can be delivered; the 「險道」 tr. "dangerous road" is birth and death in the three realms; the 「惡賊」 tr. "evil thieves" are Māra's people and the afflictions; the 「器仗」 tr. "weapons" are the bodhisattva's five supernormal powers and the other kinds of the power of skilful means; 「還歸本處」 tr. "returning to his own place" is the path the bodhisattva practises; 「安立不動」 tr. "standing steady and unmoved" is the bodhisattva abiding in ultimate emptiness; with the four immeasurable minds he conveys the beings who can be delivered and sets them in the place of the peace and bliss of nirvāṇa. Seven items matched one by one; in the simile there is not one idle stroke. Look especially at 「安立不動」 tr. "standing steady and unmoved" being matched with 「住畢竟空」 tr. "abiding in ultimate emptiness"—the stalwart man's being unmoved is not his not moving on; it is that the place where he stands does not shake.
31. What the bird simile stands for—the doubt of those in the assembly. The treatise-author first brings out the occasion on which the doubt was raised: those in the assembly doubted—in space there is nothing whatsoever; how can one practise there? Therefore the Buddha spoke the bird simile: as a bird flying in space, with no support, goes far and does not fall. He goes on to match a second meaning: this bodhisattva, not yet having fulfilled the path-dharma and not yet having reached the Buddha path, does not realise it in the interval; as a bird that has not yet reached where it is going never stops midway. At the end he brings out its purpose: he trains in this dharma of emptiness in order to sever his own afflictions and in order to deliver beings. The bird simile receives two meanings in the treatise—not falling counters the doubt that ‘one cannot practise in space’, and not stopping midway counters the fault of ‘taking realisation midway’.
32. What the archery simile stands for. The treatise-author explains the third simile: further, for the sake of clarity, he speaks the archery simile, as of a man skilled in the archer's craft; the 「弓」 tr. "bow" is the bodhisattva's meditative concentration, the 「箭」 tr. "arrow" is wisdom, 「虛空」 tr. "space" is the three gates of liberation, and the 「地」 tr. "ground" is nirvāṇa. This bodhisattva, with the arrow of wisdom, shoots into the space of the three gates of liberation, and further, by the power of skilful means, with the later arrow shoots the earlier arrow, not letting it fall to the ground of nirvāṇa; because he has not yet fulfilled the ten powers and the other matters of a Buddha, he never takes realisation. Beyond the matching of the four items there is a further layer: that the later arrow is the power of skilful means shows precisely that not realising is a continuous effort, not a single decision.
33. Subhūti's joyful sigh, and the Buddha's answer that he is held by the original vow and great compassion. The treatise-author restates the opening of Sūtra ②: Subhūti joyfully said to the Buddha—what the bodhisattvas do is very hard and truly rare, namely practising emptiness and not realising it. The Buddha answers: this bodhisattva's original vow is to bring all beings to leave suffering; because he is held by this original vow and by the mind of great compassion, though he practises emptiness he does not realise it. The two Chinese characters rendered here as 「所持」 tr. "held by" are the weightiest words of the whole chapter—the strength of not realising does not come from the practitioner's own endurance; it comes from the upholding of the original vow and great compassion.
34. By the power of skilful means he practises the three gates of liberation and does not abandon beings. The treatise-author explains the first round of furthermore: if the bodhisattva makes this thought—all beings are placed in suffering, bound by the inversions, sunk in nothing whatsoever—at that time he practises the gates of liberation of emptiness, the signless, and non-action. Know that this bodhisattva has the power of skilful means: he practises the three gates of liberation and does not abandon beings. Practising and not abandoning being at the same time, the name power of skilful means becomes real.
