大智度論 義疏通講 · 冊13Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Exposition Throughout · Vol. 13

Overview

"Not Realising It in a Dream" follows on from the preceding chapter, and yet moves the same matter into a dream. What the preceding chapter spoke of was training in emptiness while awake and not taking realisation; this chapter changes the place in its very first sentence: 「若菩薩摩訶薩乃至夢中不貪聲聞、辟支佛地，亦不貪三界，觀諸法如夢、如幻、如嚮、如焰、如化，亦不作證。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva-mahāsattva even in a dream does not crave the śrāvaka ground or the pratyekabuddha ground, and also does not crave the three realms, and contemplates dharmas as like a dream, like an illusion, like an echo, like a mirage, like a transformation, and also does not realise them." The one matter of not taking realisation can, by day, still be said to be a matter of holding the mind and keeping a grip on it; in a dream there is no mind to hold, and so what appears in a dream becomes the least counterfeit of tests. The eye of the chapter's name is set right here: not what is done in a dream, but that in a dream one still does not realise it. And the wonder of the whole chapter lies in its at once turning the dream round the other way to use it—in a dream he sees hell-fire burning beings, and the bodhisattva 「作是誓：『若我實是阿鞞跋致者，是火當滅！』是火即滅」 tr. "makes this oath: ‘If I am really an avaivartika, may this fire go out!’ and the fire goes out at once"; after waking he sees fire rise in a walled city, and again takes up the mark from the dream and makes another oath. So the marks of this chapter lie half in not taking and half in daring to establish. The treatise-author settles the root of this one negation and one affirmation: 「佛說夢、覺無異故。」 tr. "Because the Buddha has said that dream and waking are without difference." Since dream and waking are without difference, not craving in a dream can test the resolve of waking hours, and an oath made while awake can take up the mark from the dream. The whole chapter, two sūtras and two treatises, spans the two fascicles seventy-six and seventy-seven: the First Part, one sūtra and one treatise, lists the marks in a dream and discerns item by item what is counterfeit among them—the same oath, the same seclusion: the one becomes a mark of non-retrogression, the other becomes a deed of Māra; the Last Part, one sūtra and one treatise, turns to the mark of prajñā itself, asking all the way from like space and without anything existent down to how one receives the prediction within nothing to be attained, and closes with 「般若波羅蜜中無諸分別憶想故」 tr. "because within prajñāpāramitā there is no discrimination, recollection, or imagining".

The First Part lists the marks and discerns the counterfeit. Sūtra ① tells item by item of the marks in a dream, every item closed with 「當知是阿鞞跋致菩薩摩訶薩阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "know that this is the avaivartika mark of an avaivartika bodhisattva-mahāsattva": in a dream he sees the Buddha expounding the Dharma to a great assembly and, 「從佛聞法，即解中義、隨法行」 tr. "hearing the Dharma from the Buddha, at once understands the meaning within it and practises according to the Dharma"; in a dream he sees the Buddha's 「三十二相、八十隨形好、大光明，踊在虛空」 tr. "thirty-two marks, eighty minor marks, and great radiance, rising up into space", and so on up to 「化作化人，到他國土施作佛事」 tr. "conjuring conjured persons who go to other lands to do the Buddha's work"; in a dream he sees armies rising, fire breaking out, fierce beasts, and his kin dying, and 「不驚、不怖，亦不憂惱」 tr. "is not startled, not terrified, nor grieved and vexed", and on waking at once reflects, 「三界虛妄，皆如夢耳！」 tr. "The three realms are false; all are but like a dream!", and makes the vow 「亦當為眾生說三界如夢」 tr. "I too shall teach beings that the three realms are like a dream"; in a dream he sees the beings of the three evil destinies, and vows 「令我國中無一切三惡道」 tr. "may there be none of the three evil destinies at all in my land", and the reason for it is just one sentence—「是夢及諸法，無二無別」 tr. "this dream and all dharmas are without duality and without difference". Below this it moves from dream to waking: in a dream he makes the oath to put out the fire of the hells; while awake, 「見城郭火起」 tr. "seeing fire rise in a walled city", he likewise makes the oath, and if the fire goes out, 「當知是菩薩得受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記，住阿鞞跋致地」 tr. "know that this bodhisattva has received the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and abides in the ground of the avaivartika"; and there are fires that do not go out, 「燒一家、置一家，燒一里、置一里」 tr. "burning one house and leaving one house, burning one lane and leaving one lane"—this is not the oath failing to take effect; it is that 「被燒家破法業因緣厚集」 tr. "in the houses that are burned, the causes and conditions of the deed of breaking the Dharma have gathered thick", 「是諸眾生今世受破法餘殃故被燒」 tr. "these beings are burned because in this life they suffer the remaining calamity of having broken the Dharma". It goes a layer further: 「若男子、若女人為非人所持」 tr. "if a man or a woman is possessed by a non-human", the bodhisattva by an oath of utmost sincerity makes the non-human go far away, and whether it goes or does not go tests whether he has or has not received the prediction. When the marks have been listed thus far, the sūtra suddenly turns its pen to speak of the counterfeit: it is the same one oath, and yet it is that 「惡魔即作方便，勅非人令去」 tr. "evil Māra at once employs a means and commands the non-human to go", and the bodhisattva 「不知是惡魔力；恃是證故，輕弄毀蔑諸餘菩薩」 tr. "does not know that it is the power of evil Māra; relying on this as proof, he slights, mocks, disparages, and scorns the other bodhisattvas", 「用是空誓，無方便力故，生增上慢」 tr. "by this empty oath, having no power of skilful means, he gives rise to overweening pride"; again, there is Māra telling him his name and clan in former lives and the merit of his dhūta practice to deceive him, 「是菩薩聞是先世事及名姓，聞今讚頭陀功德，即歡喜生慢憍心」 tr. "this bodhisattva, hearing these matters of former lives and his name and clan, and hearing the merit of his dhūta practice praised now, at once rejoices and gives rise to a mind of pride and arrogance"; again, there is Māra giving him a name and title outright, 「隨其本念，說其名號」 tr. "following his own thoughts, tells him his name and title", and the Buddha judges it extremely heavy—「當知是罪重於比丘四禁」 tr. "know that this sin is heavier than a bhikṣu's four prohibitions", and so on up to 「其罪過於五逆」 tr. "his sin exceeds the five heinous sins". The last round is the subtlest: Māra praises him for dwelling in 「空閑山澤曠遠之處」 tr. "empty and quiet mountains, marshes, and far-off places", and the Buddha himself says, 「我不讚是遠離」 tr. "I do not praise this seclusion"; Subhūti then asks, 「云何更有異遠離」 tr. "how is there then a different seclusion", and the Buddha answers that the reality of seclusion lies in the mind, not in the place—「若菩薩摩訶薩遠離聲聞、辟支佛心，住空閑山澤曠遠之處，是佛所許遠離法」 tr. "if a bodhisattva-mahāsattva is secluded from the mind of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha, and dwells in empty and quiet mountains, marshes, and far-off places, this is the dharma of seclusion the Buddha approves"; conversely, one who, 「雖在絕曠百由旬外」 tr. "though he is beyond a hundred yojanas of utter wilderness", has a mind that is in clamour, and on top of that 「輕餘菩薩城傍心清淨」 tr. "despises the other bodhisattvas at the city's edge whose minds are pure", the Buddha rebukes outright as 「菩薩旃陀羅」 tr. "a bodhisattva caṇḍāla", as 「沙門被服中賊」 tr. "a thief in the garb of a śramaṇa". Sūtra ① at its end comes back to the good friend: the buddhas, the bodhisattvas, and even the arhats are good friends; the six perfections, the four foundations of mindfulness, and so on up to 「如、實際、法性」 tr. "suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas" are good friends too; and after that it lists names in a row to praise them—「六波羅蜜是世尊，六波羅蜜是道，六波羅蜜是大明」 tr. "the six perfections are the World-Honored One, the six perfections are the path, the six perfections are the great light", and so on up to 「六波羅蜜是究竟道，六波羅蜜是父是母」 tr. "the six perfections are the ultimate path, the six perfections are father, are mother".

Treatise ① first sets itself a question: 「〈阿鞞跋致品〉中已廣說阿鞞跋致相，今何以更說？」 tr. "The marks of the avaivartika have already been widely spoken of in the Avaivartika chapter; why are they spoken of again now?" The answer has two layers. One is that 「所說般若波羅蜜義皆是阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "the meaning of prajñāpāramitā that is spoken of is all the mark of the avaivartika"; the preceding chapter mostly spoke of its matters, while 「餘品中亦處處有說阿鞞跋致相，但不次第」 tr. "in the other chapters too the marks of the avaivartika are spoken of here and there, but not in sequence"; the other is that what this chapter speaks of concerns a different person—among the avaivartika there are those who have received the prediction and those who have not; among those who have received it there is the prediction given in one's presence and the prediction not given in one's presence; and among those not given it in their presence there are 「具足授記因緣」 tr. "the causes and conditions of the prediction fulfilled" and 「不具足授記因緣」 tr. "the causes and conditions of the prediction not fulfilled"; and what this chapter takes up is precisely the last sentence of the preceding chapter, so 「此是前品末所說阿鞞跋致，是故次第說」 tr. "this is the avaivartika spoken of at the end of the preceding chapter; therefore it is spoken of in sequence", and what it speaks of is 「夢中不貪二地，雖未具足阿鞞跋致法，亦名阿鞞跋致」 tr. "not craving the two grounds in a dream: though he has not yet fulfilled the dharmas of the avaivartika, he is also called avaivartika". Below this it explains item by item the reason for each mark. Not craving in a dream is because 「是菩薩晝日常習行空故，夜夢中亦不貪三界」 tr. "this bodhisattva constantly trains in emptiness by day, and so in his dreams by night too he does not crave the three realms", and the gates of retrogression are only two—「菩薩於二處退轉：一者、著世間樂故轉，二者、取二乘故轉」 tr. "the bodhisattva retrogresses in two places: first, he turns because of clinging to worldly pleasure; second, he turns because of taking the two vehicles"; since neither gate opens even in a dream, then 「乃至夢中亦不貪三界、二乘，何況覺時！」 tr. "even in a dream he does not crave the three realms or the two vehicles—how much less when awake!" Seeing death and seeing fear in a dream and not grieving is because 「是菩薩常行畢竟空故，我、我所等諸煩惱折薄，乃至自身不惜，何況餘親」 tr. "this bodhisattva constantly practises ultimate emptiness, so the afflictions of I, mine, and the rest are broken and thinned; he does not spare even his own body, how much less his other kin", and what he thinks after waking does not stop at the dream either—「如夢中，不死而見死、不畏而見畏，一切三界皆爾，何但夢中！」 tr. "as in a dream, not dying and yet seeing death, not fearing and yet seeing fear—the whole of the three realms is like this; why only in a dream!" The oath's being able to put out the fire is because 「是菩薩於無量劫修集福德，得諸法實相故，鬼神、龍王等助滅是火」 tr. "this bodhisattva has cultivated and gathered merit through immeasurable kalpas and obtained the real mark of all dharmas, and so ghosts and spirits, nāga kings, and others help to put out this fire"; and that there are places where it does not go out shows exactly what the bodhisattva's power does not reach—「菩薩福德、智慧力不能滅重罪者，所謂破法業」 tr. "the heavy sin that the power of the bodhisattva's merit and wisdom cannot extinguish is namely the deed of breaking the Dharma". Why is breaking the Dharma alone so heavy? 「法者，般若波羅蜜；諸餘法利益無及般若波羅蜜者，是故破者罪重。」 tr. "The Dharma is prajñāpāramitā; among all other dharmas none benefits as prajñāpāramitā does; therefore the sin of one who breaks it is heavy." For the items of the deeds of Māra, the treatise-author likewise gives the root of the illness one by one: of the one who, when the non-human goes, relies on himself, 「是菩薩自未有力，魔來遣鬼神故，自恃為己力」 tr. "this bodhisattva himself has no power as yet; because Māra came and sent the ghosts and spirits away, he presumes it to be his own power"; of the one who clings to names, the reason his sin is heavier than the four prohibitions is that 「是四禁中，妄語稱『我是阿羅漢』」 tr. "among these four prohibitions, false speech is claiming, ‘I am an arhat’", whereas this person 「著是受莂名字，自言『我當作佛』」 tr. "clings to this name of the prediction and says of himself, ‘I shall become a Buddha’"; what is called subtle is also only this: 「細名不逆其意，隨其本念，助成其心」 tr. "subtle means not going against his intent; following his own thoughts, it helps his mind along"—Māra does not go against you; he merely goes along with you. The section on seclusion is closed most rightly: 「佛所說遠離，心離二乘、三界，是名真遠離。」 tr. "The seclusion the Buddha speaks of is the mind's being apart from the two vehicles and the three realms; this is called true seclusion." At the end it speaks of the good friend, first explaining 「深心名一心、重心」 tr. "the deep mind means the single mind, the weighty mind", then setting up two conditions, inner and outer—「一者、內，二者、外。內名正憶念，思惟、籌量諸法；外名諸善知識」 tr. "first, the inner; second, the outer. The inner means right recollection, considering and reckoning dharmas; the outer means the good friends"; why can śrāvakas too be good friends? Because 「有小乘人先世求佛道故利根，雖是小乘，有憐愍心」 tr. "there are people of the Small Vehicle who sought the Buddha path in former lives and so have keen faculties; though they are of the Small Vehicle, they have a mind of pity", as 「舍利弗六十劫求佛道，雖退轉作阿羅漢，亦利根智慧，能為諸菩薩說大乘」 tr. "Śāriputra sought the Buddha path for sixty kalpas; though he retrogressed and became an arhat, he still has keen faculties and wisdom, and can expound the Great Vehicle for the bodhisattvas". Why are the six perfections and the thirty-seven limbs of the path set side by side? 「六波羅蜜是略說；四念處等是廣說，解六波羅蜜」 tr. "the six perfections are the brief statement; the four foundations of mindfulness and the rest are the extended statement, explaining the six perfections", and among them 「禪波羅蜜、般若波羅蜜最大；譬如雖有星宿，日、月最勝」 tr. "dhyānapāramitā and prajñāpāramitā are the greatest; just as, though there are the stars and constellations, the sun and the moon are supreme". The last sentence of Treatise ① sets a test directly before the reader: 「不隨他教名自知諸法實相，乃至變作佛身來說異於法相，亦不信不隨。」 tr. "Not following another's teaching is called knowing for oneself the real mark of all dharmas; and so on up to: even when one transforms into the body of a Buddha and comes to speak what differs from the mark of dharmas, he neither believes it nor follows it."

The Last Part, whose fascicle head carries the continuation title 「之餘」 tr. "the remainder", turns from the marks to the substance. Sūtra ② opens at once with Subhūti asking 「何等是般若波羅蜜相」 tr. "what is the mark of prajñāpāramitā", and the Buddha's answer is only two sentences—「如虛空相是般若波羅蜜相」 tr. "the mark that is like space is the mark of prajñāpāramitā", 「般若波羅蜜無所有相」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is without the mark of anything existent"; extended to all dharmas, 「一切法離相、空相」 tr. "all dharmas are separated from marks, of the mark of emptiness". Subhūti at once raises the tightest objection of the whole chapter: since 「離相法無垢、無淨，空相法無垢、無淨」 tr. "the dharma separated from marks is without stain and without purity; the dharma of the mark of emptiness is without stain and without purity", and 「離相、空相無法可得」 tr. "in what is separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness no dharma is findable", then 「無有菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 tr. "there is no bodhisattva who obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—how am I to understand the meaning of what the Buddha says? The Buddha does not answer directly but asks back, starting from beings who 「長夜行我、我所心」 tr. "through the long night practise the mind of I and mine"—this mind is 「離相、空相」 tr. "separated from marks, of the mark of emptiness", and yet it is by this very mind that beings 「往來生死中」 tr. "go and come within birth and death", so 「眾生往來生死中故，知有垢惱」 tr. "because beings go and come within birth and death, one knows that there are stain and vexation"; conversely, 「若眾生無我我所心、無著心，是眾生不復往來生死中」 tr. "if beings have no mind of I and mine and no clinging mind, these beings no longer go and come within birth and death", 「如是，須菩提！眾生有淨」 tr. "thus, Subhūti! beings have purity". Once stain and purity are established, the sūtra turns to practice: the bodhisattva who practises thus 「不行色，不行受、想、行、識」 tr. "does not practise form, does not practise feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness", and so on up to not practising the omniscience of all kinds; why—「是法不可得，亦無行者，亦無行處，亦無行法」 tr. "this dharma is unfindable; there is also no one who practises, also no place of practice, also no dharma of practice"; one who practises thus, 「一切世間諸天、人、阿修羅不能降伏」 tr. "all the gods, humans, and asuras of the world cannot subdue". Next it shows his strength by weighing merit: though the beings of Jambudvīpa all obtained human bodies, all accomplished the Buddha path, and all received offerings, their merit, great as it is, 「不如是善男子、善女人於大眾中說是般若波羅蜜，出示、分別，照明、開演」 tr. "is not equal to this good man or good woman's expounding this prajñāpāramitā in the great assembly, showing and distinguishing it, illuminating and expounding it"; why—「除諸佛，無有餘法如菩薩摩訶薩勢力」 tr. "apart from the buddhas, there is no other dharma with strength like that of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva"—this person, 「雖未作佛，能為一切眾生作大福田」 tr. "though he has not yet become a Buddha, can be a great field of merit for all beings", and of the offerings of the four requisites he receives, 「念能畢報施主之恩」 tr. "his mindfulness can fully repay the kindness of the donors". Next it tells of the mindfulness that must not be parted from, using the simile of losing a treasure: 「我奈何忽亡失此大寶！」 tr. "How could I suddenly have lost this great treasure!" Subhūti objects again: 「一切念性自離、一切念性自空」 tr. "the nature of all thought is of itself separated, the nature of all thought is of itself empty"—how is there a thought not parted from sarvajñā? The Buddha does not answer on the side of thought; he answers only on the side of dharmas—to know that all dharmas are 「性自離、性自空」 tr. "by nature of themselves separated, by nature of themselves empty", 「非聲聞、辟支佛作，亦非佛作」 tr. "not made by śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, nor made by the Buddha either", and that 「諸法相常住、法相、法住、法位、如、實際」 tr. "the mark of dharmas constantly abides—the mark of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the position of dharmas, suchness, the limit of reality": this itself is not being parted. He asks again: since prajñā is empty, how is one equal to it and so attains awakening? The Buddha answers, 「菩薩摩訶薩與般若波羅蜜等，不增不減」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is equal to prajñāpāramitā, neither increasing nor decreasing", because 「如、法性、實際不增不減故」 tr. "suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality neither increase nor decrease", and 「般若波羅蜜非一非異故」 tr. "because prajñāpāramitā is neither one nor different"; one who hears this and 「不驚、不沒、不畏不怖、不疑」 tr. "is not startled, does not sink, is not afraid and not terrified, does not doubt", 「當知是菩薩摩訶薩必住阿鞞跋致地中」 tr. "know that this bodhisattva-mahāsattva surely abides in the ground of the avaivartika". The great section at the very end is the most wondrous: Subhūti asks item by item what it is that practises prajñā—emptiness, apart from emptiness, prajñā itself, apart from prajñā, form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the six perfections, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and on to form's 「如相、法相、法住、法位、實際」 tr. "mark of suchness, mark of dharmas, abiding of dharmas, position of dharmas, limit of reality"—and to each the Buddha answers, 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "No, Subhūti!" When every item has been swept away, Subhūti then asks, 「云何行名菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "how does one practise so that it is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practising prajñāpāramitā", and the Buddha still sets up not a single dharma, only asking back to the very end: 「汝見有法行般若波羅蜜者不？」 tr. "Do you see a dharma that practises prajñāpāramitā?" 「汝所不見法，是法可得不？」 tr. "The dharma you do not see—is this dharma findable?" 「若法不可得，是法當生不？」 tr. "If a dharma is unfindable, should this dharma arise?" Every question is answered with not seeing, not finding, not arising, and then a single sentence comes to land: 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍。」 tr. "This is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas." The one matter of receiving the prediction goes by the same method: in the mark of non-arising the prediction is not obtained, in the mark of arising it is not obtained, in the mark of neither arising nor non-arising it is not obtained either, up to 「我不見有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記，我亦不見法有得者、得處」 tr. "I see no dharma that obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor do I see any dharma that has one who obtains it or a place of obtaining"—precisely here the Buddha approves him, saying, 「如是！如是！」 tr. "Just so! Just so!", and says that the bodhisattva, 「於一切法無所得時，不作是念」 tr. "at the time when in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained, does not think this"—that there is an awakening to be obtained, that there is a thing by which to obtain it, that there is a place where awakening is; why—「諸菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，無諸憶想分別」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas practising prajñāpāramitā are without any recollection, imagining, or discrimination".

Treatise ② at its start first resolves a doubt: the mark of prajñā has already been spoken of in all kinds of ways before; why is it asked about again now? 「般若波羅蜜第一微妙，聞者無厭足，無滿時，無一定相，故不應難」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is supremely subtle and wondrous; those who hear it are never sated, there is no time of being full, and it has no single fixed mark; therefore one should not object", and 「如十住大菩薩於般若波羅蜜猶未滿足，何況須菩提小乘人！」 tr. "even the great bodhisattvas of the ten abodes are not yet satisfied with prajñāpāramitā—how much less Subhūti, a man of the Small Vehicle!" To the objection about stain and purity the treatise-author answers most thoroughly: I and mine are ultimately non-existent; 「眾生狂顛倒因緣故，生諸煩惱；煩惱因緣故有業；業因緣故，於生死中往來」 tr. "because of the causes and conditions of beings' mad inversion, the afflictions arise; because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions there are deeds; because of the causes and conditions of deeds, they go and come within birth and death", and 「我無故，我所心虛誑」 tr. "because there is no self, the mind of what belongs to self is false and deceptive", so 「是事本末空」 tr. "this matter is empty from root to branch"; nor is purity obtained from outside: 「我、我所心則滅；如日出，眾冥皆除」 tr. "the mind of I and mine then ceases; as when the sun rises, all darkness is dispelled"; when the mind ceases, the afflictions cease, deeds cease, and going and coming are cut off—「是名為淨」 tr. "this is called purity"—so 「雖一切法相皆空，亦以如是因緣故有淨、有垢」 tr. "though the marks of all dharmas are all empty, still, by such causes and conditions there is purity and there is stain". The reason he cannot be subdued lies in the contrast of false and real: 「世間人皆著假名，是行者行實法，是故不能伏」 tr. "worldly people all cling to provisional names; this practitioner practises the real dharma; therefore they cannot subdue him", and this person 「於畢竟空中尚不著，何況餘法」 tr. "does not cling even to ultimate emptiness, how much less to other dharmas". The reason the field of merit is great lies in compassion: the bodhisattva 「得諸法平等忍；得平等忍故，雖行空，亦能生四無量心」 tr. "obtains the acceptance of the equality of dharmas; because he obtains the acceptance of equality, though he practises emptiness, he can still give rise to the four immeasurable minds", and 「四無量心中，大悲是大乘之本」 tr. "among the four immeasurable minds, great compassion is the root of the Great Vehicle"; what he sees is 「眾生就於死法，如囚受戮」 tr. "beings going toward the dharma of death, like a prisoner going to execution". The reason receiving gifts is not in vain lies in being able to repay: 「不空食名能報施主，能生道，能令施主之福無盡，乃至入涅槃。」 tr. "Not eating in vain means being able to repay the donor, being able to give rise to the path, being able to make the donor's merit inexhaustible, up to entering nirvāṇa." The unceasing of mindfulness the treatise-author explains by citing two matters that are the proper business of those who have gone forth—「佛勅弟子，若和合共住，常行二事：一者、賢聖默然，二者、說法」 tr. "the Buddha commands his disciples, if they dwell together in harmony, always to practise two things: first, the noble silence of the worthies and sages; second, speaking the Dharma", and the noble silence of the worthies and sages 「是般若心」 tr. "is the mind of prajñā", and speaking the Dharma is 「說般若波羅蜜」 tr. "expounding prajñāpāramitā", and so 「是人從般若心出，說般若波羅蜜；說般若波羅蜜已，還入般若中，不令餘心、餘語得入」 tr. "this person comes out of the mind of prajñā and expounds prajñāpāramitā; having expounded prajñāpāramitā, he goes back into prajñā, not letting any other mind or any other words enter"; both ends, speech and silence, are prajñā, and so he can be 「晝夜常行，是不休不息」 tr. "practising constantly day and night—this is without rest and without ceasing". In the section on neither increasing nor decreasing, the treatise-author judges them outright to be one: 「般若波羅蜜，即是諸法如、法性、實際；如、法性、實際，即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is the suchness, the nature, and the limit of reality of dharmas; suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are prajñāpāramitā"; the reason for hearing without fear is likewise just one sentence—「凡夫著我心故有畏，是菩薩我相斷故無所畏。」 tr. "Ordinary people have fear because they cling to the mind of self; this bodhisattva has nothing to fear because the mark of self is severed." The explanation of that string of 「不也」 tr. "No" must be read with special care, for the treatise-author does not allow it to be read as abandoning practice: emptiness is not what practises prajñā, because 「若空無有法，云何行般若」 tr. "if in emptiness there is no dharma, how could it practise prajñā"; apart from emptiness there is no further dharma that practises prajñā, because 「若一切法空、無相、無作，云何離空更有法」 tr. "if all dharmas are empty, signless, and of non-action, how could there be a further dharma apart from emptiness"; prajñā does not itself practise prajñā, because 「法不自行，應以異法行」 tr. "a dharma does not practise itself; it would have to be practised by a different dharma"; the five aggregates do not practise, because 「是五眾從虛誑和合因緣，不自在故，無住相，云何能行」 tr. "these five aggregates come from the coming together of false and deceptive causes and conditions; because they are not sovereign, they have no mark of abiding—how could they practise"; suchness, the mark of dharmas, and the like do not practise either, because 「是法無為法，不生不滅，常住自性故不行」 tr. "this dharma is an unconditioned dharma, neither arising nor ceasing, constantly abiding in its own nature, and therefore does not practise". Each is swept past one by one, and what is swept away is the view that ‘there is a single dharma that can practise’, not practice itself. The Buddha's counter-questions that follow the treatise-author likewise answers on the questioner's behalf, sentence by sentence: why what the wisdom-eye sees can be relied on—「佛說智慧眼實，肉眼、天眼虛誑」 tr. "the Buddha says the eye of wisdom is real, and the fleshly eye and the divine eye are false and deceptive"; why the unfindable dharma does not arise—「是法本自無、畢竟空、無所有，是法有、無等戲論已滅，云何有生」 tr. "this dharma is from the beginning of itself non-existent, ultimately empty, without anything existent; the idle discourse of this dharma's existence, non-existence, and the like has already ceased—how could there be arising". So the meaning of the acceptance of non-arising becomes clear of itself: 「五眾中假名菩薩，得如是法，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the provisionally named bodhisattva among the five aggregates, obtaining such a dharma—this is called practising prajñāpāramitā", and this is 「世俗法故說，非第一義；第一義中，諸戲論語言即是無生」 tr. "said by way of worldly dharma, not the highest meaning; within the highest meaning, all idle discourse and language is itself non-arising". One who obtains this acceptance 「捨是生死肉身，得法性生身，住菩薩果報神通中」 tr. "abandons this fleshly body of birth and death, obtains the body born of the Dharma-nature, and abides among the supernormal powers that are the bodhisattva's retribution", and so on up to his very last body sitting at the seat of awakening, 「具足正因緣，若不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無有是處」 tr. "the right causes and conditions being fulfilled, it is impossible that he should not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Why do the bodhisattvas prize this acceptance? The treatise-author gives the easiest simile in the whole chapter to remember: 「未得無生忍法，用力艱難，譬如陸行；得無生法忍已，用力甚易，譬如乘船。」 tr. "Before obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, effort is arduous, as in travelling by land; having obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, effort is very easy, as in riding a boat." The last question is most essential: since 「行者實以無生忍故受記」 tr. "the practitioner really receives the prediction by the acceptance of non-arising", why does the Buddha answer no when Subhūti asks? The answer lies in the questioner's mind—「而須菩提為菩薩故，以著心、得心問」 tr. "but Subhūti, for the sake of the bodhisattvas, asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining"; and he cites an old matter as witness: the brahmin ascetic Vatsa asked whether there is a self or there is no self, and 「佛默然不答」 tr. "the Buddha was silent and did not answer", 「一切雖實無我，以梵志著心問，欲戲弄無我，故不答」 tr. "though in all things there is really no self, because the brahmin ascetic asked with a clinging mind, wishing to make sport of non-self, he did not answer". When Subhūti 「住三解脫門中，觀法性，不見定有受記者」 tr. "abides in the three gates of liberation, contemplates the nature of dharmas, and does not see that there is definitely one who receives the prediction", then 「聞是受記者空，難情則息，自解無疑」 tr. "having heard that the one who receives the prediction is empty, the feeling of difficulty then ceases; he understands of himself and has no doubt", and the Buddha then approves his meaning.