35. Wishing to contemplate the very deep dharmas, he first gives rise to the mind of compassion—the gloss on the long night, the making of the vow, and the faculties fierce and keen. The treatise-author continues his explanation: when the bodhisattva wishes to contemplate the very deep dharmas—namely the eighteen emptinesses, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and the three gates of liberation—he should first make this thought: beings through the long night cling to the mark of self and so on. Here the treatise-author states why this comes first: if the practitioner contemplates the very deep dharmas directly, he either obtains the śrāvaka path or falls into wrong views, because he has no mind of pity and cannot enter deeply into the emptiness of specific marks. Therefore, wishing to contemplate these dharmas, he first gives rise to the mind of compassion, namely: beings through the long night cling to the mind of I and mine and to all the afflictions. Then comes a gloss: the long night means a long, distant time—for immeasurable kalpas this self has certainly been unfindable, yet only because of what is empty, false, deceptive, and inverted have they undergone all their sorrows and vexations. Having seen this, the bodhisattva makes the vow: I shall accomplish the Buddha path for the sake of beings and sever these beings' inversion of clinging to self. At that time he is practising the three gates of liberation, emptiness and the rest, without realising the limit of reality. At the end comes the effect: these roots of goodness being accomplished, the bodhisattva does not take the realisation of the limit of reality, and also does not lose the four dhyānas and all the other merits; because he enters deeply into emptiness, his faculties are fierce and keen, surpassing those of the two vehicles. This passage must be read together with what came before: contemplating directly without compassion is exactly the place of falling; contemplating after compassion is present—only this is the practice of this chapter.
36. The two rounds of breaking the four inversions and of the clinging to attaining a dharma are also as spoken above. For the second and third rounds of furthermore the treatise-author does not set up a text again, but says directly: the meaning of breaking the four inversions is also as spoken above. He also says: the bodhisattva makes this thought—beings through the long night cling to attaining a dharma, namely self, beings, and so on up to: that he should cling to a made dharma or abide in the three realms, there is no such case—the meaning in each is the same: contemplating emptiness and not taking realisation. This is not skipping over it; it is the treatise-author himself making clear that the meaning is the same; the reader should go back and take the text of section 35 to fill it out.
37. How is it known that one who has not yet obtained the path can practise the deep emptiness—the sūtra itself tells the causes and conditions. The treatise-author himself sets up the third question: how is it known that this bodhisattva, not yet having obtained the path, can practise this deep emptiness? He answers: the sūtra itself tells the causes and conditions—this bodhisattva should be tested by asking: how should the bodhisattva train in emptiness and not take realisation? The treatise-author states plainly that the method of verification is not set up by himself but is already in the sūtra; this is the text 「應當試問」 tr. "one should test him by asking" at the end of Sūtra ②.
38. The marks of a failed answer—one should only be mindful of emptiness and practise it single-mindedly. The treatise-author explains the failed answer: if the bodhisattva answers that one should only be mindful of emptiness and practise it single-mindedly, as in the dharma of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha, it is not merely a matter of training and knowing—and so on up to non-arising and nothing whatsoever likewise—know that this bodhisattva has not yet received the prediction from the buddhas. Why is this? Because he does not speak of contemplating emptiness by training and knowing skilful means. The treatise-author pinpoints the place of failure most accurately: he does not say ‘contemplating emptiness because of training and knowing skilful means’, so his emptiness becomes an emptiness on one and the same road as that of the two vehicles.
39. The marks of a successful answer—the avaivartika, and the glosses on training and the ground of thinning. The treatise-author explains the successful answer: if this bodhisattva's answer differs from the answer above, know that he is an avaivartika, who has trained and entered the ground of thinning. Then come two glosses: training means first training and knowing emptiness; the ground of thinning means that within the ground of the avaivartika the afflictions are thinned. Both glosses the treatise-author brings out himself, without seeking them outside; that 「薄」 tr. "thinning" is a ground speaks of the measure of the afflictions, not of the name of a rank.
40. One who has not yet obtained avaivartika and can yet answer thus—the difference between having heard and not having heard. The treatise-author restates the question and answer of the sūtra text: Subhūti, having heard the marks of the avaivartika and the marks of the non-avaivartika, said to the Buddha—is there a bodhisattva who has not yet obtained avaivartika and yet can answer thus, or not? The Buddha says there is—whether the bodhisattva has heard the six perfections or has not heard them, he can answer as an avaivartika does. The treatise-author goes on to gloss the two courses: one who has heard only hears it from a teacher, and has not himself fulfilled the bodhisattva ground; one who has not heard thinks it over by himself and rightly recollects, and though he has not yet obtained the acceptance of non-arising, he can seek the marks of dharmas and answer as the avaivartika bodhisattva does. Each of the two courses has its own road—one enters from a teacher's teaching, one from his own thinking; where they arrive is the same, but where they come from differs.
41. Many seek the Buddha path; few can answer thus—the gloss on the ground of training and the ground beyond training. The treatise-author restates: Subhūti says, many people seek the Buddha path; few can answer thus, as the avaivartika bodhisattva does, within the ground of training and the ground beyond training. Then comes a gloss: not yet having obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas is called the ground of training; having obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas is called the ground beyond training. This gloss must be held firmly—the ground of training and the ground beyond training here are divided with respect to the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; the name is the same as the training and beyond training set up by the two vehicles, but what it points to is different.
42. The Buddha answers that they are few—the real mark of dharmas only the Buddha can know completely. The whole chapter closes on the treatise-author's explanation of the Buddha's last answer: the Buddha says they are few; why? Few bodhisattvas have received the prediction from the buddhas; those who have already received the prediction from the buddhas can answer thus. The treatise-author further brings out the reason: the real mark of dharmas only the Buddha can know completely; the Buddha, knowing that this person can answer according to the Dharma, gives him the prediction in advance. At the end he concludes with its virtue: though such bodhisattvas are few, their roots of goodness are clear and bright, they can benefit beings widely, and none can break them. The four Chinese characters rendered here as 「懸與受記」 tr. "gives him the prediction in advance" are the eye of the whole chapter—the prediction comes before the being able to answer; it is not that the prediction is obtained because one can answer, but that, because the Buddha knows completely that he can answer according to the Dharma, he gives it to him beforehand. The difficulty at the head of the chapter, ‘training without realising’, here returns to the Buddha's wisdom: the reason not realising is possible has its root in the real mark having originally nothing to be realised; and the complete knowing of the real mark belongs to the Buddha alone.
Do Not Misread
Do not read 「不作證」 tr. "does not realise it" as suppression or postponement. The order the sūtra text gives is contemplation → the mind not disordered → not seeing this dharma → not realising it, and the treatise-author further returns 「不見」 tr. "not seeing" to 「深入禪定」 tr. "entering deeply into meditative concentration" and 「得利智慧力」 tr. "by the power of keen wisdom." From this it can be seen that not realising is the natural result at the depth of contemplative practice, not the practitioner clenching his teeth and not taking it. If it is read as suppression, then ‘the time of training is not the time of realising’ becomes a kind of bitter waiting, yet the sūtra text says plainly that at this time one must thin the afflictions and teach and transform beings so that they enter the Buddha path—this is exactly the place of greatest effort, not the most passive place. The simile of grasping the coarse grass can serve especially as proof: held loosely it wounds the hand, gripped tightly there is no wound—the wound lies in the half-hold, not in the effort.
Do not read 「不專攝心繫在緣中」 tr. "does not exclusively gather the mind and bind it to the object" as practising with a scattered mind. The treatise-author's reason is stated clearly: if the mind is exclusively bound to the object of emptiness, then the mind becomes soft and cannot come out of emptiness by itself; and the reason for not being exclusive is 「我應遍觀諸法空，不應不具足知而取證」 tr. "I should contemplate all dharmas everywhere as empty, and should not take realisation without complete knowing." What is negated is binding the mind long to one object and growing accustomed and familiar with it, not concentration. There is further the explicit text of the second question as ground: the not exclusively attentive spoken of now is at the time of first entering; the entering deeply spoken of above is having entered deeply—the two statements each belong to one position and do not contradict each other. If it is read as no need to cultivate concentration, then the Buddha's own answer, the sentence 「以深入禪定，心不可亂」 tr. "because he enters deeply into meditative concentration, his mind cannot be disordered," would contradict itself first.
Do not read the simile of the stalwart man as having no need to sever the afflictions. When the treatise-author matches the simile, he matches the 「惡賊」 tr. "evil thieves" with Māra's people and the afflictions, and the 「器仗」 tr. "weapons" with the five supernormal powers and the other kinds of the power of skilful means—the stalwart man crosses the evil road carrying weapons, not living at peace with the thieves. The sūtra text also says plainly that the bodhisattva abides in the four immeasurable minds, fulfils the six perfections, and 「不取漏盡證」 tr. "does not take the realisation of the exhaustion of outflows": what is not taken is that realisation, not that the afflictions are not severed; and elsewhere the treatise-author says further that he trains in this dharma of emptiness 「為自斷煩惱、為度眾生故」 tr. "in order to sever his own afflictions and in order to deliver beings," setting the two matters side by side. If it is read as leaving delusion unsevered, then the sentence in the simile, 「不遇賊害，歡喜安樂」 tr. "meeting no harm from the thieves, glad and at ease," would have nowhere to be placed.