The difference between the arcs of the two parts can be settled in a word: the First Part speaks of the marks of non-retrogression and their counterfeits; the Last Part speaks of the substance of prajñā and its realisation. What the First Part tests are mostly matters that can be pointed to—what is seen, vowed, and sworn in a dream, the oath made while awake, and even the place where one dwells and the people one is close to; what the Last Part speaks of are mostly matters that cannot be pointed to—a mark like space, practice without one who practises, a prediction without a place of obtaining. So the First Part lists them one item after another, every item closed with 「以是行、類、相貌，當知是阿鞞跋致菩薩摩訶薩阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "by this conduct, kind, and appearance, know that this is the avaivartika mark of an avaivartika bodhisattva-mahāsattva"; the Last Part sweeps them one round after another, every round answered with 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "No, Subhūti!" And between the two parts one thread runs through, namely the two Chinese characters 「不證」 tr. "not realising": in the First Part it is not taking realisation in a dream; in the Last Part it is not realising within nothing to be attained—the same not realising, but what the First Part guards against is taking the fruit of the two vehicles, and what the Last Part dispels is the thought of taking the great fruit. The chapter's name is set in a dream precisely for this reason: not realising by day can still be said to be holding oneself, but not realising in a dream leaves nothing by which to hold oneself; and the reason the oath can put out the fire is also that 「是夢及諸法，無二無別」 tr. "this dream and all dharmas are without duality and without difference"—the dream is not another, false world, only another face of the same dharmas.

Therefore, when reading each item of this chapter, one can ask at least three layers of question. First, is what this item tests a matter or the mind? The sūtra lists the marks in the finest detail, yet where the treatise-author judges the deeds of Māra, the judgement does not lie in the matter at all: the same non-human going away—in one case it is the power of the oath, in the other the power of Māra; the same merit of the dhūta practice—in one case it is one's own practice, in the other rejoicing at being praised; the same dwelling alone in mountains and marshes—in one case the mind is apart from the two vehicles, in the other 「心在憒閙」 tr. "the mind is in clamour". So whenever a mark appears before one, first ask where this mark comes from, not whether this mark is good or not. Second, if this item were turned round and used against one, what would it become? The Māra of this chapter mostly takes the form of true words—your former lives, your name and title, your merit; yet in the one matter of seclusion, Māra calls it 「佛所稱譽」 tr. "praised by the Buddha", while the Buddha says plainly, 「我不讚是遠離」 tr. "I do not praise this seclusion"—within words that go along with one's intent there is also false certification; so the Buddha's remedy is not to argue with it, only to recognise it with the single sentence 「當知是為菩薩魔事」 tr. "know that this is the bodhisattva's deed of Māra", and the name of its illness is also only one: 「心生憍慢，輕餘大菩薩。」 tr. "The mind gives rise to arrogance and pride, and despises the other great bodhisattvas." Whenever a mark appears before one and a mind of despising others arises, the mark at once becomes the deed. Third, I have not yet reached this ground—of what use is this chapter to me? The Last Part is set up precisely for this: since the mark of prajñā is 「如虛空」 tr. "like space", one need not first have something attained before one can practise; the sentence 「不隨他教名自知諸法實相」 tr. "not following another's teaching is called knowing for oneself the real mark of all dharmas" can especially be carried away, and so on up to 「變作佛身來說異於法相，亦不信不隨」 tr. "even when one transforms into the body of a Buddha and comes to speak what differs from the mark of dharmas, he neither believes it nor follows it". Read on along the two sūtras and two treatises, and one will come to rest at last on that simile of the treatise-author: the difference between travelling by land and riding a boat lies not in how far or near the road is, but in whether or not one has the acceptance of non-arising; and the obtaining of the acceptance of non-arising the sūtra speaks of most plainly—it is nothing but not seeing, in all dharmas: not seeing a dharma that practises prajñā, not seeing a dharma that obtains the prediction. Not seeing does not mean that nothing is seen; it is 「諸戲論語言即是無生」 tr. "all idle discourse and language is itself non-arising".

Reading On in the Order of the Treatise

Not Realising It in a Dream, First Part: The Marks of Not Craving and Not Realising in a Dream; The True and the False of the Oath; Four Subtle Deeds of Māra; The Good Friend Extends to Both Persons and Dharmas

What Is Being Asked

Avaivartika means non-retrogressing. The marks of non-retrogression have already been set out at length in the several chapters before; this chapter goes on to set out more of them, yet the place where it takes hold has changed—to the dream. The moment the sūtra text opens, it says that the bodhisattva 「乃至夢中不貪聲聞、辟支佛地，亦不貪三界」 tr. "even in a dream does not crave the śrāvaka ground or the pratyekabuddha ground, nor craves the three realms", and moreover 「亦不作證」 tr. "also does not realise them". The first question of the First Part, a single unit, lies right here: how can what happens in a dream serve as evidence of non-retrogression? To hold firm while awake can still be said to be a matter of effort; asleep, the mind is not one's own—what could one hold on to there?

The treatise-author's answer is very short, yet it is the pivot of this unit: 「是菩薩晝日常習行空故，夜夢中亦不貪三界。」 tr. "Because this bodhisattva constantly trains in emptiness by day, in his dreams by night too he does not crave the three realms." The dream is not another place; the dream is what was trained in by day showing itself of its own accord. The place where effort is applied is always the daytime; the dream only shows how deep or shallow that effort is. Therefore the seven marks the sūtra text sets out one after another—not craving and not realising in a dream; seeing the Buddha in a dream, hearing the Dharma, and understanding at once; seeing the Buddha manifest great supernormal power in a dream; seeing sufferings in a dream and being neither startled nor terrified; seeing the three evil destinies in a dream and arousing the vow of a pure land; making an oath in a dream so that the hell-fire goes out; setting up an oath by day so that the fire in the city walls goes out—are not a classification of seven kinds of dream; they are one line: from not craving, to being able to receive the Dharma, to the mind being unmoved, to the vow arising, to the oath having power. This number seven is obtained by dividing the passages at the sentence at the end of each mark, 「須菩提！當知是阿鞞跋致菩薩摩訶薩阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "Subhūti! Know that this is the avaivartika mark of an avaivartika bodhisattva-mahāsattva"; the passage below it, 「今當更為汝說阿鞞跋致行、類、相貌」 tr. "Now I shall further explain for you the conduct, kind, and appearance of the avaivartika", starts afresh, yet what it makes clear is still the appearance of non-retrogression; among the sectional divisions of old there are those that combine it in and make the number eight—the numbers differ, but what they point to does not.

When the line reaches ‘the oath has power’, the sūtra text at once turns to a harder question. Alike an oath is set up, alike it is fulfilled—how are the true and the false to be told apart? What the sūtra text gives is a pair set against each other: the oath of utmost sincerity drives off the non-human and is fulfilled, and this is a mark of having received the prediction; while another bodhisattva also sets up an oath and the non-human also goes, yet it is evil Māra who commands the non-human to leave; he does not know it, and 「恃是證故」 tr. "relying on this as his realisation" turns instead to make light of the other bodhisattvas—the sūtra text names this 「空誓」 tr. "an empty oath"—and this is the first of the four passages on subtle deeds of Māra. The three passages after it are exactly the same in structure: Māra tells you your name, your clan, and your former lives; Māra tells you the Buddha-name you will have in the future; Māra praises the empty and quiet mountains and marshes where you dwell—every sentence is a good word, and at the end they all stop at the same place: making him give rise to arrogance and look down on others. The second question the First Part must answer is just this: ‘since the marks of the test can be counterfeited, by what are they to be told apart?’

The last passage of the sūtra text turns to the direct remedy: 「當親近恭敬供養善知識。」 tr. "He should draw near to, respect, and make offerings to the good friend." Subhūti asks what the good friend is, and the Buddha's reply counts persons and dharmas in together—the buddhas, the bodhisattvas, and the arhats are good friends, and the six perfections and so on up to suchness, the limit of reality, and the nature of dharmas are good friends too; and with a string of figurative names it is pushed to the utmost: 「六波羅蜜是世尊」 tr. "the six perfections are the World-Honored One" 「是道」 tr. "are the path" 「是大明」 tr. "are the great light" 「是炬」 tr. "are the torch", and so on up to 「是父是母」 tr. "are father, are mother". Here the treatise-author sets two questions and answers to probe the difficulties: since the path of the Small Vehicle is different, how can it serve as a good friend to the bodhisattva? Since the six perfections gather in all dharmas, why are the thirty-seven limbs of the path and so on up to suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality spoken of separately? What the First Part must answer is these three questions—how the dream can test, how the oath is told true from false, and how the good friend extends to both persons and dharmas.

Passage by Passage

1. In a dream he does not crave the two grounds and does not crave the three realms; he contemplates dharmas as like a dream, like an illusion, and also does not realise them. The sūtra text sets out the first mark, and within the one sentence there are two layers: 「乃至夢中不貪聲聞、辟支佛地，亦不貪三界」 tr. "even in a dream does not crave the śrāvaka ground or the pratyekabuddha ground, nor craves the three realms" is not craving; 「觀諸法如夢、如幻、如嚮、如焰、如化，亦不作證」 tr. "contemplates dharmas as like a dream, like an illusion, like an echo, like a mirage, like a transformation, and also does not realise them" is not realising. Not craving is easy to understand—not falling into the two vehicles, not clinging to worldly pleasure; not realising needs attention: he is able to realise, the contemplation of the five similes is already accomplished, and he simply does not take that realisation. The name of this chapter is taken precisely from here: of the four Chinese characters 「夢中不證」 tr. "not realising it in a dream", the whole weight lies on the last one, ‘realise’. At the end comes the first stamping of this chapter's seal-sentence: 「須菩提！當知是阿鞞跋致菩薩摩訶薩阿鞞跋致相。」 tr. "Subhūti! Know that this is the avaivartika mark of an avaivartika bodhisattva-mahāsattva." All the marks below close with this sentence, and in reading one can divide the passages by it.

2. In a dream he sees the Buddha teaching the Dharma to the fourfold assembly and the gods, and on hearing the Dharma at once understands its meaning and practises in accordance with the Dharma. The second mark. What he sees in the dream is not only the Buddha's body; he sees the Buddha 「與無數百千萬億比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷、天、龍、鬼神、甄陀羅等說法」 tr. "teaching the Dharma to countless hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭi of bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, upāsikās, gods, nāgas, ghosts and spirits, kiṃnaras, and others", and he himself 「從佛聞法，即解中義、隨法行」 tr. "hears the Dharma from the Buddha, at once understands the meaning within it, and practises in accordance with the Dharma". What must be looked at are the two matters 「即解」 tr. "at once understands" and 「隨法行」 tr. "practises in accordance with the Dharma": to hear the Dharma in a dream and be able to understand it on the spot and follow it in practice is not a special excellence of the dream; it is that the power of hearing the Dharma while awake is not diminished in the dream. If even while awake one forgets the Dharma as soon as one turns one's head, one will not suddenly penetrate it in a dream.

3. In a dream he sees the Buddha's thirty-two marks, his great light, and the conjured persons who do the Buddha's work. The difference between the third mark and the second lies in the object seen: what is seen here is the Buddha's 「三十二相、八十隨形好、大光明」 tr. "thirty-two marks, eighty minor marks, and great light", his 「踊在虛空，於大比丘僧中說法；現大神力，化作化人，到他國土施作佛事」 tr. "leaping up into space and teaching the Dharma in the midst of the great Saṅgha of bhikṣus; manifesting great supernormal power, conjuring conjured persons who go to other lands to do the Buddha's work". The mark before saw the Buddha's teaching of the Dharma; this mark sees the Buddha's supernormal power. That the two marks are set side by side and not merged into one is the sūtra text's intent: receiving the Dharma and seeing the power are each a depth of the mind in its own right.

4. In a dream he sees armies rising, fire, fierce beasts, being killed, and the death of kin, and is neither startled nor terrified; on waking he thinks that the three realms are like a dream. The fourth mark turns to the place that tests a person most—fear in a dream. What the sūtra text lists exhausts the terrors of human life: 「兵起若破聚落、若破城邑」 tr. "armies rising, breaking villages or breaking cities" 「失火」 tr. "fire breaking out" 「虎、狼、師子猛害之獸」 tr. "tigers, wolves, lions, fierce and harmful beasts" 「欲來級其頭者」 tr. "one who comes wishing to cut off his head" 「父母喪亡，兄弟、姊妹及諸親友知識死者」 tr. "father and mother dying, brothers, sisters, and all his kin, friends, and acquaintances dead". Before these the bodhisattva 「不驚、不怖，亦不憂惱」 tr. "is not startled, not terrified, nor grieved and vexed", and on waking at once reflects: 「三界虛妄，皆如夢耳！我得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，亦當為眾生說三界如夢。」 tr. "The three realms are false; all are but like a dream! When I obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, I too shall teach beings that the three realms are like a dream." What matters most here is the last half-sentence—he does not only settle himself; at once he turns what he has seen into the content of the Dharma he will teach beings in the future. The fearful object has become teaching material, and only this is the mark of non-retrogression; merely ‘not being afraid’ is not yet it.

5. In a dream he sees the three evil destinies and arouses the vow that there be no three evil destinies in his land; the dream and all dharmas are without duality and without difference. The fifth mark is the first place in this chapter where the reason is stated outright. The bodhisattva dreams of 「地獄、畜生、餓鬼」 tr. "the hells, the animals, the hungry ghosts", and what arises is not revulsion but a vow: 「我當勤精進，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，令我國中無一切三惡道。」 tr. "I shall strive with vigour, and when I obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, may there be none of the three evil destinies at all in my land." At once the sūtra text asks and answers itself: 「何以故？是夢及諸法，無二無別。」 tr. "Why? This dream and all dharmas are without duality and without difference." This sentence is the eye of the whole chapter—the dream and all dharmas are not two, so the suffering seen in a dream and the suffering seen while awake are equally false and equally to be pitied; and therefore the vow made in a dream and the vow made while awake are not two kinds of vow either.

6. In a dream he sees hell-fire burning beings, makes an oath, and the fire goes out at once. The sixth mark pushes the dream to the side of ‘having effect’. The bodhisattva sees hell-fire burning beings and makes this oath: 「若我實是阿鞞跋致者，是火當滅！」 tr. "If I am really an avaivartika, may this fire go out!" and 「是火即滅」 tr. "the fire goes out at once". The form of the oath deserves attention: he does not say ‘I will put out the fire’; he takes the going out of the fire as the evidence of whether he himself is non-retrogressing—testing the position by the event, not using the position to command the event. The last sentence, 「若地獄火滅，即是阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "if the hell-fire goes out, this is a mark of the avaivartika", states the evidence with complete clarity.

7. By day he sees fire rising in the city walls, sets up an oath, and the fire goes out; where it does not go out, it is the remaining calamity of having broken the Dharma. The seventh mark moves from the dream to the daytime, an extended verification of the mark before: 「我夢中見阿鞞跋致行、類、相貌，我今實有是者，自立誓言：是火當滅！」 tr. "In a dream I saw the conduct, kind, and appearance of the avaivartika; if I now really have these, I myself set up an oath, saying: may this fire go out!" If the fire goes out, he knows he has already received the prediction and abides in the ground of the avaivartika. Here the sūtra text adds one more layer, a very hard saying: 「若火不滅，燒一家、置一家，燒一里、置一里。」 tr. "If the fire does not go out, it burns one house and leaves one house, burns one lane and leaves one lane." And it explains the reason itself—in the burned houses 「被燒家破法業因緣厚集」 tr. "the causes and conditions of the deed of breaking the Dharma have gathered thick", and they are 「今世受破法餘殃故被燒」 tr. "burned because in this life they suffer the remaining calamity of having broken the Dharma". So when the oath is not fulfilled, it is not necessarily that the oath has no power; it may also be that the deed it faces is too heavy. If this layer is passed over, the treatise-author's explanation below has nothing to attach to.

8. When someone is possessed by a non-human, he drives it off with an oath of utmost sincerity; whether it goes or not tests whether he has received the prediction or not. The sūtra text starts a new passage: 「今當更為汝說阿鞞跋致行、類、相貌。」 tr. "Now I shall further explain for you the conduct, kind, and appearance of the avaivartika." What is described is the thought the bodhisattva forms when a man or a woman is 「為非人所持」 tr. "possessed by a non-human". The content of this long thought must be looked at layer by layer: first the supposition 「若我為過去諸佛所授記」 tr. "if I have been given the prediction by the buddhas of the past"; next the setting out of his own practice, 「我心清淨求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，行清淨正道，遠離聲聞、辟支佛心」 tr. "my mind is pure in seeking anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; I practise the pure right path, secluded from the mind of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha"; then the certainty, 「我必得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，非不得」 tr. "I shall surely obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, not fail to obtain it"; and last, the buddhas of the ten directions taken as witness—「諸佛知我深心，審定必當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the buddhas know my deep mind, that it is settled and certain I shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". It is such an 「至誠誓」 tr. "oath of utmost sincerity" that makes the non-human go far away. And the sūtra text says both sides fully: if the non-human does not go, he knows he has not yet received the prediction; if the non-human goes, he knows he has already received the prediction.

9. Far removed from the six perfections and skilful means, he sets up an oath; Māra commands the non-human to go; relying on this as his realisation he gives rise to pride—this is the first kind of subtle deed of Māra. This passage is almost the same in wording as the one before, yet the outcome is the complete opposite; it is the most important pair set against each other in this unit. This bodhisattva is 「遠離六波羅蜜及方便力，不久行四念處，乃至不久行空、無相、無作三昧，未入菩薩位」 tr. "far removed from the six perfections and the power of skilful means, has not long practised the four foundations of mindfulness, and so on up to has not long practised the emptiness, signless, and non-action samādhis, and has not entered the bodhisattva's position"; he too sets up an oath, and the non-human too goes—but the reason it goes is that 「惡魔即作方便，勅非人令去」 tr. "evil Māra at once employs a means and commands the non-human to go", because 「惡魔有威力，勝諸非人故」 tr. "evil Māra has majestic power and surpasses the non-humans". Yet the bodhisattva thinks: 「以我誓力故，非人去。」 tr. "It is by the power of my oath that the non-human has gone." The sūtra text names this 「用是空誓」 tr. "using this empty oath". After it the marks of ruin unfold all the way: relying on this as his realisation he slights, mocks, disparages, and scorns the other bodhisattvas, gives rise to overweening pride, goes far from sarvajñā, and falls into the two grounds. And it points out that the root of the sickness is twofold: first, 「不親近依止善知識，不問阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "he does not draw near to and rely on the good friend, and does not ask about the marks of the avaivartika"; second, 「不久行六波羅蜜，無方便力」 tr. "he has not long practised the six perfections and has no power of skilful means". The same oath, the same fulfilment; the dividing line lies not in the outcome but in whether there is a foundation of the six perfections and skilful means, and whether there is a good friend to ask.

10. Māra tells his name and clan, his parents for seven generations, his nature and conduct, and his dhūta practice, and sets the seal of approval on them—this is the second kind of subtle deed of Māra. The sūtra text itself raises the question: 「云何菩薩摩訶薩不久行六波羅蜜，乃至未入菩薩位，為惡魔所嬈？」 tr. "How is a bodhisattva-mahāsattva who has not long practised the six perfections, and so on up to has not entered the bodhisattva's position, troubled by evil Māra?" At once it sets out Māra's methods. What Māra says is all true and verifiable—「汝字某，汝父字某，汝母字某」 tr. "you are named so-and-so, your father is named so-and-so, your mother is named so-and-so", and so on up to 「汝七世父母名字如是」 tr. "the names of your ancestors for seven generations are such", born in such a quarter, such a country, such a city, such a village; going further, seeing that his nature and conduct are gentle, he says that in former lives he was gentle; seeing that he is hasty and rough by nature, he says that in former lives he was so too; seeing that he practises in the araṇya, begs for food, wears robes of cast-off rags, and so on up to speaks little, he says of each, 「汝先世亦有是行」 tr. "in former lives you had this practice too". Since what is said proves true point by point, the bodhisattva 「即歡喜生慢憍心」 tr. "at once rejoices and gives rise to a mind of pride and arrogance", and only then does Māra deliver the last sentence: 「汝實從諸佛受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記。」 tr. "You have really received from the buddhas the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Māra may appear in the garb of a bhikṣu, or in the form of a householder, or in the body of a father or mother. The sūtra text's verdict is extremely heavy: 「我所說實阿鞞跋致行、類、相貌，是人永無！」 tr. "The conduct, kind, and appearance of the real avaivartika that I have taught, this person forever lacks!"—every single thing in the test is true, and the conclusion is wholly false.

11. Māra tells the Buddha-name he will have in the future, fitting it to his own thoughts—this is the third kind of subtle deed of Māra; its sin exceeds the four prohibitions and the five heinous sins. The third kind of deed of Māra is subtler still: this bodhisattva 「不知名字相，不知色相，不知受、想、行、識相」 tr. "does not know the mark of names, does not know the mark of form, does not know the mark of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness", and so Māra says that when he becomes a Buddha in the future he will 「有如是名字」 tr. "have such a name", and does so 「隨其本念，說其名號」 tr. "following his own thoughts, telling him his name and title". Thereupon he draws the conclusion himself: 「是人所說合我本念，我必為諸佛所授記。」 tr. "What this person says fits my own thoughts; I must have been given the prediction by the buddhas."—the speaker drew no conclusion; the conclusion was drawn by him himself, and this is exactly the meaning of the word 「微細」 tr. "subtle". The sūtra text then uses the bhikṣu's four grave prohibitions as a comparison: breaking one of them, he is 「非沙門、非釋子」 tr. "no śramaṇa, no son of the Śākya", and 「現身不得四沙門果」 tr. "in this present body does not obtain the four fruits of the śramaṇa"; while of one who clings to the name of emptiness and looks down on others, 「當知是罪重於比丘四禁」 tr. "know that this sin is heavier than a bhikṣu's four prohibitions", and further it says, 「其罪過於五逆」 tr. "its sin exceeds the five heinous sins". The judging of light and heavy lies not in the size of the outward act, but in who is harmed—what is harmed is the other bodhisattvas. The last sentence of the sūtra text calls out directly: 「如是名字等微細魔事，菩薩當覺知！」 tr. "Such subtle deeds of Māra as that of names, the bodhisattva should be aware of and know!"

12. Māra praises the empty and quiet mountains and marshes as the dharma of seclusion; the Buddha says, I do not praise this seclusion. The fourth kind of deed of Māra changes its face: Māra comes to the bodhisattva who is in 「空閑山澤曠遠之處」 tr. "empty and quiet mountains, marshes, and far-off places", 「讚歎遠離法」 tr. "praises the dharma of seclusion", and says 「汝所行，是佛所稱譽遠離法」 tr. "what you practise is the dharma of seclusion that the Buddha praises". The Buddha at once disowns it: 「我不讚是遠離，所謂但在空閑山澤曠遠之處。」 tr. "I do not praise this seclusion, namely merely being in empty and quiet mountains, marshes, and far-off places." The single word 「但」 tr. "merely" is the joint of the whole passage—it is not saying that empty and quiet mountains and marshes are not good; it is saying that ‘only’ empty and quiet mountains and marshes do not count as seclusion.

13. Subhūti asks—if the empty and quiet place is not seclusion, how is there some other seclusion? 「須菩提言：『世尊！若空閑山澤曠遠之處非遠離法者，云何更有異遠離？』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘World-Honored One! If empty and quiet mountains, marshes, and far-off places are not the dharma of seclusion, how is there some other seclusion?’" This question is asked on the reader's behalf with great precision. The word seclusion has always referred to the body leaving clamour behind; if now the body's leaving does not count, then what else can be left, and where to go to leave it? What is asked is not about names and marks; it asks whether this word has a second referent besides geography.

14. The Buddha explains true seclusion—to be secluded from the mind of the two vehicles and dwell in empty and quiet places is what the Buddha approves; one whose mind is in clamour is not secluded even though he dwells in utter wilderness. The Buddha's reply changes what 「遠離」 tr. "seclusion" is set against: 「若菩薩摩訶薩遠離聲聞、辟支佛心，住空閑山澤曠遠之處，是佛所許遠離法。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva-mahāsattva is secluded from the mind of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, and dwells in empty and quiet mountains, marshes, and far-off places, this is the dharma of seclusion the Buddha approves." What is left behind is the mind; the dwelling place merely follows along with it. The reverse side is spoken at greater length: one whose mind is in clamour, 「雖在絕曠百由旬外，禽獸、鬼神、羅剎所住之處，若一歲、百千萬億歲，若過萬億歲」 tr. "though he is in utter wilderness beyond a hundred yojanas, in places where birds and beasts, ghosts and spirits, and rākṣasas dwell, for a year, or for hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭi of years, or for more than a myriad koṭi of years", still does not know true seclusion. More dangerous still, he looks down on the bodhisattva who is 「城傍心清淨」 tr. "at the city's edge, pure in mind". The sūtra text then has evil Māra appear in space and praise him: 「善哉！善哉！善男子！此是佛所說真遠離法」 tr. "Excellent! Excellent! Good man! This is the true dharma of seclusion that the Buddha teaches"—whereupon he goes 「以憒閙為不憒閙，以不憒閙為憒閙，應恭敬而不恭敬，不應恭敬而恭敬」 tr. "taking clamour for non-clamour and non-clamour for clamour, not respecting what should be respected and respecting what should not be respected", and utters the sentence that shakes out what lies at the bottom of the heart: 「住城傍者，誰當稱美汝？」 tr. "You who dwell at the city's edge—who will ever praise you?" The sūtra text's verdict here is the heaviest in the whole chapter: 「當知是名菩薩旃陀羅，污染諸菩薩」 tr. "know that this is called a bodhisattva caṇḍāla, who defiles the bodhisattvas" 「實是天上人中之大賊，亦是沙門被服中賊」 tr. "he is really a great thief among the gods above and the humans among people, and also a thief in the garb of a śramaṇa". At the end it still leaves a way out—toward this person 「當起慈、悲、喜、捨心」 tr. "one should arouse the minds of kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity", and one warns oneself: 「我行菩薩道，不應生如是過罪；若生，當疾滅！」 tr. "I practise the bodhisattva path; I should not give rise to such faults and sins; if they arise, I shall quickly extinguish them!"

15. One who with a deep mind wishes to obtain the unsurpassed path should draw near to, respect, and make offerings to the good friend. The four passages on deeds of Māra having been fully told, the sūtra text turns to the direct side: 「菩薩摩訶薩深心，欲得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，當親近恭敬供養善知識。」 tr. "A bodhisattva-mahāsattva who with a deep mind wishes to obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi should draw near to, respect, and make offerings to the good friend." This sentence joins on quite naturally—the common root of sickness in the three marks of ruin before it, the sūtra text has already pointed out: 「不親近依止善知識，不問阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "he does not draw near to and rely on the good friend, and does not ask about the marks of the avaivartika". That deeds of Māra can succeed is mostly because there is no one close at hand to ask.

16. Subhūti asks what the good friend is. 「須菩提白佛言：『世尊！何等是菩薩摩訶薩善知識？』」 tr. "Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! What is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's good friend?’" Since the remedy lies in the good friend, the bounds of the good friend must be drawn clearly—otherwise the very one from the passage before, who 「魔或作比丘被服、或作居士形、或作父母身」 tr. "Māra may make into the garb of a bhikṣu, or the form of a householder, or the body of a father or mother", would pass for one. This question is not a polite link; it is a question of real weight that comes on from the deeds of Māra.

17. The Buddha answers with the good friends who are persons—the buddhas, the bodhisattvas, the arhats. The Buddha answers first on the side of persons: 「諸佛是菩薩摩訶薩善知識，諸菩薩摩訶薩亦是菩薩善知識。須菩提！阿羅漢亦是菩薩善知識，是為菩薩摩訶薩善知識。」 tr. "The buddhas are the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's good friends; the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas too are the bodhisattva's good friends. Subhūti! The arhats too are the bodhisattva's good friends. These are the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's good friends." All three kinds are listed, and of them the item of the arhats is the most unexpected—the path he practises is one the bodhisattva does not take, yet he still counts as the bodhisattva's good friend. The treatise-author below sets up a question and answer especially to deal with this point.