Do not read the bird simile's 「不住空」 tr. "does not abide in space" as not being permitted to enter emptiness. The simile's own text is twofold: flying up into space and not falling, though it is in space it also does not abide in space—first it speaks of being in space, and after that of not abiding. The treatise-author's matching of this simile is also twofold—not falling answers the doubt 「空中無所有，云何可行？」 tr. "In space there is nothing whatsoever; how can one practise there?", not stopping midway answers the fault of taking realisation midway. The sūtra text further says plainly that the bodhisattva 「學空解脫門」 tr. "trains in the gate of liberation of emptiness," 「具足修空三昧」 tr. "fully cultivates the emptiness samādhi," 「具足修無相三昧」 tr. "fully cultivates the signless samādhi"—entering is what must be done; it is only that he does not abide. If it is read as not being permitted to enter emptiness, then the text in which the latter three rounds of furthermore are paired one by one with the three gates of non-action, emptiness, and the signless would become entirely empty words.
Do not read 「若善根成就，是時便於實際作證」 tr. "if the roots of goodness are accomplished, then at that time he realises the limit of reality" as this chapter contradicting itself. The archery simile has already made the measure clear: whether the arrows fall or not rests wholly on whether the later arrows continue or not; if he wishes them to fall, he simply stops the later arrow, and only then do they fall to the ground. What is negated is ‘realising the limit of reality while the roots of goodness are not yet fulfilled’, not never realising. The treatise-author explains it in the same way: because he has not yet fulfilled the ten powers and the other matters of a Buddha, he never takes realisation; the bodhisattva thinks to himself that if he obtains the complete matters of a Buddha, then at that time he shall take realisation. From this it can be seen that not realising is a word about timing, not an absolute prohibition.
Do not read the method of testing by asking only as examining others, nor only as verifying oneself. The sūtra text itself has the structure of asking another and discerning the answer—「是菩薩若如是答」 tr. "if this bodhisattva answers thus"—discerning the marks according to his answer; yet this method can also be turned back as the place of self-verification for the bodhisattva who trains in and practises the dharmas that aid the path; the treatise-author also says plainly 「經中自說因緣」 tr. "the sūtra itself tells the causes and conditions"; what is verified is the view that shows through a single answer—whether contemplating and training are split into two separate pieces, or whether one contemplates emptiness because of training and knowing skilful means. If it is taken up to measure others, then the words of this chapter, 「多有菩薩求佛道，少有菩薩能如是答」 tr. "many bodhisattvas seek the Buddha path; few bodhisattvas can answer thus," become material for passing judgement, whereas the reasons the Buddha gives are plainly 「得授記」 tr. "having obtained the prediction" and 「善根明了」 tr. "roots of goodness clear and bright," not higher or lower eloquence.
Do not read 「若聞、若不聞」 tr. "whether he has heard or has not heard" as meaning that hearing is useless. When the treatise-author glosses these two courses, of 「若聞者」 tr. "one who has heard" he says plainly 「但從師聞，自未具足菩薩地」 tr. "he only hears it from a teacher, and has not himself fulfilled the bodhisattva ground," and of 「若不聞者」 tr. "one who has not heard" he says plainly 「自思惟、正憶念」 tr. "he thinks it over by himself and rightly recollects"—both roads require effort; it is not that one can answer out of nothing. What is broken is only taking the presence or absence of hearing as the sole criterion; it is not abolishing hearing. Since the sūtra text itself says that the six perfections may be heard or not heard and in either case one can answer thus, this is exactly to bring people back to the view on which the answer rests.
Bearing on Practice
The first use is to separate clearly 「學時」 tr. "the time of training" and 「證時」 tr. "the time of realising." In daily use, as soon as one sits down, the mind often secretly expects a result—today there must be accord, there must be traction, some state must be seen. The remedy this chapter gives is extremely simple: make this vow—now is my time of training, not the time of realising. This vow does not cancel progress; it cancels the mind of ‘this sitting must bring in a harvest’. The sūtra text further carries it through every dharma—when practising giving, when keeping the precepts, when cultivating the foundations of mindfulness, when cultivating the samādhis, all are the time of training. Once the vow is set firm, the effort turns from demanding payment into tilling the field.