18. The Buddha answers with the good friends that are dharmas—the six perfections, the limbs of the path, and so on up to suchness, the limit of reality, and the nature of dharmas; the six perfections are the World-Honored One, are the path, and so on up to are father and mother. The Buddha goes on to answer on the side of dharmas, and pushes it higher all the way: 「六波羅蜜亦是菩薩善知識，四念處乃至十八不共法亦是菩薩善知識」 tr. "the six perfections too are the bodhisattva's good friends; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas too are the bodhisattva's good friends" 「如、實際、法性亦是菩薩善知識」 tr. "suchness, the limit of reality, and the nature of dharmas too are the bodhisattva's good friends". After this comes a long string of figurative names: 「六波羅蜜是世尊，六波羅蜜是道，六波羅蜜是大明，六波羅蜜是炬」 tr. "the six perfections are the World-Honored One; the six perfections are the path; the six perfections are the great light; the six perfections are the torch" 「六波羅蜜是智，六波羅蜜是慧，六波羅蜜是救，六波羅蜜是歸，六波羅蜜是洲，六波羅蜜是究竟道，六波羅蜜是父是母」 tr. "the six perfections are knowledge; the six perfections are wisdom; the six perfections are rescue; the six perfections are refuge; the six perfections are the island; the six perfections are the ultimate path; the six perfections are father, are mother", and it says, 「四念處乃至一切種智，亦如是」 tr. "the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds are likewise". The sūtra text gives the reason itself: the six perfections and the thirty-seven dharmas of the path are the father and mother of the buddhas of the three times and the ten directions, 「六波羅蜜、三十七道法中生過去、未來、現在十方諸佛故」 tr. "because the buddhas of the ten directions of the past, the future, and the present are born from within the six perfections and the thirty-seven dharmas of the path". At the end it comes back to training: one should train in the six perfections and the thirty-seven dharmas of the path, and gather in beings by the four means of gathering—「何等四？布施、愛語、利益、同事」 tr. "What are the four? Giving, kind speech, beneficial action, and shared endeavour"; the sūtra text itself gives the names of the four. Each of the four has its own use, and each must be made clear in turn: giving is to give to others what one has—wealth relieves their bodies, the Dharma relieves their minds; first their want is relieved, and then their minds can be approached; kind speech is to meet them with soft and accommodating words, leading them toward the Dharma according to what they can bear, not wounding their faith with hard words; beneficial action is actually to do what is of benefit to them, not stopping at spoken words; the Dharma one urges on them one first practises oneself, and then one's words can be believed; shared endeavour is to share in what they do and share their sweet and bitter, to take one's place in their position and not hold oneself apart, and then those being transformed are willing to regard one as their own kind. The four support one another in order: the first two open their door, the latter two make their faith firm—this is exactly what ‘gathering’ means: not forcing them to follow, but causing them to come of themselves. The closing sentence is 「當學是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "he should train in this prajñāpāramitā", because 「是般若波羅蜜中廣說諸法，是菩薩摩訶薩所應學處」 tr. "within this prajñāpāramitā all dharmas are explained at length; it is where the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should train".

19. The treatise-author sets a question—the chapter "Avaivartika" has already explained the marks of the avaivartika at length; why are they explained again now? The treatise section opens with just this question: 「〈阿鞞跋致品〉中已廣說阿鞞跋致相，今何以更說？」 tr. "In the chapter ‘Avaivartika’ the marks of the avaivartika have already been explained at length; why are they explained again now?" This is the doubt that must arise in a reader who has read all the way here: the marks of non-retrogression have already been set out several times over; why set them out again? It is asked straight, without going round.

20. The treatise-author answers himself—the meaning of prajñā is in every part a mark of the avaivartika; that chapter mostly speaks of the matter, and the other chapters are not in order. The treatise-author's first answer does not start from ‘what new thing is said’ but from the arrangement: 「所說般若波羅蜜義皆是阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "the meaning of prajñāpāramitā that is spoken is in every part a mark of the avaivartika"—that is, the whole of prajñā speaks of non-retrogression; it is only that the chapter "Avaivartika" 「多說其事」 tr. "mostly speaks of the matter" and is concentrated, while in the other chapters 「處處有說阿鞞跋致相，但不次第」 tr. "the marks of the avaivartika are spoken of here and there, only not in order". Speaking of them again here fills out in order what is scattered in various places; it is not adding new material.

21. The treatise-author records the first of two other views (someone says)—it is spoken in different words for beings who come later. 「有人言：為後來眾生異語說阿鞞跋致相。」 tr. "Someone says: the marks of the avaivartika are spoken in different words for the sake of beings who come later." The same meaning in a different way of speaking, for the sake of later hearers. This is a divergent explanation cited in narrative form; the treatise-author records it and does not refute it.

22. The treatise-author records the second of two other views (someone says)—the two kinds of avaivartika and the four positions of the prediction. The second divergent explanation gives a table of levels, opening each level into two: the avaivartika are of two kinds—「一者、已得記，二者、未得記」 tr. "first, those who have already obtained the prediction; second, those who have not yet obtained the prediction"; obtaining the prediction is of two kinds—「一者、現前授記，二者、不現前授記」 tr. "first, prediction given in one's presence; second, prediction not given in one's presence"; and prediction not given in one's presence is again of two kinds—「一者、具足授記因緣，二者、未具足授記因緣」 tr. "first, the causes and conditions of the prediction fulfilled; second, the causes and conditions of the prediction not yet fulfilled". Three levels opened into two, four positions in all at the end; the names all come from the treatise itself, and there is no need to look outside for them.

23. The distinction between fulfilled and not fulfilled; what this chapter speaks of is the one not yet fulfilled who is also called non-retrogressing. The table of the item above once set out, the treatise-author at once comes down to definition: the one whose causes and conditions of the prediction are fulfilled 「知諸法實相，具足六波羅蜜」 tr. "knows the real mark of all dharmas and has fulfilled the six perfections"; the one not fulfilled 「但知諸法實相，得般若波羅蜜分，餘波羅蜜未具足」 tr. "only knows the real mark of all dharmas and has obtained a share of prajñāpāramitā; the other perfections are not yet fulfilled". Then it joins on to the end of the previous chapter—「是菩薩能如阿鞞跋致菩薩答」 tr. "this bodhisattva can answer as an avaivartika bodhisattva does" is what was said at the end of the previous chapter, and so this chapter says next in order that 「夢中不貪二地，雖未具足阿鞞跋致法，亦名阿鞞跋致」 tr. "one who in a dream does not crave the two grounds, though he has not yet fulfilled the dharmas of the avaivartika, is also called avaivartika". With this the first question and answer is complete: what this chapter fills in is exactly this one position of ‘not yet fulfilled and yet already named’; since the previous chapter spoke of those already fulfilled, this chapter goes on to speak of those not yet fulfilled, and so it is not a repetition.

24. Why he does not crave in a dream—because he trains in emptiness by day he does not crave in his dreams by night; there are two places of retrogression, and this person turns at neither. This is the pivotal sentence of the whole unit: 「是菩薩晝日常習行空故，夜夢中亦不貪三界。」 tr. "Because this bodhisattva constantly trains in emptiness by day, in his dreams by night too he does not crave the three realms." And it adds another branch—「常行慈悲心於眾生、深樂佛法故，不貪二乘」 tr. "because he constantly practises the mind of kindness and compassion toward beings and deeply delights in the Buddha-Dharma, he does not crave the two vehicles". The two powers of emptiness and of kindness and compassion each remedy one place, because 「菩薩於二處退轉：一者、著世間樂故轉，二者、取二乘故轉」 tr. "the bodhisattva retrogresses at two places: first, he turns because of clinging to worldly pleasure; second, he turns because of taking the two vehicles". The names of the two places come from the treatise-author himself. The closing sentence states the weight of the dream precisely: 「乃至夢中亦不貪三界、二乘，何況覺時！」 tr. "Even in a dream he does not crave the three realms or the two vehicles—how much less when awake!" The dream is the lower limit, not the upper limit—hold the lower limit, and the upper limit is naturally included within it.

25. Why, seeing the Buddha teach the Dharma in a dream, he understands at once—what is taught is the meaning of the real mark of all dharmas; mind and Dharma unite. This explains the second mark of the sūtra text. The Dharma heard in the dream, the treatise-author names for what it really is: 「所謂諸法實相義」 tr. "namely, the meaning of the real mark of all dharmas"; and what is called 「即解中義」 tr. "at once understands the meaning within it", the treatise-author explains as 「菩薩知是義，心與法合」 tr. "the bodhisattva knows this meaning, and his mind unites with the Dharma". Understanding is not having memorised it; it is the mind and the Dharma uniting—and this also explains why it can hold in a dream: the uniting of mind and Dharma is in its nature not tied to waking or sleeping.

26. Why he sees the Buddha manifest great supernormal power in a dream—the secret dharmas of the buddhas are seen in a dream. This explains the third mark of the sūtra text. What is seen the treatise-author lays out in great detail: 「見佛身無量，過須彌山，色如閻浮檀金」 tr. "he sees the Buddha's body, immeasurable, surpassing Mount Sumeru, its colour like jambūnada gold", adorned with the thirty-two marks and the eighty minor marks, sending forth immeasurable light, 「梵音聲說法，及身毛孔出無量化佛至十方」 tr. "teaching the Dharma with the Brahmā voice, and from the pores of his body sending forth immeasurable conjured buddhas to the ten directions". But the key point is at the end: because he sees the supernormal power, the bodhisattva 「深心清淨問佛法，得諸法實相，是名阿鞞跋致」 tr. "with a deep and pure mind asks about the Buddha-Dharma and obtains the real mark of all dharmas; this is called avaivartika". Seeing the supernormal power is not itself non-retrogression; asking because of seeing, and obtaining the real mark because of asking—that is.

27. Why he is not startled when he sees sufferings in a dream—because he constantly practises ultimate emptiness, I and mine are thinned. This explains the fourth mark of the sūtra text. The mechanism of not being startled and not terrified the treatise-author states very concretely: 「常行畢竟空故，我、我所等諸煩惱折薄，乃至自身不惜，何況餘親！」 tr. "Because he constantly practises ultimate emptiness, I and mine and the other afflictions are broken and thinned, so that he does not spare even his own body—how much less his other kin!"—it is not boldness; it is that I and mine have already been thinned. What he thinks on waking the treatise-author also restates in its meaning: 「不死而見死、不畏而見畏，一切三界皆爾，何但夢中！」 tr. "Not dying and yet seeing death, not fearing and yet seeing fear—the whole of the three realms is like this; why only in a dream!" The example of the dream is only a simile taken from near at hand; what it points to is the whole of the three realms.

28. Why, seeing the three evil destinies in a dream, he makes a vow—the power of the vow from the time of planting the causes and conditions of a pure land appears in the dream. This explains the fifth mark of the sūtra text. The treatise-author ties this mark to the season of 「種清淨國土因緣」 tr. "planting the causes and conditions of a pure land": because in ordinary times he 「積集淨國土行，是心修習故」 tr. "has accumulated the practice of purifying the land, and this mind is cultivated", as soon as he sees the beings of the three evil destinies in a dream, he at once obtains the mind 「我作佛時，令我國土乃至無三惡道名」 tr. "when I become a Buddha, may my land not have even the name of the three evil destinies". It is still the same principle: what appears in the dream is the mind cultivated by day coming of itself.

29. Why he puts out the fire in a dream—because he constantly cultivates the mind of kindness and compassion. This explains the sixth mark of the sūtra text, in a single sentence: 「是菩薩常修慈悲心故，夢中見地獄火燒眾生，作誓，火即滅。」 tr. "Because this bodhisattva constantly cultivates the mind of kindness and compassion, when in a dream he sees hell-fire burning beings and makes an oath, the fire goes out at once." That the oath has power is tied to the long cultivation of kindness and compassion, not to the wording of the oath.

30. Why he puts out the fire by day—he takes the mark from the dream; dream and waking are without difference; ghosts and spirits and nāga kings help put it out; where it does not go out, the deed of breaking the Dharma is heavy. This explains the seventh mark of the sūtra text, and is the longest explanation in the treatise, with four layers. First, the mechanism is 「覺已，取是相」 tr. "on waking, he takes up this mark"—bringing the evidence from the dream into the daytime for use, and what he relies on is 「佛說夢、覺無異故」 tr. "because the Buddha has said that dream and waking are without difference". Second, where the power comes from—「於無量劫修集福德，得諸法實相故，鬼神、龍王等助滅是火」 tr. "because for immeasurable kalpas he has cultivated and gathered merit and has obtained the real mark of all dharmas, ghosts and spirits, nāga kings, and others help put out this fire"; it is not his power alone. Third, why some fires do not go out—「是眾生重罪故」 tr. "because of these beings' heavy sin", and the heavy sin is the 「破法業」 tr. "deed of breaking the Dharma"; the treatise-author further explains why breaking the Dharma is heaviest: 「法者，般若波羅蜜；諸餘法利益無及般若波羅蜜者，是故破者罪重。」 tr. "The Dharma is prajñāpāramitā; among all the other dharmas none equals prajñāpāramitā in benefit; therefore the sin of one who breaks it is heavy." Fourth, that it does not go out does not prove the oath ineffective—「以菩薩誓力故，不次第燒，惟罪重者不救，不妨是阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "by the power of the bodhisattva's oath it does not burn in sequence; only those of heavy sin are not saved; this does not hinder its being a mark of the avaivartika". That the burning does not follow in sequence is itself the trace of the power of the oath made manifest.

31. The passage on possession by a non-human is also like the spell over the fire. A one-sentence transition: 「非人所持，亦如呪火。」 tr. "Possession by a non-human is also like the spell over the fire." Taking the preceding passage, in which the fire can go out or not go out, as the example, it compares the non-human that can go or not go—both are tests of the oath, and both have times when the test does not come true. The treatise-author fastens the two passages together in the most economical way.

32. One who has not obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas hears the spell and imitates it; Māra sends the ghosts and spirits away and he presumes it to be his own power. This explains the marks of ruin in the first kind of subtle deed of Māra. The treatise-author states the cause of the sickness more concretely than the sūtra text: this person 「未得無生法忍」 tr. "has not obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas", and merely 「聞是阿鞞跋致呪故鬼去，便作呪」 tr. "hears that because of the spell of this avaivartika the ghost went away, and so makes a spell"—it is imitation, not his own realisation. Thereupon 「自未有力，魔來遣鬼神故，自恃為己力」 tr. "he himself has no power as yet; because Māra came and sent the ghosts and spirits away, he presumes it to be his own power". The last sentence makes plain why the Buddha had to speak this passage: 「有如是失故，佛示令覺知。」 tr. "Because there are such faults, the Buddha shows them so that people may be aware and know." The Buddha sets out the marks of ruin so that people can recognise themselves.

33. The explanation of the second kind of subtle deed of Māra—Māra shows and speaks according to his thoughts, and he gives rise to overweening pride. The treatise-author distils Māra's method into a single sentence: 「魔作種種形，隨其念而示語」 tr. "Māra takes on all kinds of forms and shows and speaks according to his thoughts", and the words he says are 「汝已得授記，汝有是相，但以肉眼故不知」 tr. "you have already been given the prediction; you have these marks, only because of your fleshly eye you do not know it". The last clause is the most poisonous—it sets ‘you yourself cannot see it’ in place beforehand, so that there is no way to check. The outcome is still 「生增上慢，輕蔑餘人」 tr. "he gives rise to overweening pride and looks down on others".

34. The root of the sickness in the third kind of subtle deed of Māra—he has not obtained the real mark and does not know that at the edge of the coming together of the five aggregates there is further a mark of names. The treatise-author picks out a single sentence as the root of the sickness: 「菩薩不得諸法實相，不知色等五眾和合邊更有名字相。」 tr. "The bodhisattva has not obtained the real mark of all dharmas and does not know that at the edge of the coming together of the five aggregates, form and the rest, there is further a mark of names." A name is set up at the edge of the coming together of the five aggregates and has no real substance of its own; not knowing this, one takes a name and title for a thing that can be obtained. The errors of the next two passages all come out of this.

35. Māra comes to give the prediction and tells the name under which he will become a Buddha. 「魔來與授記：『汝當作佛，字名某甲。』」 tr. "Māra comes and gives the prediction: ‘You will become a Buddha, named so-and-so.’" The treatise-author compresses a long passage of the sūtra text into one sentence—the point is not what Māra said, but that what he said hit the mark.

36. Because it fits his own thoughts he believes it true, gives rise to arrogance and slights the other great bodhisattvas, goes far from the unsurpassed path, and falls into the two vehicles. The bodhisattva's own reasoning the treatise-author records word for word: 「我本有是名字念，今所說者，同我所願，必是諸佛授記。」 tr. "I originally had the thought of this name; what is now said is the same as what I wished; it must be the prediction given by the buddhas." The form of the reasoning is without error, but its premise is his own wish—to take one's own wish as the evidence is to set the seal of approval on oneself. After this 「心生憍慢，輕餘大菩薩」 tr. "his mind gives rise to arrogance, and he slights the other great bodhisattvas", and for this reason he 「遠離無上道；受罪畢，墮於二乘」 tr. "goes far from the unsurpassed path; when he has finished undergoing the sin, he falls into the two vehicles".

37. If he repents in this very body, the sin comes to an end and he can still become a Buddha; if he repents only after changing bodies, the sin is heavy and hard to extinguish; the comparison of the four grave prohibitions and why it exceeds the five heinous sins; the gloss of subtle. In this passage the treatise-author explains four matters in one breath. First, the season of repentance: 「若即此身悔，當久久償罪畢，還依止般若波羅蜜，得作佛」 tr. "if he repents in this very body, after a long, long time he will have repaid the sin in full, and again relying on prajñāpāramitā, he will become a Buddha"; conversely, 「若轉身乃悔，則罪重叵滅，不得作佛」 tr. "if he repents only after changing bodies, then the sin is heavy and hard to extinguish, and he does not become a Buddha". Second, why the comparison of the four grave prohibitions fits: because 「是四禁中，妄語稱『我是阿羅漢』」 tr. "among these four prohibitions, false speech is to claim, ‘I am an arhat’", while here it is 「著是受莂名字，自言『我當作佛』」 tr. "clinging to this name of the prediction received, to say of oneself, ‘I shall become a Buddha’"—alike it is taking what is not obtained as obtained, and the position claimed is higher, 「是故重於四禁」 tr. "therefore it is heavier than the four prohibitions". Third, why it exceeds the five heinous sins—the treatise-author points to earlier text: 「如〈地獄品〉中破般若波羅蜜罪說。」 tr. "As is said in the chapter ‘The Hells’ about the sin of breaking prajñāpāramitā." Fourth, the gloss of the word 「微細」 tr. "subtle": 「細名不逆其意，隨其本念，助成其心。」 tr. "Subtle means not going against his intent; following his own thoughts, it helps his mind along." Māra's subtlety lies in never going against—every sentence goes along with the mind you already had. The last sentence is an exhortation: 「是微細魔事，利根菩薩應覺、除遠！」 tr. "These subtle deeds of Māra the bodhisattva of keen faculties should be aware of, remove, and keep far from!"

38. The explanation of the fourth kind of deed of Māra—Māra praises seclusion; the seclusion the Buddha speaks of is the mind leaving the two vehicles and the three realms. Māra's words the treatise-author restates as: 「汝能遠離親族、同學，獨在深山林中，為佛道故，是為真菩薩道行。」 tr. "You are able to leave your kin and fellow students far behind and be alone in the deep mountain forest for the sake of the Buddha path; this is the true practice of the bodhisattva path." And the mark of ruin is still the same one—「生憍慢心，輕餘在眾中住菩薩」 tr. "he gives rise to a mind of arrogance and slights the other bodhisattvas who dwell among the assembly". The treatise-author also points out why the Buddha passes so heavy a verdict: 「佛種種因緣，訶是菩薩是賊、是旃陀羅等，如經中說，不應親近。」 tr. "The Buddha, by all kinds of causes and conditions, rebukes this bodhisattva as a thief, a caṇḍāla, and the like; as is said in the sūtra, one should not draw near to him." At the end it gives the correct explanation: 「佛所說遠離，心離二乘、三界，是名真遠離。」 tr. "The seclusion the Buddha speaks of is the mind leaving the two vehicles and the three realms; this is called true seclusion." The four passages on deeds of Māra close here, and the treatise-author's closing words are 「應當覺而遠離」 tr. "one should be aware of them and keep far from them"—what is to be kept far from is not the mountain forest or the city's edge, but the deeds of Māra.

39. Explaining 「深心」 tr. "deep mind"—a single mind, a weighty mind, deeply loving the Buddha path, beyond all that the world delights in. The treatise-author cites the sūtra phrase 「復次，菩薩欲深心得無上道」 tr. "Further, the bodhisattva who wishes with a deep mind to obtain the unsurpassed path" and explains the word: 「深心名一心、重心，……」 tr. "Deep mind means a single mind, a weighty mind, …"; then he adds its substance: 「深愛佛道，出於一切世間所樂。」 tr. "Deeply loving the Buddha path, beyond all that the world delights in." Depth is not the thickness of an emotion; it is that what is loved has already gone beyond the class of things the world can delight in—once this mind is established, the names and positions promised by the four kinds of deeds of Māra before are none of them enough to move him.

40. The two causes and conditions, inner and outer—inner means right recollection, outer means the good friends. The treatise-author sets up a general frame for 「當親近善知識」 tr. "one should draw near to the good friend": 「有二因緣故得無上道：一者、內，二者、外。」 tr. "Because of two causes and conditions one obtains the unsurpassed path: first, inner; second, outer." The inner is 「正憶念，思惟、籌量諸法」 tr. "right recollection, considering and reckoning dharmas"; the outer is 「諸善知識」 tr. "the good friends". Both names come from the treatise itself. Neither of the two can be lacking: to have only the inner without the outer is exactly that person in the text before who 「不問阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "does not ask about the marks of the avaivartika"; to have only the outer without the inner is to count whatever anyone says.

41. Why Subhūti asks this—the Buddha elsewhere speaks in all kinds of ways of the marks of the good friend. The treatise-author accounts for where the question comes from: 「佛餘處種種說善知識相，是故須菩提問佛：『世尊！何等是菩薩善知識？』」 tr. "The Buddha elsewhere speaks in all kinds of ways of the marks of the good friend; therefore Subhūti asks the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! What is the bodhisattva's good friend?’" Here the treatise-author is restating the question in the sūtra in the third person; it is not another speaker speaking on the spot, and in reading one should not mistake it for a new dialogue.

42. The restatement of the Buddha's answer—persons and dharmas side by side; because dharmas can accomplish the matter they are called good friends. The treatise-author restates the Buddha's answer: 「諸佛、大菩薩及聲聞是菩薩善知識。六波羅蜜乃至一切種智、如、法性、實際等諸法亦是善知識。」 tr. "The buddhas, the great bodhisattvas, and the śrāvakas are the bodhisattva's good friends. The six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, and the other dharmas are also good friends." And he explains why dharmas get this name: 「法能成辦其事，故說六波羅蜜等諸法名善知識。」 tr. "Because dharmas can accomplish the matter, the six perfections and the other dharmas are said to be called good friends." The criterion is 「能成辦」 tr. "can accomplish"—whatever can bring the matter to accomplishment, whether person or dharma, falls within this name.

43. The three kinds of noble ones make the bodhisattva practise by the six perfections; therefore dharmas and persons are alike called good friends. The treatise-author gathers it into one general rule: 「三種聖人以此六波羅蜜法令菩薩奉行，得作佛；是故法及人通名『善知識』。」 tr. "The three kinds of noble ones, by the dharma of these six perfections, cause the bodhisattva to practise it and become a Buddha; therefore dharmas and persons are alike called ‘good friends’." The number of the three kinds of noble ones is the side of persons in the Buddha's answer in the item before—the buddhas, the great bodhisattvas, the śrāvakas, which the treatise itself names. Persons teach by the Dharma, and the Dharma is practised through persons; therefore the two share one name—this is the settled conclusion of this passage.

44. The treatise-author sets a question—the path of the Small Vehicle is different; how can it serve as a good friend to the bodhisattva? 「佛及菩薩、六波羅蜜能成菩薩故，應是善知識；小乘道異，云何能與作善知識？」 tr. "Because the Buddha, the bodhisattvas, and the six perfections can bring the bodhisattva to accomplishment, they should be good friends; the path of the Small Vehicle is different—how can it serve as a good friend?" The question is fairly put: the first two items are as they should be, while the third must be accounted for. What is doubted is not the śrāvaka's realisation but the difference of path—since what they tend toward is different, how can they lead the way?

45. The answer—among those of the Small Vehicle there are some who, because they sought the Buddha path in former lives, have keen faculties and a mind of pity; the three examples of Śāriputra, Subhūti, and Mahākāśyapa. The treatise-author's answer goes in two steps. First he lays down a general rule: 「有小乘人先世求佛道故利根，雖是小乘，有憐愍心，觀應成大乘者為說大乘法，知報佛恩故，令佛種不斷。」 tr. "There are people of the Small Vehicle who, because they sought the Buddha path in former lives, have keen faculties; although they are of the Small Vehicle, they have a mind of pity; seeing those who should become followers of the Great Vehicle, they teach them the Dharma of the Great Vehicle; because they know to repay the Buddha's kindness, they keep the seed of the Buddha from being cut off." Then he gives three examples to make it concrete: Śāriputra 「六十劫求佛道，雖退轉作阿羅漢，亦利根智慧，能為諸菩薩說大乘」 tr. "sought the Buddha path for sixty kalpas, and although he retrogressed and became an arhat, he too has keen faculties and wisdom and can teach the Great Vehicle to the bodhisattvas"; Subhūti 「常行無諍三昧，常有慈悲心於眾生故，亦能教化菩薩大乘法」 tr. "constantly practises the samādhi of non-contention, and because he constantly has the mind of kindness and compassion toward beings, he too can teach and transform bodhisattvas in the Dharma of the Great Vehicle"; Mahākāśyapa 「以神通力持此身至彌勒出世，於九足山中出，與大眾作得道因緣」 tr. "by the power of the supernormal powers holds this body until Maitreya appears in the world, when he will come out from within the Nine-Footed Mountain and make for the great assembly the causes and conditions of attaining the path". The last sentence, 「如是等甚多」 tr. "there are very many such as these", makes clear that those cited are not isolated cases. The three examples each prove one face: having once aroused the great mind, having the practice of kindness and compassion, being able to continue the seed of the Buddha.

46. The treatise-author sets a question—since the six perfections gather in all dharmas, why are the limbs of the path and so on up to suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality spoken of separately? 「六波羅蜜攝一切法，今何以別說三十七品至如、法性、實際？」 tr. "The six perfections gather in all dharmas; why now are the thirty-seven limbs of the path through to suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality spoken of separately?" This is a question of arrangement: if the six perfections already gather in everything, then is the sūtra text's setting of the other dharmas side by side as good friends not a repetition?

47. The answer—a fourfold distinction: brief and extended, far and near, great and wondrous, conditioned and unconditioned. The treatise-author's answer comes down layer by layer, four layers in all. First, brief and extended: 「六波羅蜜是略說；四念處等是廣說，解六波羅蜜。」 tr. "The six perfections are the brief statement; the four foundations of mindfulness and the rest are the extended statement, explaining the six perfections." Second, far and near: 「六波羅蜜是菩薩初道，小遠；三十七品是近因緣。」 tr. "The six perfections are the bodhisattva's first path, somewhat far; the thirty-seven limbs of the path are the near causes and conditions." Third, within the six perfections the greater are taken—the two perfections of meditation and prajñā are the greatest, 「譬如雖有星宿，日、月最勝」 tr. "just as, although there are the stars and constellations, the sun and moon are the most excellent"; and within these two the more wondrous are taken again—「四念處、佛十力等法最妙，能大利益，現世令人得道故」 tr. "the four foundations of mindfulness, the ten powers of the Buddha, and such dharmas are the most wondrous, because they can greatly benefit and cause people to attain the path in this present life", while 「持戒、布施等不如故」 tr. "because keeping the precepts, giving, and the rest are not their equal". Fourth, why suchness and the other unconditioned dharmas are brought out separately—「實、不虛誑故，能成菩薩事」 tr. "because they are real and not false or deceptive, they can accomplish the bodhisattva's matter"; practising the four foundations of mindfulness and the rest, one obtains such dharmas as these, which 「令菩薩得出虛誑法，故名善知識」 tr. "cause the bodhisattva to get out of false and deceptive dharmas; therefore they are called good friends". Of the four layers, the first three distinguish the coarse and fine, the far and near among conditioned dharmas; the last brings out why unconditioned dharmas are entered in the list.

48. Explaining 「六波羅蜜是世尊」 tr. "the six perfections are the World-Honored One"—no different from the Buddha; what they teach cannot be broken. From here on the treatise-author explains, sentence by sentence, that string of figurative names in the sūtra text. The reason for the first sentence is: 「是六波羅蜜等法如佛無異，佛現在亦以是法度人」 tr. "these dharmas, the six perfections and the rest, are no different from the Buddha; the Buddha at present also delivers people by these dharmas", and so, citing the sūtra, he says 「如世尊所說不可壞，六波羅蜜等所說亦不可壞」 tr. "just as what the World-Honored One teaches cannot be broken, so what the six perfections and the rest teach cannot be broken either", and therefore it says 「六波羅蜜是世尊」 tr. "the six perfections are the World-Honored One". The point of comparison lies in 「不可壞」 tr. "cannot be broken"—it is not saying the six perfections are the Buddha; it is saying that what they teach is unbreakable in the same way as the Buddha's.

49. Explaining 「是道」 tr. "are the path"—practising this path, one enters straight into the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha. A single sentence: 「是道者，行是道，徑入無量佛法中。」 tr. "‘Are the path’: practising this path, one enters straight into the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha." The one word 「徑」 tr. "straight" is the eye—it does not go round, and so it is called the path.

50. Explaining 「是大明」 tr. "are the great light"—they cause people to obtain great wisdom and break the ignorance of the world. The treatise-author explains the mechanism of this name: what is spoken in the six perfections, when 「人籌量、思惟、分別、常修行，令人得大智慧，破諸世間無明」 tr. "people reckon, consider, distinguish, and constantly cultivate it, causes them to obtain great wisdom and break all the ignorance of the world", and so it is called the great light. What makes light light lies in what it breaks—ignorance. Here too one can see where the work of the earlier item, 「內名正憶念，思惟、籌量諸法」 tr. "the inner means right recollection, considering and reckoning dharmas", comes to rest.

51. Are the torch, are knowledge, are wisdom, are rescue, are refuge, are the island, are the ultimate path—as said above. For these seven names the treatise-author gives no further explanation one by one, and says 「如上說」 tr. "as said above"—the pattern of meaning is already clear, and the reader can work them out by the method of the first two names. Here the treatise abbreviates, and the exposition does not make additions on its behalf either.

52. Explaining 「六波羅蜜是父母」 tr. "the six perfections are father and mother"—prajñāpāramitā is the mother, the five perfections are the father; because they come together they are named together. This sentence is the only one in the whole string of figurative names that divides the six perfections and matches them: 「般若波羅蜜是母，五波羅蜜是父，……」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is the mother, the five perfections are the father, …"; the mother gives birth and the father brings to completion, and so they are named together as father and mother. The treatise-author further adds a general rule: 「如六波羅蜜說，四念處等亦如是」 tr. "as is said of the six perfections, so it is of the four foundations of mindfulness and the rest"—the names listed above apply equally to the limbs of the path.

53. The sūtra itself gives the causes and conditions—the six perfections and the other dharmas are also the father and mother of the buddhas of the three times and the ten directions. The treatise-author points out that the sūtra text here carries its own reason: 「是中說因緣：『六波羅蜜等法亦是三世十方佛父母。』」 tr. "Here the causes and conditions are stated: ‘The six perfections and the other dharmas are also the father and mother of the buddhas of the three times and the ten directions.’" The name of father and mother is not a word of praise; it has its ground—the buddhas are born from within them.

54. Self-benefit and benefiting others—the six perfections are dharmas of self-benefit, and the four means of gathering gather in beings. The treatise-author makes a distinction: 「是六波羅蜜等是自利法」 tr. "the six perfections and the rest are dharmas of self-benefit"; if one wishes to use them to teach and transform beings and purify buddha-worlds, then 「應以四攝法攝取眾生」 tr. "one should gather in beings by the four means of gathering". The meaning of the four means of gathering is 「如先說」 tr. "as said before", and it is not repeated here—the present-day explanation of the four, giving, kind speech, beneficial action, and shared endeavour, has already been given above in item eighteen, and the reader may turn back to it; here the treatise-author takes them only as dharmas of benefiting others, set against the six perfections as dharmas of self-benefit. The last sentence joins the two sides: 「如是自利、利他故，佛說『六波羅蜜、三十七品等諸法是世尊、是道』等。」 tr. "Because they thus benefit oneself and benefit others, the Buddha says ‘the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and the other dharmas are the World-Honored One, are the path’ and so on."—that long string of figurative names holds precisely because these dharmas are complete on both sides, benefiting self and benefiting others.

55. Explaining 「不隨他教」 tr. "does not follow another's teaching"—he knows of himself the real mark of all dharmas, so that even if one changes into the body of a Buddha to teach a different mark of dharmas, he does not believe and does not follow. The treatise-author explains this phrase not from ‘not listening to what people say’ but from 「自知」 tr. "knowing of himself": 「不隨他教名自知諸法實相，……」 tr. "‘Does not follow another's teaching’ means knowing of himself the real mark of all dharmas, …"; only with knowing of himself can one speak of not following; and he pushes the limit to the utmost—「乃至變作佛身來說異於法相，亦不信不隨」 tr. "even if someone changes into the body of a Buddha and comes to teach what differs from the mark of dharmas, he does not believe and does not follow". This phrase turns back to close the four passages on deeds of Māra: Māra can take the form of a bhikṣu, a householder, a father or mother, even the body of a Buddha, and the criterion throughout is only one—whether what is taught differs from the mark of dharmas.

56. He himself obtains the bodhisattva path and severs the doubts of beings, therefore he should train in prajñā; within prajñā there is nothing not taught. The last passage comes to rest on the place of training: 「自得菩薩道，漸漸具足諸佛法，淨佛世界、成就眾生。得佛道，能斷一切眾生疑。」 tr. "He himself obtains the bodhisattva path, gradually fulfils the dharmas of the buddhas, purifies buddha-worlds and brings beings to accomplishment. Obtaining the Buddha path, he can sever the doubts of all beings." One who wishes to obtain this 「當學般若」 tr. "should train in prajñā", the reason being that 「般若波羅蜜中，世間出世間、若大若小，無事不說」 tr. "within prajñāpāramitā, the worldly and the world-transcending, the great and the small—there is nothing not taught". The whole unit, which began from a single thought in a dream, returns here to one matter—training in prajñā.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「夢中不證」 tr. "not realising it in a dream" as being unable to realise in a dream. What the sūtra text says is 「亦不作證」 tr. "also does not realise them"—he is able to realise and does not take realisation; it is not that he lacks the strength to realise. The 「觀諸法如夢、如幻、如嚮、如焰、如化」 tr. "contemplates dharmas as like a dream, like an illusion, like an echo, like a mirage, like a transformation" listed in the same passage shows precisely that the contemplation of the five similes is already at hand; the gate of realisation is right before him and he does not enter—only this is the mark. If it is read as the mind being dim in a dream and unable to accomplish anything, then the seven marks this chapter sets out all become nothing worth recording.

Do not read the marks in a dream as a practice of dreaming. The treatise-author's one sentence, 「是菩薩晝日常習行空故，夜夢中亦不貪三界」 tr. "because this bodhisattva constantly trains in emptiness by day, in his dreams by night too he does not crave the three realms", has already fixed the place of effort in the daytime. Not craving in a dream, not being startled in a dream, making a vow in a dream, making an oath in a dream—all four are the showing of what was trained in by day, not a separate method of practice within dreams. To put one's mental effort into managing the dream is precisely to invert result and cause.

Do not read 「是火即滅」 tr. "the fire goes out at once" and 「非人當去」 tr. "the non-human should go" as magic one may take up to test oneself. The sūtra text itself gives the reverse side: the fire may 「燒一家、置一家」 tr. "burn one house and leave one house", and the non-human may also go because evil Māra commands it. The treatise-author further says that the fire's going out is because 「於無量劫修集福德，得諸法實相故，鬼神、龍王等助滅是火」 tr. "because for immeasurable kalpas he has cultivated and gathered merit and has obtained the real mark of all dharmas, ghosts and spirits, nāga kings, and others help put out this fire"—what it rests on is long-cultivated merit and the real mark, not the wording of the oath. For one who learns only the wording and sets up an oath, the sūtra text already has a ready example: that person 「用是空誓」 tr. "using this empty oath".

Do not take the fulfilment of the oath as the whole of the evidence. The most important pair set against each other in the First Part is the oath of utmost sincerity and the empty oath: the two passages are almost the same in wording, and in both the non-human went; one is a mark of having received the prediction, the other is the beginning of a deed of Māra. The dividing line lies not in whether it was fulfilled or not, but in whether there is the foundation of 「久行六波羅蜜」 tr. "having long practised the six perfections" and 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means", and whether one draws near to and relies on the good friend and is willing to ask about the marks of the avaivartika. Whoever fixes his own position by a single fulfilment is exactly the one this passage speaks of.

Do not read the four passages on deeds of Māra as four kinds of interference from outside. Looked at closely, the words Māra says in the four passages mostly take a form that seems true—name, clan, and former lives, the dhūta practice, a future Buddha-name that fits his own thoughts; as for 「汝所行，是佛所稱譽遠離法」 tr. "what you practise is the dharma of seclusion that the Buddha praises", the Buddha at once states plainly, 「我不讚是遠離」 tr. "I do not praise this seclusion"—it is a false certification within Māra's words. What Māra does is to add the sentence ‘you already are’, or to speak of what the Buddha has not approved as approved by the Buddha. And the step that really does the damage, in every passage, is taken by the bodhisattva himself—「即歡喜生慢憍心」 tr. "at once rejoices and gives rise to a mind of pride and arrogance" 「我必為諸佛所授記」 tr. "I must have been given the prediction by the buddhas" 「輕餘在眾中住菩薩」 tr. "slights the other bodhisattvas who dwell among the assembly". The treatise-author's explanation of the word 「微細」 tr. "subtle" says it most clearly: 「細名不逆其意，隨其本念，助成其心。」 tr. "Subtle means not going against his intent; following his own thoughts, it helps his mind along." Any seal of approval that goes entirely along with one's own original intent and happens to raise oneself up, from whosever mouth it comes, should first be met with doubt.

Do not read 「我不讚是遠離」 tr. "I do not praise this seclusion" as the Buddha not permitting one to dwell in the mountains. The Buddha's answer says plainly, 「遠離聲聞、辟支佛心，住空閑山澤曠遠之處，是佛所許遠離法」 tr. "to be secluded from the mind of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha and dwell in empty and quiet mountains, marshes, and far-off places is the dharma of seclusion the Buddha approves"—dwelling in the mountains is still within what is approved; what is set aside is only, in 「但在空閑山澤」 tr. "merely being in empty and quiet mountains and marshes", that word 「但」 tr. "merely". Conversely, of the one who is 「城傍心清淨」 tr. "at the city's edge, pure in mind", the sūtra text also states plainly that he is 「具足禪定、解脫、智慧、神通」 tr. "complete in meditative concentration, liberation, wisdom, and the supernormal powers". What is left behind lies in the mind, and the dwelling follows it; what judges right and wrong has never been the location.

Do not read the listing of arhats as good friends as there being no difference between great and small. The treatise-author's answer is conditional: it refers to that class who, 「先世求佛道故利根」 tr. "because they sought the Buddha path in former lives, have keen faculties", 「有憐愍心」 tr. "have a mind of pity", and can, 「觀應成大乘者為說大乘法」 tr. "seeing those who should become followers of the Great Vehicle, teach them the Dharma of the Great Vehicle", and cites Śāriputra, Subhūti, and Mahākāśyapa as examples. The conditions are clearly set out; it is not so of everyone of the Small Vehicle. Likewise, this does not say that the difference of path does not exist; it says that on the one point of 「能成辦其事」 tr. "being able to accomplish the matter", they can indeed lead the way for the bodhisattva.

Do not read the string of figurative names of the six perfections as a single undifferentiated exaltation. Each name is set up with respect to one particular share of virtue; they are not a general praise. Read as a general praise, one will miss the division of labour between prajñā and the five perfections in the one sentence 「是父是母」 tr. "are father, are mother".

Bearing on Practice

Test the day by the dream; do not make the dream one's practice. The cause and effect the treatise-author gives run one way—by day one trains in emptiness, and at night the dream then does not crave. So if in a dream one sees oneself startled and afraid, craving and clinging, taking realisation, what should be turned back to and corrected is the day's work, not some scheme to manage the dream. Conversely, an occasional good dream need not be taken as proof of a stage either; at most it shows that recent work has found a little way in. Treat the dream as a thermometer, not as a tool.

Use ‘the fearful object is teaching material’ to transform alarm in dreams and in daily life. The bodhisattva of the fourth mark in the sūtra text is not only unafraid; on waking he at once reflects, 「三界虛妄，皆如夢耳」 tr. "the three realms are false; all are but like a dream", and turns it into the sentence 「我得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，亦當為眾生說三界如夢」 tr. "when I obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, I too shall teach beings that the three realms are like a dream". This turn is very usable: when something truly alarming happens in daily life, do not rush to suppress the feeling; ask instead what this alarm can teach me, and for whom it can later be used to explain something. Once the alarm is put to use, it is no longer only a loss.

Use 「是夢及諸法，無二無別」 tr. "this dream and all dharmas are without duality and without difference" to check one's own discriminating of objects. Practitioners often have two standards—one for formal practice, one for scattered moments; one for waking, one for the edge of sleep. The sūtra text gives only one. Whenever one feels ‘this does not count’, discrimination has already arisen; this sentence can be taken up on the spot as a question: between this matter and that, is there really a twofold division in their falseness?

Before setting up an oath, first ask about the foundation. The content of the sūtra text's oath of utmost sincerity is a setting out of one's own practice—a pure mind, practising the right path, secluded from the mind of the two vehicles—and only then does he dare take the buddhas as witness. The empty oath has only the one sentence, 「若我實從諸佛受記者」 tr. "if I have really received the prediction from the buddhas". This gives a very practical order: when one wishes to set up a vow or an oath, first count clearly the few things one has actually done; when they cannot be counted, what needs making up is practice, not the words of the oath.

Take the four Chinese characters 「合我本念」 tr. "fits my own thoughts" as the alarm for self-approval. In the third kind of deed of Māra, that bodhisattva's reasoning is 「是人所說合我本念，我必為諸佛所授記」 tr. "what this person says fits my own thoughts; I must have been given the prediction by the buddhas". In daily life this thread can be seen everywhere—others' words, a sentence in a book, a chance sign—as long as it happens to fit what I thought before, it is taken as confirmation. Take the treatise-author's gloss as the measure: whatever 「不逆其意，隨其本念，助成其心」 tr. "does not go against one's intent, follows one's own thoughts, and helps one's mind along", set aside for a while before going on; the more pleasing it is to the ear, the more one should slow down a step.

Take ‘looking down on others’ as the general warning signal. The four passages on deeds of Māra close in exactly the same place—slighting, mocking, disparaging, and scorning the other bodhisattvas; 「輕蔑餘人」 tr. "looking down on others"; slighting the other great bodhisattvas; slighting the other bodhisattvas who dwell among the assembly. And the sūtra text judges the sin extremely heavy, saying it is heavier than the four prohibitions and exceeds the five heinous sins. This gives a very useful self-check: there is no need to judge whether one's own state is true or false; only look whether lately the thought ‘they are not as good as I am’ has arisen in the mind. Once it has, however real the experience it rests on, one is already on the line of the deeds of Māra.

Use the two conditions, inner and outer, together, neglecting neither side. The treatise-author says it plainly: the inner is 「正憶念，思惟、籌量諸法」 tr. "right recollection, considering and reckoning dharmas", the outer is 「諸善知識」 tr. "the good friends". To rely only on one's own thinking with no one to ask is exactly the root of the sickness the sūtra text points out in one place, 「不親近依止善知識，不問阿鞞跋致相」 tr. "he does not draw near to and rely on the good friend, and does not ask about the marks of the avaivartika"; to rely only on asking others without thinking oneself is to be shaken by anyone's words. Each side has one thing to be done: regularly take one's points of doubt to someone who can be asked and get them made clear, and think them through once oneself before asking.

Use 「不隨他教名自知諸法實相」 tr. "‘does not follow another's teaching’ means knowing of himself the real mark of all dharmas" to set the bottom line for choosing among teachings. The treatise-author pushes the limit to 「乃至變作佛身來說異於法相，亦不信不隨」 tr. "even if someone changes into the body of a Buddha and comes to teach what differs from the mark of dharmas, he does not believe and does not follow"—the criterion is only one: look at whether what is said differs from the mark of dharmas, not at who says it. In choosing among teachings in daily life, set ‘who said it’ aside for the moment, and first ask whether these words accord with the mark of dharmas one is learning; if they accord, take them in; if they do not, then even from the body of a Buddha, do not follow them. Once this one line is established, the four passages on deeds of Māra before have nowhere to ply their craft.

Further Resonances

The First Part, a single unit of one sūtra passage and one treatise passage, establishes the pivot of this chapter and the first half of the marks of non-retrogression. The sūtra text begins from not craving and not realising in a dream, passes through seven marks to the true and false of the oath, follows with the four passages on subtle deeds of Māra, and at the end returns to the good friend and the names of the six perfections; the treatise-author explains mark by mark why each is so, and fixes the pivot of the whole chapter by 「晝日常習行空故，夜夢中亦不貪三界」 tr. "because he constantly trains in emptiness by day, in his dreams by night too he does not crave the three realms", fixes the position this chapter fills in by the two kinds of avaivartika and the four positions of the prediction, divides the oath of utmost sincerity from the empty oath by long practice of the six perfections and the power of skilful means, glosses the subtle deeds of Māra by 「細名不逆其意，隨其本念，助成其心」 tr. "subtle means not going against his intent; following his own thoughts, it helps his mind along", and at the end closes with the two causes and conditions, inner and outer, and 「法及人通名『善知識』」 tr. "dharmas and persons are alike called ‘good friends’". The weight of the whole passage can be gathered into one sentence: the marks of the test can be counterfeited; the foundation of one's work cannot.

On the chapter title the editions are not uniform. The base text titles it "Not Realising It in a Dream", while the proper title in the sūtra text of the Larger Sūtra and Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra both title it "The Dream Oath"; the sūtra text further has an interlinear note beneath the chapter title, 「丹夢中不證品」 tr. "the Khitan edition: Not Realising It in a Dream", which accords with the wording of the base text. The treatise titles of the four editions, Song, Yuan, Palace, and Ming, all likewise use 「夢誓」 tr. "the dream oath", and the Ming edition further notes beneath the title that the wording of the sūtra text still reads 「夢中」 tr. "in a dream". The two sides' names each have their basis; here they are recorded side by side without judgement.

Jizang deals with the double name at the very opening of this chapter, and ties this chapter back to the dream of the earlier text: 「前云夢行者，如文夢中脩行，今是夢中發願，故兩品行願各舉也。」 tr. "Earlier it was called ‘Dream Conduct’ because, as the text has it, one cultivates practice in a dream; now it is making a vow in a dream; therefore the two chapters each bring up one of practice and vow." And he explains the name of this chapter directly: 「此品亦云夢中不證者，不證明覺時不證，今夢中亦不證也。」 tr. "This chapter is also called ‘Not Realising It in a Dream’: ‘not realising’ made clear that one does not realise while awake; now one does not realise even in a dream." And he gathers it up by the two pairs of dream and waking, vow and practice: 「上云證據覺不證，今明夢誓就夢中發願，明此菩薩善根純厚，非但覺行般若，亦夢中亦行，即夢覺相對，亦是願行一雙，亦是上不證是自行，今發誓是化他也。」 tr. "Above, realisation was spoken of with reference to not realising while awake; now it makes clear the dream oath, which is making a vow within a dream, making clear that this bodhisattva's roots of goodness are pure and rich: he practises prajñā not only while awake but also practises it in a dream. That is, dream and waking are set against each other; it is also a pair of vow and practice; it is also that the not realising above is one's own practice, while the making of the oath now is the transforming of others." Jizang here further sets a question, asking why, since the previous chapter has already made the marks of non-retrogression clear at length, they are spoken of again now, and his answer says 「此體始終皆說般若……」 tr. "the substance of this, from beginning to end, is all the teaching of prajñā …"—it runs parallel in meaning to the question and answer the treatise-author sets himself at the opening of this unit, but the wording is not borrowed; the two are seen side by side and recorded without judgement. Jizang also adds an explanation: 「但佛隨眾生信悟故，或就人門說，或就法門說，或就人法門雜說也。」 tr. "It is only that the Buddha, following the faith and understanding of beings, speaks sometimes by way of the gate of persons, sometimes by way of the gate of dharmas, and sometimes by way of the gates of persons and dharmas mixed together." He explains the reason for the re-telling by the different kinds of gate of teaching, and this and the treatise-author's answer 「但不次第」 tr. "only not in order" each make a view of their own.

Huiying's Commentary has a dedicated section on this chapter, and it matches the range of the sūtra and treatise of this unit. His explanation of the title and the order says: 「第六十品釋論者，名為夢中不證品。何故次學空不證品後明於此品？不退菩薩乃至夢中尚不取證，何況晝日明白心學而當取證？故次此品後明此品也。」 tr. "The sixtieth chapter explaining the treatise is named the chapter ‘Not Realising It in a Dream’. Why is this chapter made clear next, after the chapter ‘Training in Emptiness without Realising It’? The non-retrogressing bodhisattva does not take realisation even in a dream—how much less would he take realisation while training by day with a clear and bright mind? Therefore, following that chapter, this chapter is made clear." His sectional division divides this chapter into three, and this unit corresponds to the first two: 「就此品中大有三分」 tr. "within this chapter there are broadly three parts"—the first part makes clear the conduct, kind, and appearance of non-retrogression and the marks that are not non-retrogression, and 「對挍而辨」 tr. "distinguishes them by setting them against each other and comparing" (in this sentence the base text writes a transliterated name with a composed character of the Continued Canon; the discipline of this collection does not replace it with a standard character, so it is given here in present-day words and not entered as a verbatim quotation); the second and third parts read word for word: 「第二、明脩學之來須託善知識；第三、明波若體扶脩學儀軌。」 tr. "Second, it makes clear that the coming of cultivation and training must rely on the good friend; third, it makes clear the substance of prajñā, which supports the rules of cultivation and training." Within the first part he again opens two: 「第一、有八復次，明不退相貌；第二、從遠離六波羅蜜及方便力已下，明非不退相。」 tr. "First, there are eight ‘furthermore’s, making clear the appearance of non-retrogression; second, from ‘far removed from the six perfections and the power of skilful means’ onward, it makes clear the marks that are not non-retrogression." And he closes the first meaning of the first part with 「乃至夢中亦無貪證，名不退相也」 tr. "even in a dream there is no craving and no realising; this is called the mark of non-retrogression", and judges the setting of the two parts against each other with 「上明是不退相即是佛事，今明非不退相即是魔事也」 tr. "above it made clear that the marks of non-retrogression are the deeds of the Buddha; now it makes clear that what are not the marks of non-retrogression are the deeds of Māra". On the passage of burning one house and leaving one house, Huiying separately cites worldly books and his teacher's words to make clear the distinction between fire and calamity, and explains 「破法餘殃者，即是破波若等法，執義自是，各隨其見，不依經論」 tr. "‘the remaining calamity of having broken the Dharma’ is breaking prajñā and such dharmas: holding to one's own interpretation as right, each following his own views, not relying on the sūtras and treatises"—explaining breaking the Dharma as holding to one's own interpretation as right; with the treatise-author's explanation of it as 「破般若波羅蜜」 tr. "breaking prajñāpāramitā", the two are seen together, one fuller and one briefer. On the passage on seclusion, Huiying judges: 「若雖在城湟，能離二乘心，即是菩薩脩遠離行。若不爾者，雖處山間，猶名散亂也。」 tr. "If, though he is within the city and its moat, he can leave the mind of the two vehicles, this is the bodhisattva's cultivating the practice of seclusion. If it is not so, then though he dwells among the mountains, he is still called scattered." This accords with the seclusion the sūtra text approves. On the passage on the good friend, Huiying records the treatise-author's twofold division—「有二：第一、明三乘聖人等為人善知識，六度及實際等屬法善知識」 tr. "There are two: first, it makes clear that the noble ones of the three vehicles and the like are the good friends who are persons, and the six perfections, the limit of reality, and the like belong to the good friends that are dharmas"—and records another school's threefold division, taking the noble ones of the three vehicles as the good friends who are persons, the six perfections and the like as the good friends that are dharmas, and the limit of reality and the like as the good friends that are principle, and says 「此亦無妨也」 tr. "this too is no hindrance". The two views, the twofold division into persons and dharmas and the threefold division into persons, dharmas, and principle, stand together, recorded without judgement. Huiying's own chapter numbers are consistently one place fewer than the base text's; reading his 「第六十品」 tr. "sixtieth chapter", one should know that it is this chapter, not the previous one; his book's system of chapter numbering differs from the base text, and this is recorded here as it is, without re-attaching it on his behalf.

As for such topics as the mark of prajñāpāramitā being like space, the sameness and difference of the mark of dharmas and the mark of prajñā, and on to the depth or shallowness of faith and understanding in prajñā of the one who receives the prediction—the Last Part of this chapter goes on to unfold them; they are not anticipated here.

Not Realising It in a Dream, Last Part: The Mark of Prajñā Is Like Space, Why There Are Stain and Purity, the Ten Rounds of Questions on Practising Prajñā, and the Acceptance of the Non-arising of Dharmas and the Prediction

What Is Being Asked

The First Part, a whole fascicle, answers throughout a single question: how does one recognise the avaivartika? The sūtra starts from dreams—in a dream he does not crave the two vehicles and does not crave the three realms; in a dream he sees the Buddha and hears the Dharma and at once understands the meaning in it; in a dream he sees armies rising, fire breaking out, and his kin dying, and is not startled and not terrified; in a dream he sees the three evil destinies and at once arouses the vow of a pure land; in a dream he sees hell-fire burning beings and makes the oath, and the fire goes out; from dream it passes to waking: by day, seeing fire break out in a city, he likewise puts it out by the oath. Then it turns to the reverse side: bodhisattvas who have not practised the six perfections for long and have not entered the bodhisattva's position are deceived by evil Māra with an 「空誓」 tr. "empty oath", deceived with the names and clans of their former lives, deceived with the names they will bear as buddhas in the future, deceived with the dharma of seclusion; one by one they give rise to overweening pride, slight, mock, disparage, and scorn others, and fall into the two grounds. At the end the Buddha shows the right road—「當親近恭敬供養善知識」 tr. "one should draw near to, respect, and make offerings to the good friend"—setting side by side the good friend who is a person and the good friend who is a dharma, and saying that the six perfections and the thirty-seven dharmas of the path are the World-Honored One, are the path, are the great light, are father, are mother. The treatise-author explains passage by passage, and on the similes of the 「四重禁」 tr. "four grave prohibitions" and the 「五逆」 tr. "five heinous sins", and on the name 「微細魔事」 tr. "subtle deeds of Māra", settles the meaning of each one by one.

The Last Part comes on from this, yet changes the face of the topic. What the First Part asked about was 「相」 tr. "mark"—the conduct, kind, and appearance of the avaivartika; what the Last Part asks about is 「體」 tr. "substance"—what mark prajñāpāramitā itself has. The sūtra opens at once with a question from Subhūti: 「何等是般若波羅蜜相？」 tr. "What is the mark of prajñāpāramitā?" The Buddha's answer is only two sentences: the mark that is like space; without the mark of anything existent. All the questions and difficulties of the whole unit from here on are pressed out of these two sentences.

What is pressed out is three layers of difficulty. The first: if prajñā is like space, and all dharmas too are like space, all separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness, then where are the stain and purity of beings to be set up? And on what can the bodhisattva rely to obtain awakening? The Buddha does not answer from the meaning of emptiness; instead he asks a homely question—have beings, through the long night, been practising the mind of I and mine? Because of the mind of I and mine there is going and coming in birth and death, and going and coming in birth and death is stain; without the mind of I and mine there is no going and coming, and not going and coming is purity. Stain and purity are set up not on dharmas but on whether the mind practises or does not practise. The second: if the nature of all thoughts is of itself separated and of itself empty, what footing is left for the words 「不離薩婆若念」 tr. "not leaving the thought of sarvajñā"? If the nature of prajñā is of itself separated and of itself empty, what footing is left for the words ‘equal to prajñā’ and obtaining awakening? The Buddha's answer is again two phrases—neither increase nor decrease; neither one nor different. The third is the most dangerous and also the longest: this being so, what in the end is 「行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā"? The sūtra asks eleven questions in a row, from emptiness, apart from emptiness, prajñā, and apart from prajñā, through the five aggregates, the six perfections, the dharmas that aid the path, and on to the suchness of dharmas and the limit of reality, asking of each 「是行般若波羅蜜不」 tr. "is this practising prajñāpāramitā or not", and the Buddha answers each 「不也」 tr. "No"; when the ten questions are exhausted, Subhūti then puts the eleventh, the general question: 「云何行名菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "What practice is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practising prajñāpāramitā?" The Buddha does not answer head-on, but presses back with four counter-questions—do you see a dharma that practises prajñā? Do you see a place where it can be practised? Is the dharma that is not seen findable? Should the unfindable dharma arise? All four answers are 「不」 tr. "no", and here the Buddha passes a verdict: 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍。」 tr. "This is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas."