The second use is that 「不有餘、不有分」 tr. "no remainder and no part" can serve as the plumb-line of contemplative practice. The treatise-author's gloss is concrete and usable: among the dharmas of form, even down to an atom, leave no subtle part remaining; among the formless dharmas, leave not even a single thought. In contemplating, one can examine oneself at two places—on the object contemplated, is there a small piece I have tacitly allowed to be real and have gone around? On the contemplating mind, is there a thought I have taken as a place to stand and have not contemplated? If remainder and part are still left, the so-called emptiness is only a partial emptiness, which is exactly the root of taking realisation.
The third use is that the simile of grasping the coarse grass can resolve the perplexity of ‘effort that does not go all the way ends up wounding’. Many people, first learning the contemplation of emptiness, after contemplating for a while feel instead that the mind has nowhere to land, and give rise to fear or to pride—this is exactly the mark of holding loosely. The prescription in the simile is to grip tightly; the treatise-author's prescription is to enter deeply: to know that emptiness too is empty and nirvāṇa too is empty. When meeting this state, do not retreat; enter one layer further—if emptiness is still something that can be leaned on or feared, one has not yet entered deeply.
The fourth use is that the method of letting compassion go first can be taken over just as it is. The treatise-author says it most plainly: if the practitioner contemplates the very deep dharmas directly, he either obtains the śrāvaka path or falls into wrong views, because he has no mind of pity and cannot enter deeply into the emptiness of specific marks; therefore, wishing to contemplate these dharmas, he first gives rise to the mind of compassion. Its use in the gate of practice is this—each time before making a deep contemplation, first raise one thought: beings through the long night cling to the mind of I and mine and to all the afflictions; for immeasurable kalpas this self has certainly been unfindable, yet only because of what is empty, false, deceptive, and inverted have they undergone all their sorrows and vexations. Once this thought has arisen, the contemplation has something that holds it, and does not turn cold as it contemplates.
The fifth use is that the three similes can serve as three ways of placing oneself. One whose mind is timid and dares not enter deeply takes the simile of the stalwart man—he has people in his hands, and so he can cross the dangerous road. One whose mind doubts that there is anything to work on in space takes the bird simile—with no support it goes far and does not fall, neither dropping nor stopping. One whose mind is anxious to see results takes the archery simile—the later arrow continues the earlier arrow, continuing them one arrow after another, with no need to ask when they will fall to the ground. Each of the three similes cures one illness; whichever illness is met, take the corresponding simile.
The sixth use is that the method of testing by asking can be used to ask oneself. There is no need to wait for someone to come and examine; take that one sentence and ask it of oneself: as I now train in this dharma and contemplate emptiness, have I split 「觀」 tr. "contemplating" and 「學」 tr. "training" into two separate pieces, willing only to contemplate and not willing to train in all the dharmas that aid the path? Or, the other way round, willing only to train, with everything trained in becoming, one by one, something attained? The place of failure that the treatise-author points out is 「不說方便學知故觀空」 tr. "he does not speak of contemplating emptiness by training and knowing skilful means"—in asking oneself, ask exactly this sentence: is my contemplation a contemplating by training and knowing skilful means, or a contemplating in order to be done with it?
Further Resonances
The backbone of this chapter is two passages of sūtra text and one passage of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins from Subhūti's asking 「云何學空三昧？云何入空三昧？」 tr. "How does he train in the emptiness samādhi? How does he enter the emptiness samādhi?" and so on up to 「云何學八聖道分？云何修八聖道分？」 tr. "How does he train in the eightfold noble path? How does he cultivate the eightfold noble path?"; the Buddha answers that one contemplates form and so on up to the three realms as all empty and does not let the mind be disordered, that if the mind is not disordered he does not see this dharma, and that if he does not see this dharma he does not realise it, and brings out the principle 「善學自相空故，不有餘、不有分」 tr. "because he has trained well in the emptiness of specific marks, there is no remainder and no part"; Subhūti asks again how, abiding in emptiness, he does not realise it, and the Buddha brings out the vow 「我今學時，非是證時」 tr. "now is my time of training, not the time of realising" and the practice 「不專攝心繫在緣中」 tr. "does not exclusively gather the mind and bind it to the object," goes through the six perfections, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, the three samādhi, the ten powers and so on up to great kindness and great compassion, closing each one with its not being the time of realising, and goes on to bring out the three similes of the stalwart man helping the old and the weak across the dangerous road, the bird with wings flying in space neither falling nor abiding, and the strong man skilled at archery with the later arrow propping the earlier arrow, making clear that by the power of skilful means, while the roots of goodness are not yet fulfilled, he does not realise the limit of reality. Sūtra ② begins from Subhūti's sigh 「所為甚難」 tr. "what he does is very hard"; the Buddha answers that because he does not abandon any being he makes this vow, and continues with the four rounds of 「復次」 tr. "furthermore"—wishing to contemplate the very deep dharmas and giving rise to the mind of severing the marks for the sake of beings, breaking the four inversions, breaking the clinging to attaining a dharma, breaking the clinging to the marks—each paired with the gates of non-action, emptiness, and the signless, and all closing with not realising the limit of reality; at the end he sets up the words of testing by asking, brings out the two marks of the failed answer and the successful answer, and with 「六波羅蜜若聞、若不聞」 tr. "whether he has heard the six perfections or has not heard them" makes clear that one who has not yet obtained avaivartika can also answer thus, finally closing the sūtra with 「少有如是得授記行阿鞞跋致慧地」 tr. "few have thus obtained the prediction and practise the avaivartika ground of wisdom." The treatise section opens the treatise with 「學空、入空有何差別」 tr. "what difference is there between training in emptiness and entering emptiness," brings out the four phrases of first and after, cause and fruit, and skilful means and attainment, to establish the two paths, and extends them to the signless, non-action, and the thirty-seven limbs of the path; it points out that the three gates of liberation and the thirty-seven limbs of the path are properly the nirvāṇa path of the two vehicles and that the Buddha commands the bodhisattva to practise it, whence arises the difficulty of the whole chapter; next, with three rounds of question and answer, it explains layer by layer—the difference between training in emptiness and entering emptiness, the distinction between 「深入禪定，不令心亂」 tr. "entering deeply into meditative concentration, he does not let the mind be disordered" and 「不專心」 tr. "not exclusively attentive," and the verification of ‘how is it known that one who has not yet obtained the path can practise this deep emptiness’—bringing out in between the separate simile of grasping coarse grass loosely or tightly to make clear entering deeply, and restoring one by one what the three similes on the sūtra side stand for; at the end it explains the two marks of the failed answer and the successful answer of testing by asking, glosses the names 「學習」 tr. "training," 「薄地」 tr. "the ground of thinning," 「學地」 tr. "the ground of training," and 「無學地」 tr. "the ground beyond training," and draws the whole chapter together with 「諸法實相，惟佛能遍知」 tr. "the real mark of dharmas only the Buddha can know completely" and 「懸與受記」 tr. "gives him the prediction in advance."
The doctrinal veins between this chapter and the chapters before and after it can be seen along two lines. First, looking back: this chapter at its opening sets up no separate occasion, but goes straight on from the matter of the avaivartika spoken of in the preceding chapters to speak of the method of verifying and knowing it—at the end of Sūtra ② and at the end of the treatise alike, 「能如是答」 tr. "can answer thus" is taken as the sign of the avaivartika, so it can be seen that the latter half of this chapter and the earlier chapters that speak of the avaivartika are the continuation of one matter. Second, looking ahead: the meaning this chapter establishes, ‘training without realising’, is examined again in the next chapter against the single setting of the dream; this chapter speaks of not realising while awake, the next chapter speaks of not realising in a dream, and only when the two chapters are viewed together is the thoroughness of this meaning seen. The reader may view them together.