When the questioning reaches this point, the joint of the whole unit first comes into view: the 「行」 tr. "practice" of prajñā is not finding a dharma that can practise and a place that is practised; it is that on all dharmas nothing is findable and the mind does not arise again. Once the acceptance of non-arising is established, the matter of the prediction follows from it—Subhūti asks again: is the prediction obtained in the mark of non-arising? In the mark of arising? In the mark of neither arising nor non-arising? The Buddha's three answers are all 「不也」 tr. "No". At the very end the treatise-author sets up a question of his own to close the whole unit: since the practitioner really receives the prediction by the acceptance of non-arising, why does the Buddha still say 「不」 tr. "no"? The answer lies in one place—Subhūti asks 「以著心、得心問」 tr. "with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining"; the Buddha's 「不」 tr. "no" does not deny the matter of the prediction; it cuts off his clinging mind. And the treatise-author cites the brahmin ascetic Vatsa asking whether there is a self or no self, and the Buddha remaining silent, as evidence: the dharma was never unreal; the place from which the question was asked was already wrong, and so he did not answer.

So what is to be read in the Last Part is not one more string of marks of the avaivartika; it turns over the ground of the two Chinese characters 「不證」 tr. "not realising" of the First Part and shows it: the reason one does not take realisation even in a dream is precisely that the substance of prajñā is like space and without anything existent, and there is not one dharma that can be taken up as realisation. The First Part speaks of matters, the Last Part speaks of principle; the First Part is the mark of practice, the Last Part is the mark of substance. Only here are the four Chinese characters of the chapter title, 「夢中不證」 tr. "not realising it in a dream", fully spoken.

Passage by Passage

1. Subhūti asks about the mark of prajñā. After the continuation title of fascicle 77, the sūtra at once raises a new question: 「爾時，須菩提白佛言：『世尊！何等是般若波羅蜜相？』」 tr. "At that time Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! What is the mark of prajñāpāramitā?’" First ask a question: has not the mark of prajñā already been spoken of earlier in this sūtra? It is precisely because it has been spoken of that the question here is a joint. At the end of the First Part's fascicle the Buddha had just finished saying that the six perfections are the World-Honored One, are the path, are the great light, are father, are mother, and had also said 「是般若波羅蜜中廣說諸法，是菩薩摩訶薩所應學處」 tr. "within this prajñāpāramitā all dharmas are spoken of at length; this is where the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should train"; since people are taught to train, the trainee will naturally seek its marks and appearance. So this question is not repetition; it is seeking the reality after hearing the praise. In reading this passage, first get ready for one thing: the 「相」 tr. "mark" the Buddha gives below will not be a set of features that can be pointed out—were it so, it would be of the same format as Māra's deception in the First Part, 「汝有如是功德、如是相」 tr. "you have such merit, such marks".

2. The Buddha answers: the mark that is like space; without the mark of anything existent. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「如虛空相是般若波羅蜜相。須菩提！般若波羅蜜無所有相。」 tr. "The mark that is like space is the mark of prajñāpāramitā. Subhūti! Prajñāpāramitā is without the mark of anything existent." Two sentences and no more, yet they are the root of the whole unit. Why take space as the simile? Space as a thing, first, cannot be pointed to in shape or colour; second, does not obstruct the coming and going of any form; third, is everywhere, and yet no single place is itself. So too prajñā: its marks and appearance cannot be pointed to, it does not obstruct the distinctions of dharmas, it pervades all dharmas, and yet not one dharma is prajñā. The second sentence, 「無所有相」 tr. "without the mark of anything existent", goes one layer further—the first sentence still shows it by a simile; the second states its substance directly: what is called its mark is precisely being without anything existent. Here one must guard against a slip: 「無所有相」 tr. "without the mark of anything existent" does not say that prajñā has no mark; it says that its mark is exactly being without anything existent; the mark and being without anything existent are not two things. In the First Part, when the treatise-author explained the causes and conditions of not realising, he said that the bodhisattva 「常行畢竟空」 tr. "constantly practises ultimate emptiness"; what he constantly practises is this.

3. Subhūti asks again: is the mark of all dharmas also like this? Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！頗有因緣，如般若波羅蜜相，諸法相亦如是耶？」 tr. "World-Honored One! Are there perhaps causes and conditions whereby, as is the mark of prajñāpāramitā, so too is the mark of all dharmas?" This question is asked in a highly ordered way: knowing now that the mark of prajñā is being without anything existent, he asks whether this mark belongs to prajñā alone, or whether it can be extended by analogy to all dharmas. The four Chinese characters 「頗有因緣」 tr. "are there perhaps causes and conditions" are a way of asking that holds the matter in doubt and requests—not daring to judge outright, he first asks whether there is such a principle or not. He asks cautiously precisely because the matter asked about is extremely great: if the mark of all dharmas is all like the mark of prajñā, then between prajñā and all dharmas there are no longer two layers.

4. The Buddha answers: just so, just so; all dharmas are separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「如是！如是！」 tr. "Just so! Just so!"—repeating the words to seal his approval, and then gives the causes and conditions: 「一切法離相、空相。」 tr. "All dharmas are separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness." Then with 「以是因緣故」 tr. "for these causes and conditions" he brings it back to the original question and says it once more: 「如般若波羅蜜相，諸法相亦如是，所謂離相、空相故」 tr. "as is the mark of prajñāpāramitā, so too is the mark of all dharmas, namely because they are separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness". The pattern of this passage deserves attention: the Buddha's answer is not just 「是」 tr. "yes"; it is ‘yes, and the reason it is so lies here’. The reason lies in the two Chinese characters 「離」 tr. "separated" and 「空」 tr. "empty"—being separated is not uniting with marks; being empty is having no self-nature to be found; the two characters are raised together and neither can be taken one-sidedly. Take 「離」 tr. "separated" one-sidedly and it becomes isolation; take 「空」 tr. "empty" one-sidedly and it becomes annihilation and non-existence.

5. Subhūti raises a difficulty: within separation and emptiness, where are stain and purity and the one who obtains awakening? This passage is the first layer of difficulty in the whole unit; the text is long and the reasoning dense, and it must be taken apart sentence by sentence. 「若一切法一切法離，一切法一切法空」 tr. "if all dharmas, all dharmas, are separated; all dharmas, all dharmas, are empty"—repeating the words 「一切法」 tr. "all dharmas" says that separation and emptiness are not another layer of judgement added onto dharmas; dharmas themselves are separation, are emptiness. This being so, the difficulty is threefold. First, 「云何知眾生若垢、若淨」 tr. "how is it known whether beings are stained or pure"—stain and purity have nothing to rest on. Second, 「離相法無垢、無淨，空相法無垢、無淨；離相、空相法不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，離相、空相無法可得」 tr. "a dharma separated from marks is without stain and without purity; a dharma of the mark of emptiness is without stain and without purity; a dharma separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness cannot obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; in what is separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness there is no dharma that can be obtained"—even the path that can obtain has nothing to rest on. Third, 「離相中，空相中，無有菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 tr. "within what is separated from marks, within the mark of emptiness, there is no bodhisattva who obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—even the person who can obtain has nothing to rest on. The three difficulties strip away layer after layer, and the last sentence is the most important: 「世尊！我云何當知佛所說義？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How am I to know the meaning of what the Buddha has said?" Subhūti is not refuting the Buddha; he is seeking understanding—he says plainly that what he wants is to know the meaning of what the Buddha has said. This sentence fixes the character of the passage: it is a difficulty raised in asking for instruction, not a difficulty raised in dispute.

6. The Buddha counter-asks with the mind of I and mine; Subhūti answers that they practise it. The Buddha does not answer directly from the meaning of emptiness, but asks: 「於汝意云何？是眾生長夜行我、我所心不？」 tr. "What do you think? Have these beings through the long night practised the mind of I and mine or not?" Subhūti answers: 「如是！世尊！眾生長夜行我、我所心。」 tr. "Just so, World-Honored One! Beings through the long night have practised the mind of I and mine." First ask a question: why does the Buddha leave principle aside and ask about a matter? Because the fault of the one raising the difficulty lies precisely in looking for 「垢淨」 tr. "stain and purity" as a property on dharmas. Once he looks on dharmas, dharmas all being empty and separated, naturally he cannot find it. The Buddha asks in another place—he does not ask whether dharmas have stain and purity; he asks whether beings have the practice of this mind. The two Chinese characters 「長夜」 tr. "the long night" must not be passed over: ‘the long night’ speaks of how long it has been, so long that one does not notice it as practice; not noticing it as practice is what is called being an ordinary person.

7. He asks again: is this mind separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness or not? The Buddha asks again: 「於汝意云何？是我、我所心離相不？空相不？」 tr. "What do you think? Is this mind of I and mine separated from marks or not? Of the mark of emptiness or not?" Subhūti said: 「世尊！我、我所心離相、空相。」 tr. "World-Honored One! The mind of I and mine is separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness." With this question the Buddha returns Subhūti's own difficulty to him untouched: you say all dharmas are separated and empty; then the mind of I and mine too is separated, is empty—this you grant. Once Subhūti has granted it, there is no retreat for him in what follows. Here one can see the Buddha's way of answering a difficulty: he does not break what the other has set up; he pushes forward from what the other has set up.

8. The third question: is it by this mind that beings go and come in birth and death? The Buddha asks again: 「於汝意云何？以此我、我所心，眾生往來生死中不？」 tr. "What do you think? Is it by this mind of I and mine that beings go and come within birth and death, or not?" Subhūti answers: 「如是！世尊！以此我、我所心，眾生往來生死中。」 tr. "Just so, World-Honored One! By this mind of I and mine beings go and come within birth and death." The whole joint lies in this one question. The previous question has already granted that this mind is separated and empty; this question asks whether this separated and empty mind can still make beings go and come in birth and death. The two matters stand side by side and do not obstruct each other—emptiness does not obstruct its being a cause; separation does not obstruct its bringing matters to completion. To think that because it is empty it has no function is not to understand emptiness.

9. The Buddha concludes: because they go and come, there is stain and vexation; without this mind, there is purity. The Buddha says: 「如是！須菩提！眾生往來生死中故，知有垢惱。須菩提！若眾生無我我所心、無著心，是眾生不復往來生死中；若不往來生死中，則無垢惱。如是，須菩提！眾生有淨。」 tr. "Just so, Subhūti! Because beings go and come within birth and death, one knows that there are stain and vexation. Subhūti! If beings had no mind of I and mine, no clinging mind, these beings would no longer go and come within birth and death; if they do not go and come within birth and death, then there are no stain and vexation. Thus, Subhūti, beings have purity." Here the meaning of stain and purity is settled: stain is not a property called stain on dharmas; it is the matter of 「往來生死」 tr. "going and coming in birth and death"; purity is not some other property called purity on dharmas; it is the matter of 「不復往來」 tr. "no longer going and coming". So stain and purity can be spoken of without going against the emptiness of all dharmas—what is spoken of is practising or not practising, not the self-nature of dharmas. The one raising the difficulty had thought the Buddha must set up a separate position for stain and purity outside emptiness; the Buddha's way of answering is: stain and purity were never in that position in the first place.

10. Subhūti declares and confirms: practising thus, he practises no dharma at all, and none can subdue him. Having heard this, Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！若菩薩摩訶薩如是行，為不行色，不行受、想、行、識，為不行四念處乃至八聖道分，為不行內空乃至無法有法空，為不行佛十力乃至一切種智。」 tr. "World-Honored One! If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises thus, he does not practise form, does not practise feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; he does not practise the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path; he does not practise inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; he does not practise the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds." What is listed here is four classes in all: the five aggregates, the limbs of the path, the emptinesses, and the dharmas of the Buddha, from the coarse to the fine, from the worldly to the world-transcending; the intent is to say that 「不行」 tr. "not practising" reaches through everything, not merely not practising worldly dharmas. Why is this? 「是法不可得，亦無行者，亦無行處，亦無行法。」 tr. "This dharma is unfindable; there is also no one who practises, also no place of practice, also no dharma of practice." Three absences stand side by side—no person, no place, no dharma. Then Subhūti passes a judgement himself: 「菩薩摩訶薩如是行，一切世間諸天、人、阿修羅不能降伏。是菩薩摩訶薩，一切聲聞、辟支佛所不能及。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises thus cannot be subdued by any of the gods, humans, and asuras of the world. This bodhisattva-mahāsattva cannot be reached by any śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha." Why can he not be reached? 「所住處無能及故，所謂菩薩位。」 tr. "Because the place where he abides is one no one can reach, namely the bodhisattva's position." The last sentence, 「是菩薩摩訶薩行應薩婆若心，無能及者」 tr. "this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the mind that accords with sarvajñā; there is no one who can reach him", is the close. In this passage one must note: Subhūti turns from raising difficulties to declaring and confirming—he does not go on questioning; he pushes the Buddha's answer to the end and speaks the conclusion himself. This is a turning point in the momentum of the questions and answers of this unit.

11. The Buddha approves, and puts the first question of weighing. The Buddha first seals it with approval: 「須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩如是行，疾近薩婆若。」 tr. "Subhūti! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises thus quickly draws near to sarvajñā." After the approval he turns at once to the weighing of merit. The first question is set extremely high: 「若閻浮提眾生盡得人身，得人身已，皆得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；若有善男子、善女人盡其形壽供養、恭敬、尊重、讚歎，持是善根迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是人以是因緣得福多不？」 tr. "If the beings of Jambudvīpa all obtained a human body, and having obtained a human body all obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; and if a good man or a good woman, for the whole of his or her life, made offerings to them, respected, honoured, and praised them, and dedicated these roots of goodness to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—would this person, by these causes and conditions, obtain much merit or not?" This supposition lifts the object of the offerings to the utmost at a single stroke—it is not making offerings to ordinary people but to people who throughout Jambudvīpa have all obtained awakening; it is not an offering for a moment but for the whole of a lifetime; and after the offering it does not stop at receiving merit, but further 「迴向」 tr. "dedicates" it to awakening. All three layers are at the utmost, precisely to build up force for the 「不如」 tr. "is not as good as" below.

12. Subhūti answers: very much. 「須菩提言：『甚多！世尊！』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘Very much, World-Honored One!’" This answer looks like no more than a sentence said in passing, but it is in fact required by the pattern of weighing—first grant that it is much, and only then say that it is not as good; if it were not first granted, the two Chinese characters 「不如」 tr. "is not as good as" would have nothing to be compared with. In reading texts of this kind, the words of granting must not be treated as a foil and passed over.

13. The Buddha answers that it is not as good as expounding prajñā, and puts the second question of weighing. The Buddha says: 「不如是善男子、善女人於大眾中說是般若波羅蜜，出示、分別，照明、開演，亦應般若波羅蜜行正憶念，其福多。」 tr. "It is not as good as this good man or good woman expounding this prajñāpāramitā in the great assembly—showing it, distinguishing it, illuminating it, and expounding it—and also rightly recollecting in accord with the practice of prajñāpāramitā; that merit is greater." The matter of expounding prajñā is divided here into four items—showing, distinguishing, illuminating, and expounding; and one further matter is added: 「亦應般若波羅蜜行正憶念」 tr. "and also rightly recollecting in accord with the practice of prajñāpāramitā". The four items face others; the last one faces oneself; lacking the last, the one who expounds has himself obtained nothing. It also says 「乃至三千大千世界中眾生，亦如是」 tr. "and so on up to the beings in the three-thousand great-thousand world, it is likewise"—pushing Jambudvīpa out to the three-thousand great-thousand world: the quantity increases once again, but the principle does not change. The second question turns in another direction: it does not compare offerings; it compares teaching and transforming—「教行十善道、四禪、四無量心、四無色定，教令得須陀洹道乃至阿羅漢、辟支佛道，教令得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "teaching them to practise the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, teaching them to obtain the path of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the arhat and the pratyekabuddha path, teaching them to obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Here the ten wholesome paths are the goodness of humans and gods; the four dhyānas and the four formless absorptions are grounds of concentration; the four immeasurable minds are the practice of kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity; from the srota-āpanna up to the pratyekabuddha are the fruits of the two vehicles; and at the last, on up to awakening—from the shallow to the deep, each one taught to completion; it can be called the utmost of teaching and transforming.

14. Subhūti again answers: very much. 「須菩提言：『甚多！世尊！』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘Very much, World-Honored One!’" As in the previous case. Each of the two rounds of weighing has one granting and one taking away, in an even pattern; the granting lies with Subhūti and the taking away with the Buddha, which shows precisely that the weighing is not the Buddha asking himself and judging by himself.

15. The Buddha answers that it is not as good as expounding prajñā—the edge of the fields of merit, the four immeasurable minds, the light of great knowledge, and the simile of the maṇi jewel. This passage is the longest and contains five layers, each of which must be made clear. The first layer is the taking away: 「不如是善男子、善女人以是甚深般若波羅蜜為眾生說，出示、分別，照明、開演，亦不離薩婆若，得福多。」 tr. "It is not as good as this good man or good woman expounding this very deep prajñāpāramitā for beings—showing it, distinguishing it, illuminating it, and expounding it—and also not leaving sarvajñā; the merit obtained is greater." Compared with the previous round it adds the two Chinese characters 「甚深」 tr. "very deep", and changes 「應般若波羅蜜行正憶念」 tr. "rightly recollecting in accord with the practice of prajñāpāramitā" into 「亦不離薩婆若」 tr. "and also not leaving sarvajñā"; the meaning is the same and the wording changes. The second layer explains why: 「是菩薩摩訶薩不遠離應薩婆若心，則到一切福田邊。何以故？除諸佛，無有餘法如菩薩摩訶薩勢力。」 tr. "This bodhisattva-mahāsattva, not being far from the mind that accords with sarvajñā, reaches the edge of all fields of merit. Why? Apart from the buddhas, there is no other dharma with power like the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's." The fields of merit have an edge, and that edge lies in the Buddha; the bodhisattva is next to the Buddha, so it is said that he reaches the edge. The third layer speaks of where his power comes from: 「諸菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，於一切眾生中起大慈心；見諸眾生趣死地故，而起大悲；行是道時歡悅而生大喜；不與想俱，便得大捨。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas practise prajñāpāramitā, they give rise to the mind of great kindness toward all beings; because they see beings heading for the ground of death, they give rise to great compassion; practising this path, they are glad and give rise to great joy; not being together with perception, they then obtain great equanimity." Each of the four minds has a condition from which it arises—kindness takes all beings as its object, compassion takes beings' heading for the ground of death, joy takes the gladness of practising the path, equanimity takes 「不與想俱」 tr. "not being together with perception". Once the four minds are listed, the Buddha sums them up: 「是為菩薩摩訶薩大智光明。大智明者，所謂六波羅蜜。」 tr. "This is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's light of great knowledge. The brightness of great knowledge is namely the six perfections." The fourth layer speaks of his receiving offerings without shame: 「是諸善男子雖未作佛，能為一切眾生作大福田，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提亦不轉」 tr. "though these good men have not yet become buddhas, they can be a great field of merit for all beings, and they also do not turn back from anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; of the clothing, food and drink, bedding, seats, medicine for illness, and whatever is needed to sustain life that they receive, 「念能畢報施主之恩，疾近薩婆若」 tr. "they think of being able to repay in full the kindness of their donors, and quickly draw near to sarvajñā"; from this there are five wishes—「欲不虛食國中施，欲示眾生三乘道，欲為眾生作大明，欲拔出三界牢獄，欲與一切眾生眼」 tr. "wishing not to eat the alms of the country in vain, wishing to show beings the paths of the three vehicles, wishing to be a great light for beings, wishing to pull them out of the prison of the three realms, wishing to give eyes to all beings"—all concluding in 「應常行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "one should constantly practise prajñāpāramitā". The fifth layer speaks of the continuity of the practice: expounding prajñā, recollecting prajñā, practising prajñā, the three matters going round in a cycle, 「不令餘念得生，晝夜勤行般若波羅蜜相應念，不息不休」 tr. "not letting other thoughts arise, day and night diligently practising the thought that accords with prajñāpāramitā, without stopping and without resting". It ends with the maṇi jewel as a simile: the one who obtains it and then loses it again 「常憶念是摩尼珠」 tr. "constantly recollects this maṇi jewel", thinking: ‘How could I suddenly have lost this great treasure!’ The bodhisattva's constant recollection of the mind of sarvajñā is likewise. The point this simile takes is not the preciousness of the treasure but the urgency of the thought after losing it—one who has never lost it does not know how to think of it; therefore it takes the three stages 「未曾得」 tr. "had never obtained it", 「後時得」 tr. "later obtained it", and 「後復失之」 tr. "afterwards lost it again" to build up its force.

16. Subhūti raises a difficulty: the nature of all thoughts is of itself separated and of itself empty. Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！一切念性自離、一切念性自空，云何菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜不離應薩婆若念？是遠離空法中無菩薩，亦無念、無應薩婆若。」 tr. "World-Honored One! The nature of all thoughts is of itself separated; the nature of all thoughts is of itself empty. How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, practising prajñāpāramitā, not leave the thought that accords with sarvajñā? Within this dharma that is far removed and empty there is no bodhisattva, and also no thought, and nothing that accords with sarvajñā." This is the first half of the second layer of difficulty. The difficulty is aimed with great precision: the Buddha has just taught people to 「常憶念」 tr. "constantly recollect", and yet since the self-nature of thought is separated and empty, the one who thinks, what is thought of, and the thought—all three matters—cannot be set up. The last sentence raises three in a single breath—no bodhisattva, no thought, nothing that accords with sarvajñā—exactly the same format as the earlier difficulty's ‘no stain and purity, no awakening, no one who obtains’. One can see that Subhūti's difficulties are not doubts raised word by word as they come; they are an inquiry with a fixed form.

17. The Buddha answers: knowing thus is precisely not leaving the thought of sarvajñā. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「若菩薩摩訶薩如是知一切法性自離、一切法性自空，非聲聞、辟支佛作，亦非佛作；諸法相常住、法相、法住、法位、如、實際，是名菩薩行般若波羅蜜不離薩婆若念。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva knows thus that the nature of all dharmas is of itself separated and the nature of all dharmas is of itself empty, not made by the śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, nor made by the Buddha; that the marks of dharmas abide always—the mark of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the position of dharmas, suchness, the limit of reality—this is called the bodhisattva's practising prajñāpāramitā without leaving the thought of sarvajñā." The way of answering is most wondrous: he does not deny that the nature of thought is of itself separated and of itself empty; instead he sets up 「如是知」 tr. "knowing thus" itself as the thought that does not leave. The one raising the difficulty thought that 「離空」 tr. "separated and empty" and 「不離念」 tr. "not leaving the thought" were two matters that go against each other; the Buddha points out that what is called not leaving the thought of sarvajñā is precisely the matter of knowing that all dharmas are separated and empty. And he adds a sentence to guard against misunderstanding—this separation and this emptiness were not made by anyone: 「非聲聞、辟支佛作，亦非佛作」 tr. "not made by the śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, nor made by the Buddha"; since they are not made, they cannot be destroyed. Last he speaks of the causes and conditions: 「般若波羅蜜性自離、性自空，不增不減故。」 tr. "Because the nature of prajñāpāramitā is of itself separated, its nature is of itself empty, and it neither increases nor decreases." The four Chinese characters ‘neither increase nor decrease’ are laid down in advance for the next passage.

18. Subhūti raises a difficulty again: if its nature is of itself separated and empty, how is one equal to prajñā and obtains awakening? Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！若般若波羅蜜性自離、性自空，云何菩薩摩訶薩與般若波羅蜜等，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If the nature of prajñāpāramitā is of itself separated and its nature is of itself empty, how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, being equal to prajñāpāramitā, obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" This is the second half of the second layer of difficulty. 「等」 tr. "Equal" has the sense of uniting with and matching. The difficulty lies here: a dharma that is separated and empty has nothing that can be united with; since it cannot be united with, the phrase ‘equal to prajñā’ falls empty, and obtaining awakening cannot be spoken of either. The earlier difficulty takes away his thought; this difficulty takes away his obtaining.

19. The Buddha answers: neither increase nor decrease, neither one nor different; one who hears and is not startled abides in the ground of the avaivartika. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「菩薩摩訶薩與般若波羅蜜等，不增不減。何以故？如、法性、實際不增不減故。所以者何？般若波羅蜜非一非異故。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who is equal to prajñāpāramitā neither increases nor decreases. Why? Because suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality neither increase nor decrease. Why is that? Because prajñāpāramitā is neither one nor different." Two layers of causes and conditions: the reason it neither increases nor decreases is that suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality neither increase nor decrease; the reason for that is that prajñā is neither one nor different. 「非一非異」 tr. "Neither one nor different" speaks of prajñā in relation to suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality—to call them one erases their names; to call them different tears apart their substance; therefore both are negated. At the end it turns out a place of testing: 「若菩薩聞如是般若波羅蜜相，不驚、不沒、不畏不怖、不疑。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva hears such a mark of prajñāpāramitā and is not startled, does not sink, is not afraid and not terrified, does not doubt." The five are raised in a row, and all are marks of the mind retreating on hearing a deep dharma. As for one who is able not to retreat—「當知是菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，當知是菩薩摩訶薩必住阿鞞跋致地中」 tr. "know that this bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā; know that this bodhisattva-mahāsattva surely abides in the ground of the avaivartika". This is one place where this unit joins the chapter title: the First Part tests the avaivartika by not craving and not realising in a dream; here he is tested by hearing the deep prajñā and not being startled or terrified—one test is in matters, one test is in principle.

20. The first four of the eleven questions: emptiness, apart from emptiness, prajñā, apart from prajñā. From here on is the third layer of difficulty; the sūtra lays out the eleven questions in a single breath. The first four questions are raised directly on prajñā and emptiness, without passing through particular dharmas. The first question: 「般若波羅蜜空、無所有、不堅固，是行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is empty, without anything existent, not firm—is this practising prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "No, Subhūti!" The second question: 「離空，更有法行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Apart from emptiness, is there some further dharma that practises prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The third question: 「是般若波羅蜜，行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Does this prajñāpāramitā practise prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The fourth question: 「離般若波羅蜜，行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Apart from prajñāpāramitā, does anything practise prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The four questions form two pairs: emptiness and apart from emptiness are one pair, prajñā and apart from prajñā are one pair; each pair is a double dismissal of identity and separation. In reading these four questions, first recognise clearly what is being asked—it is not asking whether prajñā is empty; it is asking whether the matter of 「空」 tr. "emptiness" itself is simply 「行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā". Answering ‘no’ is precisely to cut off the road of taking emptiness as an object to be practised.

21. The next six questions: asking through the particular dharmas one by one. The fifth question asks about form, the sixth about feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness—these two together make up the five aggregates. The seventh asks about the six perfections, the eighth about the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—these two together make up the dharmas that aid the path. The ninth asks about 「色空相、虛誑不實、無所有、不堅固相，色如相、法相、法住、法位、實際」 tr. "the mark of the emptiness of form, the mark of its being false and deceptive and unreal, without anything existent, not firm; the mark of the suchness of form, the mark of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the position of dharmas, the limit of reality", and the tenth extends this to feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—these two questions do not ask about the substance of dharmas; they ask about the mark of emptiness of dharmas, and about suchness and the limit of reality. To all six questions the answer is 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "No, Subhūti!" The order of these six questions forms three layers of itself: first the five aggregates, the sphere contemplated; next the limbs of the path, the practice that contemplates; last suchness and the limit of reality, the principle realised. Sphere, practice, and principle—all three are asked about one by one and none is granted, from which one can see that 「行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā" does not lie in any one of these three. That the sūtra does not tire of dividing form and feeling-perception-constructions-consciousness into two questions, and of joining the string of the mark of emptiness with the string of suchness and the limit of reality into one question, is precisely to make people know that of what is dismissed nothing is left out; it cannot be passed off by naming the general outline.

22. The eleventh, general question: what practice is called practising prajñā? 「世尊！若是諸法皆不行般若波羅蜜，云何行名菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If these dharmas all do not practise prajñāpāramitā, what practice is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practising prajñāpāramitā?" The previous ten questions each asked about one matter; this one question gathers up all of the previous ten. It is asked with great honesty: since the roads have all been cut off, he asks directly where the road is. The position of this question is most important—without this question, the ten answers before would be only a string of negations; with this question, the ten negations become the means of pressing out the right answer.

23. The Buddha answers with four counter-questions. The Buddha does not say directly 「如是行」 tr. "practise thus", but puts four questions in a row. The first question: 「汝見有法行般若波羅蜜者不？」 tr. "Do you see any dharma that practises prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!"—dismissing the dharma that can practise. The second question: 「汝見般若波羅蜜菩薩摩訶薩可行處不？」 tr. "Do you see a place where the bodhisattva-mahāsattva can practise prajñāpāramitā or not?" Answer: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!"—dismissing the place that is practised. The third question: 「汝所不見法，是法可得不？」 tr. "The dharma that you do not see—is this dharma findable or not?" Answer: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!"—dismissing the dharma not seen as still something attained. The fourth question: 「若法不可得，是法當生不？」 tr. "If a dharma is unfindable, should this dharma arise or not?" Answer: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!"—dismissing the unfindable dharma as still due to arise. The order of the four questions gathers along a single road: from the dharma to the place, from the place to the attaining, from the attaining to the arising, and at the last even 「生」 tr. "arising" is not granted. What are called the four answers are these four places where 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!" stands as an answer on its own; in the prediction passage below, the head of Subhūti's answer has one more instance of the same words, but it runs on into the words that follow and does not stand as a sentence on its own, so it is not in this count. One should note the skill of the third question: people often set up, in the place of ‘not seeing’, another ‘dharma that is not seen’ to take as something attained, and the Buddha pursues it with one more question right there.

24. The Buddha passes a verdict: this is called the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. 「須菩提！是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍。」 tr. "Subhūti! This is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas." The joint of the whole unit is here. As for what is called the acceptance of non-arising, the sūtra does not set up a separate definition; it takes the four answers before as its definition—seeing that no dharma practises, that there is no place where it can be practised, that the dharma not seen is unfindable, that the unfindable dharma should not arise—this is acceptance. Three matters follow. First, 「菩薩摩訶薩成就是忍，得受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who accomplishes this acceptance obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; second, 「是名諸佛無所畏、無礙智」 tr. "this is called the fearlessness and unobstructed knowledge of the buddhas"; third, 「菩薩摩訶薩行是法忍，勤精進，若不得大智、一切種智，所謂阿耨多羅三藐三菩提智者，無有是處！」 tr. "if the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises this acceptance of dharmas and diligently exerts himself were not to obtain great knowledge, the omniscience of all kinds, namely the knowledge of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—there is no such possibility!"; and it explains why: 「是菩薩摩訶薩得無生法忍故，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不減不退。」 tr. "Because this bodhisattva-mahāsattva has obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, even up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi he does not decrease and does not retrogress." The order of the three matters cannot be reversed: first the prediction is spoken of, speaking of his position; next fearlessness and unobstructed knowledge, speaking of his being of one substance with the dharmas of the Buddha; last the certainty of obtaining, speaking of his end.

25. Is the prediction obtained in the mark of non-arising, in the mark of arising, in the mark of neither arising nor non-arising? Subhūti, having obtained the name 「無生忍」 tr. "acceptance of non-arising", at once raises questions on this name, three in all. The first question: 「諸法無生相，此中得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "The mark of the non-arising of dharmas—is the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi obtained in this or not?" Answer: 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "No, Subhūti!" The second question: 「諸法生相，此中得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "The mark of the arising of dharmas—is the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi obtained in this or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The third question: 「諸法非生非不生相，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "The mark of dharmas neither arising nor non-arising—is the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi obtained in it or not?" Answer: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" The three questions seal off each place in turn: non-arising, arising, neither arising nor non-arising—in none of the three places is there ground for receiving the prediction. The intent of this passage is very clear—the Buddha has just said 「菩薩摩訶薩成就是忍，得受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who accomplishes this acceptance obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", and people at once take 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" as a real dharma to grasp at, so it must be broken at once.

26. Subhūti asks directly: how does one know the dharma by which the prediction is obtained? 「世尊！諸菩薩摩訶薩云何知諸法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How do the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas know by what dharmas the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is obtained?" It is of the same format as the eleventh, general question: since three roads have been sealed, he asks directly for the right road. This question and the earlier general question mirror each other front and back; it is the second joint in the questions and answers of this unit.

27. The Buddha counter-asks; Subhūti answers that he does not see. The Buddha tells Subhūti: 「汝見有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "Do you see any dharma that obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi or not?" Subhūti answers: 「不也！世尊！我不見有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記，我亦不見法有得者、得處。」 tr. "No, World-Honored One! I do not see any dharma that obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor do I see any dharma that has one who obtains it or a place of obtaining." The answer has two items more than the question—「得者」 tr. "one who obtains it" and 「得處」 tr. "a place of obtaining"; these are the one who acts and that which is acted on of the four counter-questions before, and Subhūti supplies them here himself, which shows that he has already grasped the Buddha's meaning and does not wait for the Buddha to press him again.

28. The Buddha approves: when nothing is attained, he does not think this thought. The Buddha says: 「如是！如是！須菩提！若菩薩摩訶薩於一切法無所得時，不作是念：『我當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，用是事得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提處。』」 tr. "Just so! Just so, Subhūti! When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva has nothing to be attained in all dharmas, he does not think this thought: ‘I shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; by this matter anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is obtained; this is the place of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.’" The thoughts dismissed are also three matters—I shall obtain, by this matter it is obtained, this is the place of awakening; that is, the one who obtains, the cause of obtaining, and the place of obtaining. Last he speaks of the causes and conditions in two layers: 「諸菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，無諸憶想分別」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas who practise prajñāpāramitā have no recollection, imagining, and discrimination", and also 「般若波羅蜜中無諸分別憶想故」 tr. "because within prajñāpāramitā there is no discrimination, recollection, or imagining". The former speaks in terms of the person, the latter in terms of the dharma; the person's freedom from discrimination comes from the dharma's freedom from discrimination. Sūtra ② ends here.

29. The treatise-author's Question: the mark of prajñā has already been spoken of in many ways above; why ask again now? The treatise section opens at once with 「問曰：」 tr. "Question:"—the treatise sections of this chapter do not begin with 「釋曰：」 tr. "Explanation:"; both treatise sections are so, and it is recorded as it is. What is asked: 「上已種種說般若相，今何以更問？」 tr. "The mark of prajñā has already been spoken of in many ways above; why ask again now?" With this question the treatise-author raises a doubt on the reader's behalf: the mark of prajñā has been spoken of in more than one place earlier in the text; why trouble to ask again? He sets up this question precisely to give the answer below something to land on.

30. The treatise-author's Answer: prajñā is foremost and subtle, and one never tires of hearing it. The treatise-author answers: 「般若波羅蜜第一微妙，聞者無厭足，無滿時，無一定相，故不應難。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is foremost and subtle; those who hear it never tire of it, there is no time when they are sated, and it has no single fixed mark; therefore one should not object." The three phrases advance step by step—because it is subtle, those who hear it never tire of it; because they never tire of it, there is no time when they are sated; and the reason there is no time when they are sated is that it has no single fixed mark. Since it has no fixed mark, speaking of it is inexhaustible and asking of it is inexhaustible too; therefore 「不應難」 tr. "one should not object", that is, one should not treat asking again as a fault. He further gives a piece of evidence: 「如十住大菩薩於般若波羅蜜猶未滿足，何況須菩提小乘人！」 tr. "As even the great bodhisattvas of the ten abodes are not yet fulfilled with regard to prajñāpāramitā, how much less Subhūti, a man of the Small Vehicle!" By the unfulfilment of those of the ten abodes he shows the still greater unfulfilment of a man of the Small Vehicle; this is a way of arguing from the high to the low, not a disparagement.

31. Furthermore: above he heard prajñā praised as father and mother, and so he asks again. 「復次，上聞種種讚般若是父、是母等，是故更問。」 tr. "Furthermore, above he heard prajñā praised in many ways as father, as mother, and so on; therefore he asks again." This is the second answer, standing side by side with the first and not obstructing it. The first answer speaks in terms of the substance of prajñā; this answer speaks in terms of the questioner's occasion: at the end of fascicle 76 the Buddha had just praised the six perfections with twelve matters—they are the World-Honored One, are the path, are the great light, are the torch, are knowledge, are wisdom, are the rescue, are the refuge, are the island, are the ultimate path, are father, are mother; having heard such praise, one would naturally seek their substance and mark. The two answers come out together and the treatise-author does not judge which is better; this is precisely the constant method of this treatise.

32. Because of the question, the Buddha speaks at length for the sake of the other beings. 「佛因須菩提問，為餘眾生故，廣說般若波羅蜜相。」 tr. "Because of Subhūti's question, the Buddha, for the sake of the other beings, spoke at length of the mark of prajñāpāramitā." This sentence is the treatise-author's placing of the sūtra text: though the questioner is Subhūti, the intent of the speaker does not stop at Subhūti. Wherever in the sūtras there is one question and the Buddha speaks at length, it should mostly be seen this way—the question is the occasion; the speaking is for the assembly.

33. The explanation of the mark of space. The treatise-author cites the sūtra and explains it: 「須菩提！所謂虛空相是般若波羅蜜相。如虛空無色相、無非色相，般若波羅蜜亦如是無所有相。」 tr. "Subhūti! What is called the mark of space is the mark of prajñāpāramitā. As space has no mark of form and no mark of non-form, prajñāpāramitā likewise is without the mark of anything existent." The whole explanation lies in the seven Chinese characters 「無色相、無非色相」 tr. "no mark of form and no mark of non-form". The reason space serves as the simile is not only its openness but, more, its double negation—it cannot be said to be a mark of form, and it cannot be said to be a mark of non-form either. The prajñā that is without the mark of anything existent is likewise: it cannot be held to be existent, nor can it be held to be non-existent. If one takes only 「如虛空」 tr. "like space" and not this double negation, one easily falls into taking emptiness as a thing.

34. Subhūti asks further; the Buddha answers that there are. 「須菩提更問：『頗有因緣，諸法相如般若相不？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked further: ‘Are there perhaps causes and conditions whereby the mark of all dharmas is like the mark of prajñā, or not?’" Here the treatise-author retells the sūtra's question in narrative form and does not use the 「問曰」 tr. "Question:" format; in reading, one should know that it is a re-citation of the sūtra and not the treatise-author asking himself. 「佛答：『有。一切法究竟空、究竟離相，故說：「如般若波羅蜜相，一切法亦如是。」』」 tr. "The Buddha answered: ‘There are. All dharmas are ultimately empty and ultimately separated from marks; therefore it is said: “As is the mark of prajñāpāramitā, so too are all dharmas.”’" The two Chinese characters 「究竟」 tr. "ultimately" in the answer are the force the treatise-author adds in explaining the sūtra—the sūtra says only ‘separated from marks, of the mark of emptiness’; the treatise uses 「究竟」 tr. "ultimately" to show that it is thorough, meaning that it is not empty in parts nor separated in small measure.

35. Subhūti raises a difficulty: within what is separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness, how are there stain and purity, how is the path obtained? 「須菩提難：『若一切法離相、空相，云何知有垢、淨？云何菩薩得無上道？』」 tr. "Subhūti objected: ‘If all dharmas are separated from marks and of the mark of emptiness, how is it known that there are stain and purity? How does the bodhisattva obtain the unsurpassed path?’" The treatise-author gathers the three layers of difficulty in the sūtra into two questions: stain and purity, and obtaining the path. He gathers them without losing anything, because the third difficulty, 「無有菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 tr. "there is no bodhisattva who obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", is already contained in 「云何菩薩得無上道」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva obtain the unsurpassed path". Here one can see the treatise-author's method of retelling the sūtra: he takes its bones, not its wording.

36. I and mine are ultimately non-existent; root and branch are both empty. The treatise-author first cites the Buddha's counter-question: 「佛告須菩提：『於汝意云何？眾生長夜行我、我所等。』」 tr. "The Buddha told Subhūti: ‘What do you think? Beings through the long night have practised I, mine, and so on.’" He then at once explains its meaning: 「是佛所說義，如我、我所畢竟無，眾生狂顛倒因緣故，生諸煩惱；煩惱因緣故有業；業因緣故，於生死中往來——是事本末空。」 tr. "The meaning of what the Buddha says is this: though I and mine are ultimately non-existent, because of the causes and conditions of their mad inversion beings give rise to the afflictions; because of the causes and conditions of the afflictions there are deeds; because of the causes and conditions of deeds they go and come within birth and death—this matter is empty from root to branch." Here a chain of causes and conditions is laid out: inversion gives rise to the afflictions, the afflictions give rise to deeds, deeds bring about going and coming. And at the end one sentence is passed, 「是事本末空」 tr. "this matter is empty from root to branch"—it does not say that this chain does not hold; it says that it holds and has no self-nature. Why is that? The treatise-author explains it himself: 「我無故，我所心虛誑；我所心虛誑故，諸餘因果展轉法皆是虛誑。」 tr. "Because there is no self, the mind of what belongs to self is false and deceptive; because the mind of what belongs to self is false and deceptive, all the other dharmas of cause and effect that follow one upon another are false and deceptive." False and deceptive does not equal non-existent; what is false and deceptive has the matter but not the reality.

37. Contemplating the five aggregates with real wisdom—as when the sun rises, all darkness is dispelled. 「若因般若波羅蜜實智慧，觀五眾無常、苦、空、無我，離自相，自相空，從本來畢竟不生。」 tr. "If by the real wisdom of prajñāpāramitā one contemplates the five aggregates as impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self, separated from specific marks, empty of specific marks, from the very beginning ultimately non-arising." What is contemplated here is four in all—impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and no-self, all contemplated with regard to the five aggregates; the contemplation reaches 「離自相，自相空」 tr. "separated from specific marks, empty of specific marks", and on to 「從本來畢竟不生」 tr. "from the very beginning ultimately non-arising". Once it is so contemplated, then 「我、我所心則滅；如日出，眾冥皆除」 tr. "the mind of I and mine ceases; as when the sun rises, all darkness is dispelled". The point the sun-rise simile takes lies in ‘not waiting to drive each one out’—once the sun has risen, the darkness has no place to stand; it does not mean that there is some other dharma that removes the dark. What follows goes along with this and lists the order of ceasing: because the mind of I and mine ceases, the other afflictions cease; because the other afflictions cease, the causes and conditions of deeds cease; because the causes and conditions of deeds cease, going and coming within birth and death is cut off; 「是名為淨」 tr. "this is called purity". It stands exactly opposite to the order of arising in the preceding passage—one in forward order, one in reverse, forming a pair.

38. Though the marks of dharmas are all empty, yet by these causes and conditions there are purity and stain. 「雖一切法相皆空，亦以如是因緣故有淨、有垢。」 tr. "Though the marks of all dharmas are all empty, yet by such causes and conditions there are purity and stain." This sentence is the treatise-author's conclusion to the two preceding passages, and also the direct answer to Subhūti's first layer of difficulty: emptiness and stain and purity do not obstruct each other, because what stain and purity rest on is whether causes and conditions are practised or not practised, not the self-nature of dharmas. In reading this sentence one should look back at the Buddha's way of answering in the sūtra—the Buddha answered by asking about the mind of I and mine, and the treatise-author states plainly the principle of that way of answering.

39. Subhūti, having thought it over and weighed it, speaks to the Buddha. 「爾時，須菩提思惟籌量佛語已，白佛言：『世尊！菩薩如是行，實不行色等一切法。何以故？是菩薩不得是法若行、行處、行者。』」 tr. "At that time Subhūti, having considered and reckoned the Buddha's words, said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! The bodhisattva who practises thus really does not practise form or any dharma at all. Why? This bodhisattva does not obtain this dharma, whether as practice, place of practice, or one who practises.’" The treatise-author specially adds the four Chinese characters 「思惟籌量」 tr. "considered and reckoned" to point out that Subhūti's words here are not a response made as soon as he heard, but a declaring and confirming after he has digested it. The three matters raised—practice, place of practice, one who practises—are the sūtra's dharma of practice, place of practice, and one who practises; the order differs a little and the meaning is the same.

40. The explanation of ‘none can subdue him’—clinging to provisional names and practising the real dharma. The treatise-author cites the sūtra's 「若菩薩能如是行，一切人、天世間無能降伏」 tr. "if the bodhisattva can practise thus, no one in the world of humans and gods can subdue him" and explains it in four layers. First, the general judgement: 「世間人皆著假名，是行者行實法，是故不能伏。」 tr. "The people of the world all cling to provisional names; this practitioner practises the real dharma; therefore they cannot subdue him." The one who subdues and the one subdued must stand on the same layer; since what they cling to differs, there is naturally nothing that can be subdued. Second, the extension: 「世間人著一切虛誑顛倒及虛誑果報，是菩薩於畢竟空中尚不著，何況餘法！」 tr. "The people of the world cling to all that is false, deceptive, and inverted, and to false and deceptive retributions; this bodhisattva does not cling even to ultimate emptiness, how much less to other dharmas!" Since he does not cling even to ultimate emptiness, there is not one place where a hand can be laid on him. Third, it divides the sūtra's two sentences: 「天、人、阿修羅世間者，是三種善道中有智慧人」 tr. "the world of gods, humans, and asuras means the people with wisdom in the three good destinies"—this speaks of those who have not obtained the path; 「又復一切聲聞、辟支佛所不能及者，上三善道，據未得道人；此中說得道者不能及」 tr. "and further, as for ‘cannot be reached by any śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha’: the three good destinies above refer to people who have not obtained the path; here it says that those who have obtained the path cannot reach him"—this speaks of those who have already obtained the path. One sentence governs ordinary people, one sentence governs the noble ones; the sūtra's two sentences are not a repetition. Fourth, it speaks of the causes and conditions for his being unreachable: 「菩薩入法位，一切魔、魔所使無能惱者」 tr. "the bodhisattva enters the Dharma-position, and none of the Māras or those Māra employs can trouble him", and also 「是菩薩常行應薩婆若心，則近阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。何以故？不著一切法，常集一切助道法故。」 tr. "This bodhisattva constantly practises the mind that accords with sarvajñā, and so is near to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Why? Because he does not cling to any dharma, and constantly gathers all the dharmas that aid the path." In the last sentence, 「不著」 tr. "does not cling" and 「常集」 tr. "constantly gathers" raised together are most worth savouring—not clinging does not obstruct constantly gathering, and constantly gathering does not obstruct not clinging.

41. The Buddha approves his words and praises him. 「佛可其言而讚。」 tr. "The Buddha approved his words and praised him." With six Chinese characters the treatise-author concludes the passage above, and with six Chinese characters he opens the passage below. Extremely short sentences of this kind are often read hastily in the treatise, but they are in fact the pivots of the sections: Subhūti's declaring and confirming above here obtains the Buddha's approval, and what follows then turns to the weighing that benefits others.

42. First he praises benefit for oneself; now he makes clear benefit for others—the question of weighing. 「佛欲以如是智慧為他人說故，先讚菩薩自利益；今為利益他，分別福德果報故，問須菩提……」 tr. "Because the Buddha wished this wisdom to be spoken for others, he first praised the bodhisattva's benefit for himself; now, for the sake of benefiting others, and to distinguish the retribution of merit, he asks Subhūti …" This sentence fixes the character of the two rounds of weighing: the weighing is not comparing the amount of merit to exhort people to seek merit; it is to show the matter of ‘speaking this wisdom for others’. The sūtra text cited is abbreviated with the four Chinese characters 「如經廣說」 tr. "as the sūtra says at length": 「於汝意云何？閻浮提眾生盡得人身，如經廣說。乃至應薩婆若心，出一切福田之上。」 tr. "What do you think? The beings of Jambudvīpa all obtain a human body—as the sūtra says at length. And so on up to: the mind that accords with sarvajñā goes beyond all fields of merit." That the treatise-author does not record again sūtra text already given in full is a constant practice of this treatise; it is not abridging and leaving unexplained.

43. The edge of the fields of merit—because prajñā cannot be exhausted. 「是中說因緣：『若菩薩能自行般若波羅蜜，亦能教化，是人於一切福田能到其邊。』」 tr. "Here the causes and conditions are spoken: ‘If a bodhisattva can himself practise prajñāpāramitā and can also teach and transform, this person can reach the edge of all fields of merit.’" The treatise-author at once explains the measure of 「福田」 tr. "fields of merit": 「福田者，從須陀洹乃至佛。」 tr. "Fields of merit run from the srota-āpanna up to the Buddha." He also explains why he can reach their edge: 「是菩薩能如所說般若波羅蜜履行，則得作佛。」 tr. "This bodhisattva can walk in prajñāpāramitā as it has been spoken, and so obtains buddhahood." Last he speaks of why it surpasses other merit: 「餘福德善法，離般若波羅蜜故皆盡，般若波羅蜜不可盡故。」 tr. "Other merit and wholesome dharmas are all exhausted because they are apart from prajñāpāramitā; because prajñāpāramitā cannot be exhausted." Exhaustible and inexhaustible are the verdict of this passage. Merit apart from prajñā has a measure, and so it can be exhausted; prajñā is measureless, and so it cannot be exhausted.

44. The causes and conditions of his power—the acceptance of equality and great compassion as the root of the Great Vehicle. 「言無有餘福德如菩薩摩訶薩力勢者，是中自說因緣：『菩薩行般若時，得諸法平等忍；得平等忍故，雖行空，亦能生四無量心。』」 tr. "As for the saying that no other merit has power like the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's, here the causes and conditions are spoken by the sūtra itself: ‘When the bodhisattva practises prajñā, he obtains the acceptance of the equality of all dharmas; because he obtains the acceptance of equality, though he practises emptiness he can also give rise to the four immeasurable minds.’" Here a link is supplied that the sūtra text lacks but that the principle requires: the acceptance of equality. With this acceptance one can 「雖行空，亦能生四無量心」 tr. "though practising emptiness, also give rise to the four immeasurable minds"—the reason emptiness and kindness and compassion do not hinder each other lies precisely here. Among the four immeasurable minds the treatise-author specially marks out one: 「四無量心中，大悲是大乘之本」 tr. "among the four immeasurable minds, great compassion is the root of the Great Vehicle", and he explains its sphere: 「見眾生就於死法，如囚受戮。」 tr. "He sees beings going toward the dharma of death, like a prisoner going to execution." The simile of the prisoner going to execution takes the suffering that is already fixed but has not yet arrived, which an onlooker has no way to bear in his place. He concludes with a turn: 「諸菩薩能生六波羅蜜等乃至一切種智，是故諸菩薩能生大悲。」 tr. "The bodhisattvas can give rise to the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds; therefore the bodhisattvas can give rise to great compassion." One must note the direction of this sentence—it is not that because of great compassion they can give rise to the six perfections; it is that because they can give rise to the six perfections and on up to the omniscience of all kinds, they can give rise to great compassion; when there is the power to save, compassion is then real.

45. Before obtaining the unsurpassed path he is already a field of merit. 「是故是人雖未得無上道，已是一切眾生之福田。」 tr. "Therefore, though this person has not yet obtained the unsurpassed path, he is already the field of merit of all beings." This sentence carries on from the above and sets up a rank: not yet a Buddha, and yet already fit to receive offerings. The First Part's fascicle said that Māra deceives the bodhisattva with ‘you have already received the prediction’ and makes him give rise to pride; here it says that there really is virtue fit for this without waiting for the prediction. Only when the two places are read side by side does one know that this sentence is not self-approval.

46. One who would not eat the alms of the country emptily should train in prajñā. 「是故言：『菩薩摩訶薩若欲不空食國中施者，當學般若波羅蜜。』」 tr. "Therefore it is said: ‘If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva wishes not to eat the alms of the country emptily, he should train in prajñāpāramitā.’" The treatise-author cites the sūtra and takes the three Chinese characters 「不空食」 tr. "not eating emptily" as his heading. The sūtra writes 「不虛食」 tr. "not eating in vain"; the treatise-author writes 「不空食」 tr. "not eating emptily"; ‘in vain’ and ‘emptily’ are interchangeable wording, with no difference in meaning. This heading brings the meaning of the field of merit spoken of above down onto the one who receives offerings.

47. The meaning of not eating emptily—he can repay the donor, and can make the donor's merit inexhaustible. 「不空食名能報施主，能生道，能令施主之福無盡，乃至入涅槃。」 tr. "Not eating emptily means he can repay the donor, can give rise to the path, and can make the donor's merit inexhaustible, even up to entering nirvāṇa." Three matters stand side by side: repaying the donor speaks in terms of the receiver; giving rise to the path speaks in terms of the Dharma; making the donor's merit inexhaustible speaks in terms of the giver. The three run through as one—when the receiver can give rise to the path, the giver's merit is then inexhaustible; if the receiver has no path, the giver's merit has a measure and can be exhausted. This passage is the right understanding of the phrase 「不空食」 tr. "not eating emptily"; it must not be read only as the receiver's own sense of shame.

48. Showing the paths of the three vehicles, being a great light, pulling out of the four bonds, giving the five eyes—the thought that accords with it is the mind of prajñā. 「若示眾生三乘道，為眾生示一切智大明，亦欲拔出三界獄中四縛，欲令眾生得五眼，應常行般若波羅蜜相應念。」 tr. "If he would show beings the paths of the three vehicles, show beings the great light of omniscience, and also wishes to pull them out of the four bonds in the prison of the three realms, and wishes to make beings obtain the five eyes, he should constantly practise the thought that accords with prajñāpāramitā." Here 「三界獄中四縛」 tr. "the four bonds in the prison of the three realms" and 「五眼」 tr. "the five eyes" are both words the treatise-author uses in explaining the sūtra: the sūtra says 「拔出三界牢獄」 tr. "pull out of the prison of the three realms" and 「與一切眾生眼」 tr. "give eyes to all beings"; the treatise-author uses the four bonds to speak of what binds them and the five eyes to speak of what is given—this explains the treatise from its own text and does not cite another account; only, the treatise-author here merely raises the names of the four bonds and the five eyes and does not give their items, nor are their items found elsewhere in this unit, and they are not forcibly supplied here. The last sentence is the most important: 「相應念者，即是般若心。若行般若波羅蜜心；若有所說，但說般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The thought that accords with it is the mind of prajñā. Either he practises the mind of prajñāpāramitā, or, if he has something to say, he says only prajñāpāramitā." He explains the sūtra's 「相應念」 tr. "the thought that accords with it" directly as 「般若心」 tr. "the mind of prajñā"; the two matters of speech and silence in the next passage come out of this.

49. The Buddha commands his disciples constantly to practise two matters. 「佛勅弟子，若和合共住，常行二事：一者、賢聖默然，二者、說法。」 tr. "The Buddha commanded his disciples, when they live together in harmony, constantly to practise two matters: first, the noble silence of the worthies and sages; second, speaking the Dharma." These two matters are the treatise-author citing the Buddha's standing rule to explain the preceding sentence. The number of two matters is not in the sūtra; the treatise-author raises it himself, and its items too are listed by the treatise-author himself—silence and speaking the Dharma; no item is added beyond these. In reading this passage one must know that what is cited is the observance of the Saṅgha living together, and the treatise-author takes it to match the speech and silence of prajñā.

50. The noble silence of the worthies and sages and speaking the Dharma—going out of and into prajñā, and not letting other minds enter. 「『賢聖默然』者，是般若心；『說法』者，說般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "‘The noble silence of the worthies and sages’ is the mind of prajñā; ‘speaking the Dharma’ is speaking prajñāpāramitā." Once the two matters have been matched, the treatise-author speaks of their cycle: 「是人從般若心出，說般若波羅蜜；說般若波羅蜜已，還入般若中，不令餘心、餘語得入。晝夜常行，是不休不息。」 tr. "This person comes out of the mind of prajñā and speaks prajñāpāramitā; having spoken prajñāpāramitā, he enters back into prajñā, not letting other minds or other words enter. Practising it constantly day and night, this is without resting and without stopping." Coming out and speaking, speaking and entering back—this is one going and one returning; what is guarded lies in the one sentence 「不令餘心、餘語得入」 tr. "not letting other minds or other words enter". At the end it says 「如是得先所說功德」 tr. "thus he obtains the merit spoken of before", pointing back to the merit listed earlier, which shows that the two matters of speech and silence are not a separate gate of practice.

51. The simile of the poor man who loses a treasure. 「佛欲令是事明了，故說譬喻：『如貧人失大價寶，常念不離。菩薩亦如是不離薩婆若心，常行般若波羅蜜，不休不息。』」 tr. "The Buddha, wishing to make this matter clear, therefore spoke a simile: ‘As a poor man who has lost a treasure of great price constantly thinks of it and never leaves it, so the bodhisattva likewise does not leave the mind of sarvajñā, constantly practising prajñāpāramitā without resting and without stopping.’" The sūtra has a man who obtains a maṇi jewel and loses it again; the treatise-author has a poor man who loses a treasure of great price—the point taken is the same, both lying in the urgency of the thought after the loss; and in changing 「士夫」 tr. "a man" into 「貧人」 tr. "a poor man" the treatise-author shows still more that what he loses is bound up with his body and life. The intent of this simile is not to teach people to grieve, but to teach them that the thought needs no forcing: one who truly knows it for a great treasure and has lost it thinks of it without being urged.

52. Subhūti raises a difficulty: all thoughts are empty; how does he not leave the thought of sarvajñā? 「爾時，須菩提聞是事，白佛言：『世尊！若一切諸念空，云何菩薩不離薩婆若念？空中，菩薩不可得，薩婆若亦不可得。』」 tr. "At that time Subhūti, hearing this matter, said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! If all thoughts are empty, how does the bodhisattva not leave the thought of sarvajñā? Within emptiness the bodhisattva is unfindable, and sarvajñā is also unfindable.’" The treatise-author retells the sūtra's difficulty, still in narrative form. What are named as unfindable are two—the bodhisattva and sarvajñā; compared with the sūtra's three matters it lacks one, 「念」 tr. "thought", but the Buddha's answer below speaks precisely of the self-nature of thought, so nothing is lost.