Of the ancient masters' explanations, two schools can be recorded for this chapter. Jizang, in his sectional division of this chapter, explains the distinction between training in emptiness and entering emptiness, saying: 「初明學空，終名入空也。」 tr. "At first it makes clear training in emptiness; at the end it is called entering emptiness." He also sets up a difficulty with the two vehicles as contrast, saying: 「既學空入空，云何不證耶？二乘在空觀時亦能不取空相，云何獨證耶？」 tr. "Since he trains in emptiness and enters emptiness, how does he not realise it? The two vehicles, while in the contemplation of emptiness, can also not take up the mark of emptiness; how is it that they alone realise?" His explanation of the word 「具足」 tr. "fulfilment" says: 「具足是深入空，不見空故不見涅槃。」 tr. "Fulfilment is entering deeply into emptiness; because he does not see emptiness, he does not see nirvāṇa." These three sayings accord with this treatise's glosses 「初名學空，後是入空」 tr. "at first it is called training in emptiness; afterwards it is entering emptiness" and 「具足者即是深入」 tr. "fulfilment is entering deeply." Jizang also, in his sectional text on the preceding chapter of the sūtra he explains, "The Profound," foretells the position of this chapter, saying: 「然自行化他二行成者，要由學空不證故，不墮二乘地亦不墮凡夫地」 tr. "Yet the accomplishment of the two practices of practising oneself and transforming others depends on training in emptiness without realising it; therefore he does not fall to the ground of the two vehicles and also does not fall to the ground of ordinary people"—taking training in emptiness without realising it as that by which the two practices of practising oneself and transforming others come to be accomplished. His explanation of the passage on testing by asking says: 「上來明學空不證，已明其內行空，今欲驗之，當觀其所說相秤以不，故試問也。」 tr. "What has come above made clear training in emptiness without realising it, and has made clear his inner practice of emptiness; now, wishing to verify it, one should observe whether the marks he speaks of weigh true or not; therefore he is tested by asking." With 「內行」 tr. "inner practice" and 「驗之」 tr. "verifying it" he divides this chapter into its former and latter parts; this and this treatise's explanation 「經中自說因緣」 tr. "the sūtra itself tells the causes and conditions" each have their own emphasis, and are recorded side by side without judgement.
Huiying, in his Commentary on this chapter, raises a question from the sequence of the chapters, saying: 「何故次河天品後明於此品？」 tr. "Why is this chapter set forth next after the River Goddess chapter?" He divides this chapter into three parts, of which the first two say: 「第一、以法、喻兩周，明菩薩善入三脫而不住空；第二、明三三昧別有所益，各有所治」 tr. "First, with the two rounds of Dharma and simile, it makes clear that the bodhisattva enters the three liberations well and does not abide in emptiness; second, it makes clear that the three samādhi each have their separate benefit and each have what they cure"—dividing Sūtra ① by the two rounds of Dharma and simile, and dividing the four rounds of furthermore of Sūtra ② by the three samādhi each having what they cure, which corresponds to this treatise's text in which, in the first round, the three gates come out together, and the latter three rounds are paired round by round with non-action, emptiness, and the signless. His explanation of 「不有餘、不有分」 tr. "no remainder and no part" says: 「菩薩不化城中止取小涅槃，故云不有餘；不住實際，故云不有分也。」 tr. "The bodhisattva does not stop in the conjured city and take only the small nirvāṇa; therefore it says no remainder. He does not abide in the limit of reality; therefore it says no part." This differs from this treatise's gloss 「色法中乃至微塵，不留遺餘微細之分；無色法中，乃至不留一念」 tr. "among the dharmas of form, even down to an atom, he leaves no subtle part remaining; among the formless dharmas, he leaves not even a single thought"—the treatise-author glosses it with respect to the all-pervadingness of the contemplation, Huiying glosses it with respect to the places where one does not abide; they are recorded side by side without judgement. His explanation of the distinction between entering deeply and not being exclusive says: 「上云不令心亂者，據明菩薩善解學空入三三昧；今言不專攝心繫在緣中者，據菩薩不專住空實際中證也。」 tr. "Where it said above that he does not let the mind be disordered, this is in terms of making clear that the bodhisattva well understands training in emptiness and enters the three samādhi; where it now says he does not exclusively gather the mind and bind it to the object, this is in terms of the bodhisattva not exclusively abiding in emptiness and realising within the limit of reality." This, too, with this treatise's positional glosses 「初入時」 tr. "at the time of first entering" and 「入已深」 tr. "having entered deeply," forms a separate account; both are kept. Huiying further marks this chapter, saying: 「第五十九品者，名為學空不證品。」 tr. "The fifty-ninth chapter is named the chapter Training in Emptiness without Realising It." His own sectional numbering is one less than the chapter sequence given in the base text; this is the numbering convention of his commentary itself, recorded as it is without judgement. The study of the variant names of the chapter title, the division of fascicles among the texts, and the fascicle titles and fascicle ends is detailed in the Apparatus.