53. The Buddha answers: to know that all dharmas are separated from self-nature, that the mark of dharmas, suchness, and the limit of reality abide always in the world. 「佛答：『若菩薩知一切法離自性，非聲聞、辟支佛所作，亦非佛所作，自從因緣出；諸法法相、如、實際常住世間，即是菩薩不離般若波羅蜜行。』」 tr. "The Buddha answered: ‘If the bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are separated from self-nature, not made by the śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, nor made by the Buddha, but come forth of themselves from causes and conditions; that the mark of dharmas of all dharmas, suchness, and the limit of reality abide always in the world—this is the bodhisattva's practice that does not leave prajñāpāramitā.’" Beyond the sūtra text the treatise-author supplies one phrase, 「自從因緣出」 tr. "come forth of themselves from causes and conditions"—the sūtra says only that they are not made by the two vehicles and not made by the Buddha; the treatise points out where they come from: they come forth from causes and conditions. Not made, and coming from conditions—this is precisely the constant way this treatise explains emptiness. The four Chinese characters 「常住世間」 tr. "abide always in the world" also deserve attention: what abides always is the mark of dharmas, suchness, and the limit of reality, not some one dharma; to read it as some permanently abiding thing existing in the world would be a great error.

54. The Buddha himself speaks the causes and conditions: because it is empty and separated, it neither increases nor decreases. 「佛自說因緣：『般若波羅蜜空故、離故，不增不減。』」 tr. "The Buddha himself spoke the causes and conditions: ‘Because prajñāpāramitā is empty and separated, it neither increases nor decreases.’" The treatise-author uses 「自說因緣」 tr. "himself spoke the causes and conditions" to point out that this sentence is the reason given by the sūtra text itself, not added by the treatise-author. The reason it neither increases nor decreases lies in emptiness and separation—if it had self-nature, there would be ground for increasing and decreasing.

55. Subhūti asks again: if its nature is empty, how does one unite with prajñā and obtain the unsurpassed path? 「須菩提聞是，復問佛：『若般若波羅蜜性空，云何菩薩與般若合得無上道？』」 tr. "Subhūti, hearing this, asked the Buddha again: ‘If the nature of prajñāpāramitā is empty, how does the bodhisattva unite with prajñā and obtain the unsurpassed path?’" The treatise-author changes the sūtra's 「等」 tr. "equal" into 「合」 tr. "unite"—‘equal’ is matching, ‘unite’ is according; the meanings reach each other. This question is the retelling in the treatise section of the second half of the second layer of difficulty.

56. The Buddha answers following his words: prajñā is suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality. 「佛隨須菩提語：『若菩薩與般若波羅蜜合，則不增不減；諸法如、法性、實際不增不減故，般若波羅蜜不增不減。』」 tr. "The Buddha, following Subhūti's words, said: ‘If the bodhisattva unites with prajñāpāramitā, then there is neither increase nor decrease; because the suchness of dharmas, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality neither increase nor decrease, prajñāpāramitā neither increases nor decreases.’" The five Chinese characters 「隨須菩提語」 tr. "following Subhūti's words" are the treatise-author pointing out the Buddha's way of answering—he answers in the very words of the question and does not set up new names. After the answer the treatise-author himself adds a turn: 「般若波羅蜜，即是諸法如、法性、實際；如、法性、實際，即是般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is the suchness of dharmas, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality; suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are prajñāpāramitā." The two sentences point to each other; they state plainly the relation of identity contained in the character 「故」 tr. "because" of the sūtra text.

57. The explanation of neither one nor different—worldly dharmas are either one or two; prajñā is not so. 「此中佛自說因緣：『如如等三法非一非異，般若亦如是。』」 tr. "Here the Buddha himself speaks the causes and conditions: ‘As the three dharmas, suchness and the rest, are neither one nor different, so too is prajñā.’" The treatise-author at once illustrates it by the reckoning of the world: 「世間法，非一即是二，不異即是一；般若波羅蜜則不爾。」 tr. "Worldly dharmas, if not one, are two; if not different, are one; prajñāpāramitā is not so." One and two, one and different—on worldly dharmas these are an exhaustive division into two; prajñā goes beyond this division, and so it is called 「無量無邊」 tr. "measureless and boundless". He concludes with three phrases: 「空、無相、無作故不增不減；若菩薩得是不增不減，則能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Because of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, it neither increases nor decreases; if the bodhisattva obtains this neither-increase-nor-decrease, then he can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." That the three gates of liberation appear here is precisely to say where neither increase nor decrease comes from; it is not setting up a separate section.

58. Hearing this, he penetrates without obstruction—because the mark of self is severed, he has nothing to fear. 「若菩薩聞是事，通達無礙、入佛智慧，雖未作佛，信力故於佛法中亦無疑，不怖、不畏。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva hears this matter, he penetrates it without obstruction and enters the wisdom of the Buddha; though he has not yet become a Buddha, by the power of faith he has no doubt with regard to the Buddha's Dharma, and is not terrified and not afraid." The treatise-author specially marks out the two Chinese characters 「信力」 tr. "the power of faith"—that one can be without doubt before becoming a Buddha is not because one has already realised, but because the power of faith upholds one. He further explains why he has nothing to fear: 「凡夫著我心故有畏，是菩薩我相斷故無所畏。」 tr. "Ordinary people have fear because they cling to the mind of self; this bodhisattva has nothing to fear because the mark of self is severed." The root of fear is in the self; sever the self, and fear has nowhere to arise from. At the end it says: 「當知是菩薩即住阿鞞跋致地，亦能正行般若。」 tr. "Know that this bodhisattva abides in the ground of the avaivartika, and can also rightly practise prajñā." This corresponds to the sūtra's words of testing, and also reflects back on the 「不證」 tr. "not realising" of the chapter title—not being startled and not terrified, and not taking realisation in a dream, are one and the same ground of mind.

59. The explanation of the eleven questions, the first: is the mark of emptiness practising prajñā? 「須菩提聞是菩薩正行般若波羅蜜，是故問佛：『世尊！般若波羅蜜觀一切空、不牢固，是空相為行般若不？』」 tr. "Subhūti heard that this bodhisattva rightly practises prajñāpāramitā, and therefore asked the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! Prajñāpāramitā contemplates everything as empty and not solid—is this mark of emptiness practising prajñā or not?’" The treatise-author first gives the reason for the question—because he heard 「正行般若」 tr. "rightly practises prajñā", he asks what practising is. 「佛言：『不也！』何以故？若空無有法，云何行般若？」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘No!’ Why? If in emptiness there is no dharma, how is prajñā practised?" What follows 「何以故」 tr. "Why?" is the treatise-author explaining the reason for the Buddha's answer, not the Buddha's words; in reading, they should be kept apart. The reason explained is very simple: since there is no dharma in emptiness, there is no one who can practise.

60. The second: apart from emptiness, is there some further dharma that practises prajñā? 「『離是空，更有法行般若不？』佛言：『不也！』何以故？若一切法空、無相、無作，云何離空更有法？是故說『不』。」 tr. "‘Apart from this emptiness, is there some further dharma that practises prajñā or not?’ The Buddha said: ‘No!’ Why? If all dharmas are emptiness, the signless, and non-action, how could there be some further dharma apart from emptiness? Therefore he says ‘no’." The treatise-author's explanation still dismisses the question as it is put: since all dharmas are empty, signless, and of non-action, in the place of 「離空」 tr. "apart from emptiness" there is no dharma that can be set up. These two questions, one of identity and one of separation, correspond to the first pair among the first four questions of the sūtra.

61. The third: does prajñā practise prajñā?—a dharma does not practise itself. 「須菩提聞空非行般若、離空非行般若，一切法皆攝在般若中，今但問：『般若行般若不？』」 tr. "Subhūti heard that emptiness is not practising prajñā, and that apart from emptiness is not practising prajñā; all dharmas are contained in prajñā; now he asks only: ‘Does prajñā practise prajñā or not?’" The treatise-author first describes the momentum of his turning the question: once the two roads are cut off, he asks about prajñā itself. He explains: 「法不自行，應以異法行，是故言『不』。」 tr. "A dharma does not practise itself; it should be practised by a different dharma; therefore it is said ‘no’." Four Chinese characters make the verdict—「法不自行」 tr. "a dharma does not practise itself". This is a general rule, not only for prajñā; the explanations of the five aggregates and of the dharmas that aid the path below all come out of it.

62. The fourth: apart from prajñā, is there some further dharma that practises prajñā? 「復問：『離般若，更有法行般若不？』佛言：『不。』何以故？一切法攝在般若中，更無法行般若。」 tr. "He asked again: ‘Apart from prajñā, is there some further dharma that practises prajñā or not?’ The Buddha said: ‘No.’ Why? All dharmas are contained in prajñā; there is no further dharma that practises prajñā." Since the previous passage has said that a dharma does not practise itself and should be practised by a different dharma, someone is bound to ask: then where is the different dharma? This question is exactly that. The answer lies in 「一切法攝在般若中」 tr. "all dharmas are contained in prajñā"—since there is no dharma outside prajñā, the so-called different dharma does not exist either. The first four questions end here.

63. The fifth: do the five aggregates practise prajñā? 「先來略問行般若者，今問名字因緣：『五眾行般若不？』」 tr. "Before, he asked in brief about the one who practises prajñā; now he asks about the causes and conditions of the name: ‘Do the five aggregates practise prajñā or not?’" The treatise-author points out the turn in the questioning—the first four questions were brief questions; from here on he asks about what the name rests on. What is called the causes and conditions of the name means that a person is only a provisional name for the coming together of the five aggregates. 「佛言：『不。』何以故？是五眾從虛誑和合因緣，不自在故，無住相，云何能行？」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘No.’ Why? These five aggregates come from false and deceptive causes and conditions coming together; because they are not independent, they have no abiding mark; how could they practise?" Three matters serve as the explanation: false and deceptive coming together, not being independent, having no abiding mark. Having no abiding mark is especially important—practice must have abiding before it has somewhere to proceed from; without abiding there is no such thing as practice.

64. The sixth: do the six perfections and the other dharmas that aid the path practise prajñā? 「須菩提更問：『若菩薩假名字空不實故不行般若，今六波羅蜜等諸助道法行般若波羅蜜不？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked further: ‘If the bodhisattva does not practise prajñā because the provisional name is empty and unreal, do the six perfections and the other dharmas that aid the path now practise prajñāpāramitā or not?’" The questioning turns again: since the person cannot practise, can the dharmas practise? 「佛言：『不。』何以故？如五眾和合有故不能行，是諸法亦如是。」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘No.’ Why? As the five aggregates cannot practise because they exist by coming together, so too are these dharmas." Taking the five aggregates as the example for all dharmas—whatever exists by coming together falls under this same verdict. Here one can see that in explaining the sūtra the treatise-author does not set up a new principle item by item, but runs one principle through them all.

65. The seventh: do the mark of emptiness of form and the other dharmas, and suchness and the limit of reality, practise prajñā? 「『色等法空相、不牢固，如、法相、法位、法住、實際，是法行般若不？』佛答：『是法無為法，不生不滅，常住自性故不行。』」 tr. "‘The mark of emptiness of form and the other dharmas, their not being solid, suchness, the mark of dharmas, the position of dharmas, the abiding of dharmas, the limit of reality—do these dharmas practise prajñā or not?’ The Buddha answered: ‘These dharmas are unconditioned dharmas, neither arising nor ceasing, abiding always in their self-nature; therefore they do not practise.’" The previous two questions dismissed the conditioned dharmas that come together; this question dismisses the unconditioned—suchness and the limit of reality. The reason they do not practise changes—it is not falseness and having no abiding; it is 「不生不滅，常住自性」 tr. "neither arising nor ceasing, abiding always in their self-nature"; since there is no arising and ceasing, there is nothing that can be called practice. The conditioned does not practise because it has no abiding; the unconditioned does not practise because it has no change; both roads are cut off. The explanation of the sūtra's ten questions ends here.

66. The general question: who is it that practises prajñā? 「須菩提問佛：『世尊！假名字故，人不行；諸法亦和合因緣生、無自性故亦不行，誰當行般若？若不行，云何得無上道？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! Because it is a provisional name, the person does not practise; dharmas too, because they arise from causes and conditions coming together and have no self-nature, also do not practise; who then is it that practises prajñā? If there is no practising, how is the unsurpassed path obtained?’" The treatise-author retells the sūtra's eleventh, general question more plainly—the sūtra asks only 「云何行名菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "what practice is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practising prajñāpāramitā"; the treatise asks directly 「誰當行般若」 tr. "who then is it that practises prajñā", and adds a sentence, 「若不行，云何得無上道」 tr. "if there is no practising, how is the unsurpassed path obtained". With both roads, person and dharma, cut off, he asks where the practitioner is.

67. The Buddha answers with a counter-question. 「今佛以反問答：『於汝意云何？』」 tr. "Now the Buddha answers with a counter-question: ‘What do you think?’" The treatise-author first points out that the way of answering is a counter-question, and then says why the Buddha uses a counter-question: 「須菩提從佛急求行般若者，是故佛問：『汝以慧眼見，定有一法行般若不？』」 tr. "Subhūti urgently sought from the Buddha the one who practises prajñā; therefore the Buddha asked: ‘Do you see with the wisdom-eye that there is definitely a dharma that practises prajñā, or not?’" The two Chinese characters 「急求」 tr. "urgently sought" are set down with great precision—the questioner has already presupposed in his mind that there must be a practitioner who can be pointed to; the Buddha does not expound the Dharma to him head-on, but only makes him go and look for himself. What is asked is further limited to the two matters 「慧眼」 tr. "the wisdom-eye" and 「定有」 tr. "definitely there is": not by the fleshly eye or the divine eye, and no definite dharma is allowed.

68. Subhūti answers from the three gates of liberation that he does not see. 「須菩提因三解脫門入諸法實相中，法相不可得，何況行者！是故答言：『世尊！不見有行般若者。』」 tr. "Subhūti, by the three gates of liberation, has entered the real mark of all dharmas; the mark of dharmas is unfindable, how much less one who practises! Therefore he answered: ‘World-Honored One! I do not see anyone who practises prajñā.’" The treatise-author explains why he can answer—not by inference, but by entering the real mark through the three gates of liberation. 「法相不可得，何況行者」 tr. "the mark of dharmas is unfindable, how much less one who practises" argues from the heavy to the light: the dharma relied on is still unfindable; the person who relies on it can still less be spoken of.

69. He asks again about the place of practice; the answer is that he does not see it—all contemplations cease. 「復問：『汝見是般若波羅蜜菩薩行處不？』須菩提答：『不見。』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘Do you see the place where the bodhisattva practises this prajñāpāramitā or not?’ Subhūti answered: ‘I do not see it.’" The one asking here is the Buddha. The treatise-author explains why he does not see it: 「般若波羅蜜中一切諸觀滅：若常若無常、若生滅等，無一法定相是般若，云何當說是般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "Within prajñāpāramitā all contemplations cease: whether permanent or impermanent, whether arising and ceasing, and so on—no dharma with a fixed mark is prajñā; how then could one say, ‘this is prajñāpāramitā’?" What ceases is 「觀」 tr. "contemplation"—every discriminating contemplation, permanent and impermanent, arising and ceasing, and so on. Because contemplation ceases there is no fixed mark to point to; because there is no fixed mark there is no place to practise.

70. He asks again whether the dharma not seen exists or does not exist—the wisdom-eye is real; the fleshly eye and the divine eye are false and deceptive. 「復問：『若汝以智慧眼不見法，是不見法為有為無？』答言：『無。』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘If you do not see a dharma with the eye of wisdom, does this dharma that is not seen exist or not exist?’ He answered: ‘It does not exist.’" The treatise-author explains it: 「佛說智慧眼實，肉眼、天眼虛誑；須菩提以慧眼觀，不見，故言無。」 tr. "The Buddha says that the eye of wisdom is real, and the fleshly eye and the divine eye are false and deceptive; Subhūti contemplated with the wisdom-eye and did not see, therefore he said it does not exist." Here a criterion is given: only by knowing with which eye one contemplates are one's words settled. Only what the wisdom-eye does not see can be said not to exist; to say that something does not exist because the fleshly eye or the divine eye does not see it is no ground. This passage is often read as the treatise-author disparaging the fleshly eye and the divine eye; in fact what is disparaged is the way of taking realisation that uses those two eyes as evidence.

71. He asks again whether this dharma arises—idle discourse has already ceased. 「復問：『若法無、不可得，是法有生不？』答言：『不生。』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘If a dharma does not exist and is unfindable, does this dharma arise or not?’ He answered: ‘It does not arise.’" The treatise-author explains: 「是法本自無、畢竟空、無所有，是法有、無等戲論已滅，云何有生？」 tr. "This dharma is by origin of itself non-existent, ultimately empty, without anything existent; the idle discourse of this dharma's existing, not existing, and so on has already ceased; how could there be arising?" 「有、無等戲論已滅」 tr. "The idle discourse of existing, not existing, and so on has already ceased" is the key point: not only is it not granted to exist, it is not granted not to exist either; when existence and non-existence have both ceased, the question of arising has nowhere to be placed. With this, the sūtra's four counter-questions have each been explained in the treatise section.

72. The Buddha tells Subhūti: this is called the acceptance of non-arising—it is said by way of worldly dharma, not in the highest meaning. 「佛語須菩提：『若菩薩於是法中通達無疑，信力、智慧力故，能住是法中，是名無生忍。』」 tr. "The Buddha told Subhūti: ‘If the bodhisattva penetrates this dharma without doubt, and by the power of faith and the power of wisdom can abide in this dharma, this is called the acceptance of non-arising.’" To the sūtra's 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas" the treatise-author adds two powers—the power of faith and the power of wisdom; what makes abiding possible lies here. The two turns that follow are the most important. The first: 「五眾中假名菩薩，得如是法，是名行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The provisionally named bodhisattva within the five aggregates, obtaining such a dharma—this is called practising prajñāpāramitā." The one who can practise prajñā turns out to be precisely the provisionally named bodhisattva within the five aggregates—the text before has dismissed both roads, person and dharma; here it returns the provisional name to him; this is not reversing the verdict; it is saying that the subject of practice lies only in the provisional name and not in a real dharma. The second: 「世俗法故說，非第一義；第一義中，諸戲論語言即是無生。」 tr. "It is said by way of worldly dharma, not in the highest meaning; in the highest meaning, all words of idle discourse are themselves non-arising." The words 「是名無生忍」 tr. "this is called the acceptance of non-arising" are themselves a worldly way of speaking; in the highest meaning, even setting up this name is idle discourse, and the very nature of idle discourse is non-arising. At the end it says 「得是無生忍，便受無上道記」 tr. "obtaining this acceptance of non-arising, he then receives the prediction of the unsurpassed path", which leads into the next passage.

73. With single-minded diligent vigour he surely obtains it—the body born of the Dharma-nature and the last body. 「佛言：『若菩薩一心勤精進，不休不息，隨無生忍行，不得是大智慧、無上智慧、一切智，無有是處！』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘If the bodhisattva, single-mindedly and diligently exerting himself without resting and without stopping, practises in accord with the acceptance of non-arising, and does not obtain this great wisdom, unsurpassed wisdom, omniscience—there is no such possibility!’" The treatise-author explains the principle of this certainty, citing a sūtra as ground: 「如經說：『若無因無緣則無果報，邪因緣亦無果報，因緣少亦無果報。』」 tr. "As a sūtra says: ‘If there is no cause and no condition, there is no retribution; with wrong causes and conditions there is also no retribution; with scant causes and conditions there is also no retribution.’" The three sentences show one meaning by its reverse—when right causes and conditions are complete, there is surely retribution. Since there is this rule, the order that follows is clear of itself: the one who obtains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas 「捨是生死肉身，得法性生身，住菩薩果報神通中，一時能作無量變化身，淨佛世界、度脫眾生」 tr. "gives up this fleshly body within birth and death and obtains the body born of the Dharma-nature; abiding in the supernormal powers that are the bodhisattva's retribution, he can at one time make immeasurable transformation bodies, purify buddha-worlds, and deliver beings"; going further, 「是人末後身具足佛法，坐道場」 tr. "this person in his last body fulfils the dharmas of a Buddha and sits at the seat of awakening". It concludes: 「具足正因緣，若不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無有是處！所以者何？是人得無生忍法，一心直進，無有廢退故。」 tr. "With the right causes and conditions complete, that he should not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—there is no such possibility! Why is that? Because this person has obtained the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising and goes straight forward single-mindedly, with no giving up and no retrogression." The bone of the whole passage lies in the three Chinese characters 「正因緣」 tr. "right causes and conditions": it does not rely on the power of the vow, does not rely on a response from above; it is that when causes and conditions are complete, the retribution follows of necessity.

74. The marks of one who has not obtained the acceptance of non-arising—the simile of travelling by land and riding a boat, and the question of the prediction raised. 「菩薩未得無生法忍，深著世間法，諸煩惱厚，雖有福德善心，軟薄不進故，為煩惱所遮；得無生忍法，無復是事。」 tr. "The bodhisattva who has not obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas clings deeply to worldly dharmas, and his afflictions are thick; though he has merit and a wholesome mind, because it is soft and thin and does not advance, he is blocked by the afflictions; when he obtains the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, this is so no longer." First the illness of not having obtained it is made clear: clinging, thickness, softness and thinness. Next the simile is set up: 「未得無生忍法，用力艱難，譬如陸行；得無生法忍已，用力甚易，譬如乘船。」 tr. "Before obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, effort is arduous, as in travelling by land; having obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, effort is very easy, as in riding a boat." The point the simile of travelling by land and riding a boat takes lies in the difficulty or ease of the effort, not in the distance of the road; both are travelling, but what they rely on differs. Having made clear how precious it is—「是故無生法忍，諸菩薩所貴」 tr. "therefore the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas is what the bodhisattvas prize"—he then brings out the question: 「以是貴故，須菩提問：『世尊！得無生法故受記？』」 tr. "Because it is so prized, Subhūti asked: ‘World-Honored One! Is it because one obtains the dharma of non-arising that one receives the prediction?’" The treatise-author says plainly that the motive of this question lies in 「貴」 tr. "prizing": because it is precious, he wishes to grasp it as the ground of receiving the prediction. The three rounds of 「不」 tr. "no" below are all to cut this off.

75. The Buddha says no—the dharma of non-arising has no mark of attaining. 「佛言：『不也！』何以故？無生法不生不滅、無得相，云何因是受記？」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘No!’ Why? The dharma of non-arising neither arises nor ceases and has no mark of attaining; how could one receive the prediction because of it?" What is dismissed is not the dharma of non-arising but 「因是受記」 tr. "receiving the prediction because of it"—this 「因」 tr. "because of". Since the dharma of non-arising has no mark of attaining, it cannot serve as the ground relied on. This counters exactly the motive of Subhūti in the preceding passage.

76. He asks again whether the prediction is obtained by an arising dharma—an arising dharma is false and deceptive, false speech. 「復問：『生法得記耶？』佛言：『不得。』何以故？生法虛誑妄語、作法，云何得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提真實法？」 tr. "He asked again: ‘Is the prediction obtained by an arising dharma?’ The Buddha said: ‘It is not obtained.’ Why? An arising dharma is false and deceptive, false speech, a made dharma; how could it obtain the true and real dharma of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" The arising dharma is judged three ways: false and deceptive, false speech, a made dharma. The reason it does not obtain is that the false and deceptive cannot bring about the true and real; this speaks of the two ends not matching each other, not setting up a separate principle.

77. He asks again whether the prediction is received by arising-and-non-arising—both have a fault. 「復問：『生不生得受記不？』佛言：『不也！』何以故？此二俱有過故。」 tr. "He asked again: ‘Is the prediction received by arising and non-arising or not?’ The Buddha said: ‘No!’ Why? Because both of these have a fault." The treatise-author passes only a six-character verdict: 「此二俱有過故。」 tr. "Because both of these have a fault." He does not explain further, because the two previous rounds have each already brought out its fault—holding to non-arising has the fault of non-arising, holding to arising has the fault of arising; raise them together and both faults are present, without needing to be said again. The brevity of this passage shows precisely the fullness of the two before it.

78. He asks again how the prediction is to be given—the Buddha counter-asks. 「復問：『世尊！若爾者，云何當授記？』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘World-Honored One! If that is so, how is the prediction to be given?’" It is of the same format as the earlier 「誰當行般若」 tr. "who then is it that practises prajñā": three roads having been sealed, he asks directly for the right road. 「佛反問：『汝以慧眼觀，見有法與菩薩授記不？』」 tr. "The Buddha counter-asked: ‘Contemplating with the wisdom-eye, do you see any dharma that gives the bodhisattva the prediction, or not?’" The way of answering is also the same as before—again by the wisdom-eye, again with 「見有法」 tr. "do you see any dharma" as the question. The two counter-questions, earlier and later, stand facing each other: one asks about practice, one asks about the prediction; one dismisses the practitioner, one dismisses the receiver of the prediction.

79. He answers that he does not see—it is quiescent from the beginning, and here the sūtra itself speaks the causes and conditions. 「答言：『不見。』何以故？是法從本已來寂滅相，是中無見不見、授記不授記，亦不見阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無得法、亦無得者。」 tr. "He answered: ‘I do not see it.’ Why? This dharma from the beginning has been of the mark of quiescence; within it there is no seeing or not seeing, no giving the prediction or not giving the prediction; nor does one see anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and there is also no dharma obtained and also no one who obtains." What is dismissed is fourfold: seeing and not seeing, giving the prediction and not giving the prediction, the awakening that is obtained, the person who can obtain. With the four dismissed, the treatise-author points out that the sūtra has its own causes and conditions: 「此中自說因緣：『般若波羅蜜無是憶想分別。』」 tr. "Here the sūtra itself speaks the causes and conditions: ‘Prajñāpāramitā has no such recollection, imagining, and discrimination.’" With the four Chinese characters 「自說因緣」 tr. "itself speaks the causes and conditions" he attributes it to the sūtra and does not claim it as his own account.

80. The treatise-author's Question: why does the Buddha still answer with the principle of non-arising? The treatise-author asks: 「須菩提上問『菩薩得無生忍故受記』，佛言『不』；佛何以還以無生理答，所謂『菩薩行般若時，無一切憶想分別』？」 tr. "Above, Subhūti asked, ‘the bodhisattva receives the prediction because he obtains the acceptance of non-arising’, and the Buddha said ‘no’; why then does the Buddha still answer with the principle of non-arising, namely, ‘when the bodhisattva practises prajñā, he has no recollection, imagining, and discrimination at all’?" This question is set up with great fineness: earlier he denied receiving the prediction by non-arising; later he answers with the principle of non-discrimination—and non-discrimination is precisely the principle of non-arising; do earlier and later not contradict each other? The whole unit comes to rest on this one doubt; had this question not been set up, the three rounds of 「不」 tr. "no" earlier would very easily be read as denying the matter of the prediction.

81. The treatise-author's Answer: because he asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, it is said ‘no’. The treatise-author answers: 「行者實以無生忍故受記，而須菩提為菩薩故，以著心、得心問，以是故言『不』。」 tr. "The practitioner really receives the prediction by the acceptance of non-arising, but Subhūti, for the sake of the bodhisattvas, asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, and therefore it is said, ‘no’." One sentence settles it: the matter of the prediction really rests on the acceptance of non-arising; what the Buddha's 「不」 tr. "no" denies is the clinging in the place of the question, not the reality of the matter. The four Chinese characters 「為菩薩故」 tr. "for the sake of the bodhisattvas" also must not be passed over—the treatise-author says only that this question is put 「為菩薩故」 tr. "for the sake of the bodhisattvas", a question from the standpoint of a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, so that the Buddha may break it; as to whether Subhūti himself clings or does not cling, the treatise-author does not say, and the reader need not judge on his behalf. Since what is broken is the clinging in the question, the answer naturally cannot be read as a negation of the matter in fact or principle.

82. The simile of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa—the Buddha was silent and did not answer. 「如一切法實無我，婆蹉梵志問佛：『有我不？』佛默然不答。『無我不？』佛亦不答。一切雖實無我，以梵志著心問，欲戲弄無我，故不答。」 tr. "As all dharmas are really without self, and yet when the brahmin ascetic Vatsa asked the Buddha, ‘Is there a self or not?’ the Buddha was silent and did not answer; ‘Is there no self or not?’ the Buddha again did not answer. Though everything is really without self, because the brahmin asked with a clinging mind, wishing to make sport of non-self, he did not answer." This simile corresponds closely to the verdict above: non-self is real, yet the questioner clings, so the Buddha does not answer; not answering is not having no settled teaching; it is not responding to his clinging mind. Take this as the pattern for what came before—receiving the prediction by non-arising is real, yet the questioner clings, so the Buddha says 「不」 tr. "no". Being silent and saying 「不」 tr. "no" are equally ways of not responding to a clinging mind.

83. The intent of Subhūti's question—he knows there is the matter of the prediction, but not by contemplating what dharma it is obtained. 「須菩提問意：知定有受記事，但不知觀何法得記，故問。」 tr. "The intent of Subhūti's question: he knows that there definitely is the matter of receiving the prediction, but does not know by contemplating what dharma the prediction is obtained; therefore he asks." Here the treatise-author divides the intent of Subhūti's question into two halves: the matter is known; the dharma is not known. What is asked lies only in the latter half. This division limits the earlier 「不」 tr. "no" with great clarity—what is denied is the structure ‘obtaining the prediction by contemplating some dharma’, not the matter of the prediction.

84. The Buddha asks by the dharma he has obtained. 「是故佛以須菩提所得法問：『汝以慧眼見定有法受記不？』」 tr. "Therefore the Buddha asked by the dharma Subhūti had obtained: ‘Do you see with the wisdom-eye that there is definitely a dharma that receives the prediction, or not?’" What is called 「所得法」 tr. "the dharma he had obtained" refers to the wisdom-eye and the three gates of liberation that Subhūti himself had realised. The Buddha does not ask by another dharma, but only by what he has already obtained—this is the pattern of the counter-questions throughout the unit: he makes the questioner look with the measure he already has in hand; when he cannot see, the question stops of itself.

85. Abiding in the three gates of liberation, he contemplates the nature of dharmas and does not see one who receives the prediction. 「須菩提住三解脫門中，觀法性，不見定有受記者，諸法法性無相、無量故；若不見受記法，云何當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者？」 tr. "Subhūti, abiding in the three gates of liberation, contemplates the nature of dharmas and does not see that there is definitely one who receives the prediction, because the nature of dharmas of all dharmas is signless and measureless; if he does not see a dharma of receiving the prediction, how could there be one who shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" The reason for not seeing is twofold: the nature of dharmas is signless, so there is nothing to point to; the nature of dharmas is measureless, so there is nothing to bound. Since there is no dharma of receiving the prediction, there is also no person who shall obtain awakening—this follows what he contemplates and pushes it to the end.

86. The feeling of difficulty then ceases; he understands of himself and has no doubt. 「須菩提聞是受記者空，難情則息，自解無疑。」 tr. "Subhūti heard that the one who receives the prediction is empty; the feeling of difficulty then ceases; he understands of himself and has no doubt." The difficulties of the whole unit stop here. The key point is in the two Chinese characters 「自解」 tr. "understands of himself": it is not being made to yield; it is seeing for himself. The reason the Buddha did not speak head-on earlier but repeatedly used counter-questions shows its effect precisely here—an understanding handed over by speaking is in the end not as good as an understanding seen for oneself.

87. The Buddha approves his understanding and concludes. 「佛可其意：『如是！如是！汝不見不得法是實。何以故？般若波羅蜜相，無所分別故。』」 tr. "The Buddha approved his understanding: ‘Just so! Just so! Your not seeing and not obtaining a dharma is real. Why? Because the mark of prajñāpāramitā is without anything discriminated.’" The closing sentence of the sūtra lies in 「無諸憶想分別」 tr. "has no recollection, imagining, and discrimination"; the treatise-author's closing sentence lies in 「無所分別」 tr. "without anything discriminated"; the two answer to each other. The last sentence at the same time gathers back the opening question of the whole unit—what is the mark of prajñā? The answer: without anything discriminated. Head and tail are joined, and the unit of the Last Part ends here.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「如虛空相是般若波羅蜜相」 tr. "the mark that is like space is the mark of prajñāpāramitā" as saying that prajñā has no mark. The treatise-author explains it with 「如虛空無色相、無非色相」 tr. "as space has no mark of form and no mark of non-form"—the double negation raised together guards precisely against both extremes. To say it has a mark is certainly a mistake, and to say it has no mark is a mistake too; the sūtra follows at once with 「般若波羅蜜無所有相」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is without the mark of anything existent", and what is set up is still a 「相」 tr. "mark"; it is only that the content of this mark is being without anything existent. Read as having no mark, the later 「聞如是般若波羅蜜相，不驚、不沒、不畏不怖、不疑」 tr. "hears such a mark of prajñāpāramitā and is not startled, does not sink, is not afraid and not terrified, does not doubt" would have nothing to be heard.

Do not read 「離相、空相」 tr. "separated from marks, of the mark of emptiness" as saying that stain and purity cannot be spoken of. The sūtra says plainly: 「眾生往來生死中故，知有垢惱」 tr. "because beings go and come within birth and death, one knows that there are stain and vexation"; 「若不往來生死中，則無垢惱。如是，須菩提！眾生有淨」 tr. "if they do not go and come within birth and death, then there are no stain and vexation. Thus, Subhūti, beings have purity". The treatise-author says it more plainly still: 「雖一切法相皆空，亦以如是因緣故有淨、有垢」 tr. "though the marks of all dharmas are all empty, yet by such causes and conditions there are purity and stain". What stain and purity rest on is whether causes and conditions are practised or not practised, not the self-nature of dharmas; to think that because of emptiness both stain and purity are done away with is exactly what the Buddha's one question about the mind of I and mine sets out to break.

Do not read the ten rounds of 「不也」 tr. "No" as saying that prajñā cannot be practised. What the ten questions dismiss is the structure ‘taking some dharma as what is practised’—emptiness cannot be taken as what is practised, apart from emptiness cannot be taken as what is practised, prajñā itself cannot be taken as what is practised, and the five aggregates, the dharmas that aid the path, and even suchness and the limit of reality cannot be taken as what is practised. The treatise-author explains the general rule: 「法不自行，應以異法行」 tr. "a dharma does not practise itself; it should be practised by a different dharma", and also 「一切法攝在般若中，更無法行般若」 tr. "all dharmas are contained in prajñā; there is no further dharma that practises prajñā". What is dismissed is the practice that takes a dharma as its ground, not the matter of practice itself; if the matter of practice were also done away with, the later 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas" would have nothing to hang on.

Do not read 「無生法忍」 tr. "the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas" as a state that can be acquired. The sūtra follows at once with three questions—is the prediction obtained in the mark of non-arising, in the mark of arising, in the mark of neither arising nor non-arising—and all three answers are 「不也」 tr. "No", precisely to cut this off. The treatise-author says further 「世俗法故說，非第一義；第一義中，諸戲論語言即是無生」 tr. "it is said by way of worldly dharma, not in the highest meaning; in the highest meaning, all words of idle discourse are themselves non-arising"—even the name 「無生忍」 tr. "acceptance of non-arising" is a worldly way of speaking. If it is taken as a thing to be grasped, it shares one root with the illness in the First Part's fascicle of giving rise to overweening pride on hearing a name.

Do not read the Buddha's three rounds of 「不」 tr. "no" as denying the matter of the prediction. The treatise-author sets up a question and answers it himself, saying plainly 「行者實以無生忍故受記，而須菩提為菩薩故，以著心、得心問，以是故言『不』」 tr. "the practitioner really receives the prediction by the acceptance of non-arising, but Subhūti, for the sake of the bodhisattvas, asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, and therefore it is said, ‘no’". And he cites the simile of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa as evidence—non-self is real and yet the Buddha was silent, precisely because the questioner clung. What is denied is the place of the question, not the matter. Read as a denial, the earlier sentence 「菩薩摩訶薩成就是忍，得受阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who accomplishes this acceptance obtains the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" would have nothing to rest on.

Do not read 「不見」 tr. "not seeing" as knowing nothing at all. The sūtra's 「不見」 tr. "not seeing" has its limitation—「汝以慧眼見」 tr. "you see with the wisdom-eye". The treatise-author explains it: 「佛說智慧眼實，肉眼、天眼虛誑；須菩提以慧眼觀，不見，故言無」 tr. "the Buddha says that the eye of wisdom is real, and the fleshly eye and the divine eye are false and deceptive; Subhūti contemplated with the wisdom-eye and did not see, therefore he said it does not exist". Not seeing is the wisdom-eye shining to the very bottom and finding nothing to point to; it is not having not yet looked. To pass off ordinary not-yet-seeing as this not-seeing is to not know and yet take oneself to have realised.

Do not read 「不與想俱，便得大捨」 tr. "not being together with perception, they then obtain great equanimity" as being without mind and without feeling. This sentence stands at the end of the four immeasurable minds; the first three minds are great kindness, great compassion, and great joy, each with its object; when it comes to equanimity it says 「不與想俱」 tr. "not being together with perception", meaning that one does not take the marks of beings as the object—not that one does not take beings as the object. In this passage the treatise-author says further 「大悲是大乘之本」 tr. "great compassion is the root of the Great Vehicle" and 「見眾生就於死法，如囚受戮」 tr. "he sees beings going toward the dharma of death, like a prisoner going to execution"—which shows that equanimity and compassion go together without conflict.

Do not read 「賢聖默然」 tr. "the noble silence of the worthies and sages" as not expounding the Dharma. The treatise-author plainly sets up two matters: 「一者、賢聖默然，二者、說法」 tr. "first, the noble silence of the worthies and sages; second, speaking the Dharma", and explains them as 「是人從般若心出，說般若波羅蜜；說般若波羅蜜已，還入般若中」 tr. "this person comes out of the mind of prajñā and speaks prajñāpāramitā; having spoken prajñāpāramitā, he enters back into prajñā". Silence and speaking are the two faces of one going and one returning; what is guarded is only 「不令餘心、餘語得入」 tr. "not letting other minds or other words enter". To hold not speaking as the higher would go against the sūtra's 「若欲有說，但說般若波羅蜜」 tr. "if he wishes to say something, he says only prajñāpāramitā".

Do not read the similes of the maṇi jewel and of the poor man losing his treasure as teaching people to grieve and be vexed. The sūtra takes the three stages 「未曾得」 tr. "had never obtained it", 「後時得」 tr. "later obtained it", and 「後復失之」 tr. "afterwards lost it again"; the treatise-author takes the one stage 「常念不離」 tr. "constantly thinks of it and never leaves it"; what both take lies in the thought's needing no forcing, not in the look of grief. The method of a simile is to take one point of it and not drag in the rest; this is the general rule of this treatise.

Bearing on Practice

Take 「眾生往來生死中故，知有垢惱」 tr. "because beings go and come within birth and death, one knows that there are stain and vexation" to examine your own judgement of stain and purity. Do not look on dharmas for whether you are stained or pure; look at the going and coming—when this one thought arises, is the mind going into birth and death, or not going? The graduation of stain and purity lies not in whether one's feeling is clear or turbid, but in whether the mind practises or does not practise. Looked at this way, there is a great deal to examine in a single day, and none of it lands anywhere remote.

Take 「法不自行，應以異法行」 tr. "a dharma does not practise itself; it should be practised by a different dharma" to check where you apply your effort. Whoever thinks that some Dharma-gate is in itself the practice, and that merely keeping hold of it is applying effort, has already been exposed by this sentence. The dharma is what is relied on; the practice lies in the mind that relies on the dharma; if the mind does not practise, keeping the dharma however long is only keeping hold of a name.

Take 「是法不可得，亦無行者，亦無行處，亦無行法」 tr. "this dharma is unfindable; there is also no one who practises, also no place of practice, also no dharma of practice" to practise letting go of the mind that seeks realisation. Applying effort while seeking a position of ‘already arrived’ is exactly what these three matters dismiss. The First Part says not to take realisation in a dream; the Last Part says the place of practice is unfindable—the two places have one meaning: not taking realisation is not slackness; it is not setting a false finishing point on the road.

Take 「以著心、得心問，以是故言『不』」 tr. "asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, and therefore it is said, ‘no’" to examine the way you ask. When there is doubt in the mind and you ask others or ask yourself, first see whether this question seeks to make the principle clear or seeks an affirmation. If it is the latter, then answering and not answering are both of no benefit—as with the question of the brahmin ascetic Vatsa, the Buddha was simply silent.

Take 「信力、智慧力故，能住是法中」 tr. "by the power of faith and the power of wisdom can abide in this dharma" to tell your own illness apart. One whose mind wavers on hearing the deep Dharma either falls short in faith or falls short in wisdom. One who falls short in faith should apply effort to the Buddha's words; one who falls short in wisdom should apply effort to contemplation and practice; the two cannot stand in for each other—to demand faith by wisdom or wisdom by faith are both wrong treatments.

Take 「汝以慧眼見，定有一法行般若不」 tr. "do you see with the wisdom-eye that there is definitely a dharma that practises prajñā, or not" as the test of every experience. When you see a mark, gain a state, or have some realisation, first ask one question: with which eye was this seen? If it was seen by imagination, by emotion, or by someone else's words, then what was seen is no ground. Only what the wisdom-eye does not see is a non-existence that can be spoken of.

Take 「餘福德善法，離般若波羅蜜故皆盡，般若波羅蜜不可盡故」 tr. "other merit and wholesome dharmas are all exhausted because they are apart from prajñāpāramitā; because prajñāpāramitā cannot be exhausted" to weigh the merit you cultivate. Merit made without being turned toward prajñā has a measure, and when the measure is used up it stops; so after giving and keeping the precepts one must still come back to prajñā—not to belittle merit, but to make what has a measure enter the measureless.

Take 「不空食名能報施主，能生道，能令施主之福無盡」 tr. "not eating emptily means he can repay the donor, can give rise to the path, and can make the donor's merit inexhaustible" to check your mind in receiving offerings. When receiving others' offerings, shame is not the most important thing; whether one can give rise to the path is the most important thing; if one can give rise to the path, the giver's merit is then inexhaustible. Reckoning the account this way, shame turns into vigour.

Take 「未得無生忍法，用力艱難，譬如陸行」 tr. "before obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, effort is arduous, as in travelling by land" to ease your own difficulty of the moment. When applying effort feels laborious everywhere, it is not necessarily that you have taken the wrong road; most likely you are still at the stage of travelling by land. Knowing it to be a stage and not a fault, you need not doubt what you practise because of the hardship; nor need you think, because of a moment's ease, that you have already boarded the boat.

Take 「難情則息，自解無疑」 tr. "the feeling of difficulty then ceases; he understands of himself and has no doubt" to regard your own doubts. Doubt is not settled by pressing it down, nor by someone else's word of assurance; it is by seeing that the place of doubt was never something to doubt that doubt ceases of itself. So when doubt comes, the most useful thing is not to look for an answer but to see clearly the very object of the doubt—once it is seen clearly, the feeling of difficulty ceases of itself.

Further Resonances

The line that runs from the First Part into the Last Part turns the ground of the two Chinese characters 「不證」 tr. "not realising" over from matters to principle. All that the First Part says is matters: in a dream not craving the two vehicles or the three realms, in a dream seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma, in a dream seeing painful matters and not being startled or terrified, in a dream arousing the vow of a pure land, in a dream making the oath that puts out hell-fire, and even when awake, seeing fire break out in a city and putting it out by the oath; this is followed by the four kinds of deception by Māra—the empty oath, telling the names and clans of former lives, telling the name of the future Buddha, praising the place of seclusion—each of which makes a bodhisattva who has not entered the position give rise to overweening pride and fall into the two grounds; and it closes with drawing near to the good friend, the good friend who is a person and the good friend who is a dharma. The Last Part turns instead to ask about principle: what mark the substance of prajñā has. The Buddha answers: like space, without anything existent; and from this three layers of difficulty are pressed out—stain and purity have nothing to rest on, thought and obtaining have nothing to rest on, practising prajñā has nothing to rest on. The answers to the three difficulties each have one sentence: stain and purity lie in 「眾生往來生死中故，知有垢惱」 tr. "because beings go and come within birth and death, one knows that there are stain and vexation"; thought and obtaining lie in 「不增不減」 tr. "neither increase nor decrease" and 「非一非異」 tr. "neither one nor different"; practising prajñā lies in the 「是名菩薩摩訶薩無生法忍」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas" that follows the four counter-questions. Once the three answers stand, it closes with the three rounds of 「不」 tr. "no" on the prediction and the question and answer the treatise-author sets up himself, coming to rest in 「以著心、得心問，以是故言『不』」 tr. "asks with a clinging mind and a mind of attaining, and therefore it is said, ‘no’". Seeing the First Part and the Last Part together, the four Chinese characters of the chapter title are at last complete: one who does not take realisation in a dream does not forcibly refrain from taking it; it is that the substance is originally without anything existent and there is nothing to take.

The title of this chapter is handed down differently in the various witnesses; they are recorded together here without a forced judgement. The base text titles it "Not Realising It in a Dream"; for the continuation title at the head of this unit's fascicle, the four editions of the Song, Yuan, Palace, and Ming all write 「夢誓」 tr. "Dream Oath", as the Ming edition writes 「大智度論卷第七十七釋夢誓品第六十一之下」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle seventy-seven, commentary on the Dream Oath chapter, the sixty-first, Last Part"; the Shōgozō manuscript uses its own chapter numbering and writes 「大智度經論卷第七十七釋第六十品訖第六十二品」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, fascicle seventy-seven, commentary on the sixtieth chapter through to the end of the sixty-second chapter", constantly one less than the base text. The Larger Sūtra text of the variant translation also has the proper title 「夢誓品」 tr. "The Dream Oath chapter", while its Khitan-edition interlinear note writes 「夢中不證品」 tr. "Not Realising It in a Dream chapter", agreeing with the base text; its Song, Yuan, Ming, Palace, and Shōgozō texts, five in all, also all write 「夢中不證」 tr. "Not Realising It in a Dream". The two names take different things: 「夢中不證」 tr. "not realising it in a dream" is set up from his not taking realisation even in a dream; 「夢誓」 tr. "dream oath" is set up from his making an oath and vow in a dream; the first half of this chapter has exactly the text of making the oath that puts out the fire, and the second half lies wholly in the principle of not taking realisation, so each of the two names gets one side.

Jizang, explaining this chapter in his Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, at the very start of the chapter glosses the two names by each other: 「此品亦云夢中不證者，不證明覺時不證，今夢中亦不證也。上云證據覺不證，今明夢誓就夢中發願」 tr. "As for this chapter also being called ‘Not Realising It in a Dream’: ‘not realising’ makes clear not realising when awake, and now in a dream also not realising. Above, ‘realising’ spoke of not realising with respect to waking; now it makes clear that the Dream Oath concerns arousing a vow in a dream"; and setting the two chapters before and after against each other, he says 「前云夢行者，如文夢中脩行，今是夢中發願，故兩品行願各舉也」 tr. "the earlier one is called Dream Conduct, as the text says, cultivating practice in a dream; this one is arousing a vow in a dream; therefore the two chapters each raise one of practice and vow"—thus practice and vow are assigned to the two chapters, and each of the two names is tied to one. On the opening question of this unit, Jizang explains why Subhūti asks again about the mark of prajñā: 「聞聞相品已問般若相，今更聞者，論云：般若深妙無一定相，十地尚未滿解，況小乘人耶？以聞無厭足故更問也。」 tr. "Having heard that the chapter on Hearing Marks already asked about the mark of prajñā, why is it asked again now? The treatise says: prajñā is deep and subtle and has no single fixed mark; even those of the ten grounds have not yet fully understood it, how much less a man of the Small Vehicle? Because hearing it is never tiring, he asks again." The 「論」 tr. "treatise" he cites is this treatise's answer here, and it agrees exactly with the treatise-author's passage 「般若波羅蜜第一微妙，聞者無厭足，無滿時，無一定相」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is foremost and subtle; those who hear it never tire of it, there is no time when they are sated, and it has no single fixed mark". On the difficulty of stain and purity, Jizang judges what the Buddha's answer takes up and leaves aside: 「佛答中不答得菩提難，但答無垢淨難」 tr. "in the Buddha's answer he does not answer the difficulty about obtaining awakening, but answers only the difficulty about there being no stain and purity"; and he explains the meaning of purity: 「以了如即有，無所有便名淨也。」 tr. "Understanding suchness, there is existence; being without anything existent is then called purity." On the passage of speech and silence, Jizang's explanation falls in the same section as the treatise-author's and pushes it further: 「常行波若、常說波若者，即聖說法。聖嘿然，從般若心說般若，說般若竟還入波若心。如行說、如說行，故語嘿皆是波若」 tr. "Constantly practising prajñā and constantly speaking prajñā is the noble speaking of the Dharma. In the noble silence, from the mind of prajñā one speaks prajñā, and having finished speaking prajñā one enters back into the mind of prajñā. Speaking as one practises and practising as one speaks, therefore speech and silence are both prajñā", and further: 「非但說波若是波若，以波若心說一切法，一切法皆般若。」 tr. "Not only is speaking prajñā itself prajñā: when one speaks all dharmas with the mind of prajñā, all dharmas are prajñā." On the division of the second half of this unit, Jizang divides it into three sections: 「第二、明脩行，為三：初、明無所念；二、明無所行；三、明無得記」 tr. "Second, making clear cultivation and practice, in three: first, making clear that there is nothing thought of; second, making clear that there is nothing practised; third, making clear that there is no obtaining of the prediction"—which corresponds exactly to the order of the three layers of difficulty in this unit. He explains the acceptance of non-arising: 「是名無生忍者，於一切法不行即不生心，名無生忍也」 tr. "As for ‘this is called the acceptance of non-arising’: not practising any dharma is not giving rise to the mind; this is called the acceptance of non-arising"; and he explains the breaking of obtaining the prediction: 「上來見行故是生病，今則無行著無生病，故更息無生。」 tr. "Up to now, seeing practice was the illness of arising; now, having no practice, there is the illness of clinging to non-arising; therefore non-arising too is further stilled."

Huiying's Commentary comments on this chapter passage by passage, and for the fascicle-77 portion sets up a separate heading, 「之餘」 tr. "the remainder". He explains why Subhūti asks here about the substance and mark: 「則論自釋云：所以善吉於此乃問波若相者，佛上既讚嘆波若是世間是道是大明等，善吉既聞此義故，所以於此中更問其軆相也」 tr. "So the treatise itself explains: the reason Good Auspice asks here about the mark of prajñā is that the Buddha above praised prajñā as the world, as the path, as the great light, and so on; since Good Auspice has heard this meaning, he therefore asks further here about its substance and mark"—the same intent as the treatise-author's second answer, 「上聞種種讚般若是父、是母等，是故更問」 tr. "above he heard prajñā praised in many ways as father, as mother, and so on; therefore he asks again". On the phrase 「頗有因緣」 tr. "are there perhaps causes and conditions", Huiying records two explanations and keeps both: 「師言：頗者，是偏義」 tr. "My teacher says: po has the sense of ‘partial’", and also 「有人訓字解云：頗者，即是可辭。言可得如此文也」 tr. "Someone, glossing the character, explains: po is a word of possibility; it says ‘can it be as this text says’"; the former explanation takes it as partial, not daring to speak outright; the latter takes it in the sense of a word of possibility; the two accounts stand side by side without judgement. On the meaning of stain and purity, Huiying explains: 「明眾生不解此我我所心等法皆離故而忘行之，忘行之故往反生死，故名垢，不行故名淨也」 tr. "It makes clear that beings do not understand that these dharmas—the mind of I and mine and the rest—are all separated, and so heedlessly practise them; because they heedlessly practise them, they go and return in birth and death, and so it is called stain; not practising is called purity"—judging stain and purity by practising and not practising, entirely the same as the treatise-author's judgement. On the ten rounds of questions and answers in this unit, Huiying has a separate division, making clear the number of the questions and their sections: 「此下善吉凡設十一問，問脩進之方。前四句是其問正宗，次色是行般若等下有六句，是其別歷法助難之意，第十一問是總上十意，更設此一總問也」 tr. "From here down Good Auspice sets out eleven questions in all, asking about the way of cultivating and advancing. The first four phrases are the main thrust of his questioning; next, from ‘form is practising prajñā’ and so on, there are six phrases below, which carry the intent of passing through the dharmas one by one to support the difficulty; the eleventh question gathers up the ten intents above and further sets out this one general question"—the division into four, six, and one agrees exactly with the order of the sūtra. On 「諸法平等忍」 tr. "the acceptance of the equality of all dharmas", Huiying explains directly: 「諸法平等忍者，即是無生忍也。」 tr. "The acceptance of the equality of all dharmas is the acceptance of non-arising." On the passage of the wisdom-eye not seeing, he explains the ceasing of all contemplations: 「諸觀滅已下，明諸觀法既是分別鄣，不見無分別理，故亦屬無明也。」 tr. "From ‘all contemplations cease’ onward: it makes clear that since the dharmas of contemplation are obstructions of discrimination and do not see the principle of non-discrimination, they too belong to ignorance." On the body born of the Dharma-nature, he explains: 「菩薩於法性中智慧功德，法身冥於法性而增長盛明，故云法性生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's wisdom and merit within the Dharma-nature: the Dharma body merges darkly with the Dharma-nature and grows and flourishes in brightness; therefore it is called born of the Dharma-nature."

On the prediction passage, Huiying further records a difference between the sūtra and the treatise, recorded here as well without choosing: in the prediction passage the sūtra asks about three places in all—the mark of non-arising, the mark of arising, and the mark of neither arising nor non-arising—while the questions given in the treatise section differ slightly from the sūtra; on this Huiying says 「上經中乃有第四句無第三，此中有第三句無第四句，若別行經中則具足四句也」 tr. "In the sūtra above there is the fourth phrase and not the third; here there is the third phrase and not the fourth; in the separately circulated sūtra all four phrases are complete"—comparing the sūtra, the treatise, and the separately circulated text, the three together, he speaks of the four phrases as either complete or lacking. This is a difference handed down from of old; it is recorded as it is, and the choice between them belongs to the translator.

Further Resonances

What "Not Realising It in a Dream" inherits is most direct. The preceding chapter, "Training in Emptiness without Realising It," spoke of training in emptiness while awake without taking realisation, and made this clear with several similes—the bird flying in space, 「無所依止，而遠逝不墜」 tr. "with no support, goes far and does not fall," the skilled archer who 「以後箭射前箭，不令墮涅槃地」 tr. "with a later arrow shoots the earlier arrow, not letting it fall to the ground of nirvāṇa"; at its end Subhūti asks, 「頗有菩薩未得阿鞞跋致，能如是答不？」 tr. "Is there any bodhisattva who has not yet obtained avaivartika and can answer like this?", the Buddha answers, 「有。菩薩若聞六波羅蜜、若不聞，能如阿鞞跋致答」 tr. "There is. A bodhisattva, whether he has heard the six perfections or has not heard them, can answer as an avaivartika does," and the treatise-author explains in turn, 「未得無生法忍名學地，得無生法忍名無學地」 tr. "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." At the very opening of Treatise ① this chapter takes up that very sentence: it cites 「是菩薩能如阿鞞跋致菩薩答」 tr. "this bodhisattva can answer as an avaivartika bodhisattva does" and says straight out, 「此是前品末所說阿鞞跋致，是故次第說」 tr. "This is the avaivartika spoken of at the end of the preceding chapter; therefore it is spoken of next in order"—the answer of the preceding chapter stopped at his being able to answer and did not reach his marks, and this chapter then unfolds item by item the marks of this one who has not yet fulfilled them and is yet also called avaivartika, as it is said, 「夢中不貪二地，雖未具足阿鞞跋致法，亦名阿鞞跋致」 tr. "in a dream he does not crave the two grounds; though he has not yet fulfilled the dharmas of an avaivartika, he is also called avaivartika." As for what it opens, the first signs are already seen in this chapter's last sentence: this chapter closes with 「般若波羅蜜中無諸分別憶想故」 tr. "because within prajñāpāramitā there is no discrimination, recollection, or imagining," and at the opening of the next chapter, "Training Alike," Śakra Devānām Indra at once takes up this very sentence and praises it—「世尊！是般若波羅蜜無諸憶想分別，畢竟離故」 tr. "World-Honored One! This prajñāpāramitā is without any recollection, imagining, and discrimination, because it is ultimately separated from them"—and says that one who can receive, uphold, read, and recite it and practise as taught 「不從小功德來」 tr. "has not come from small merit." This chapter says that because prajñā is without discrimination, no mark of the prediction is findable; the next chapter, from this very place of non-discrimination, speaks of the immeasurability of the merit of one who holds this dharma. This chapter reckons up Māra's deceptions one by one and takes 「不隨他教」 tr. "not following another's teaching" as the test; the next chapter turns to speak of Māra's own doubt and grief—「三千大千世界中諸惡魔皆生狐疑」 tr. "the evil Māras in the three-thousand great-thousand world all give rise to doubt and suspicion," and so on up to 「若菩薩摩訶薩不離般若波羅蜜時，魔大愁毒，如箭入心」 tr. "when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not depart from prajñāpāramitā, Māra is greatly grieved and pained, as though an arrow had entered his heart." The reason Māra grieves is precisely that the test this chapter sets up has already left him no opening to exploit.

Among the later ancient masters who read this chapter, what they preserved on the matter of the chapter's name is most worth recording. This treatise's base text heads it 「夢中不證品第六十一」 tr. "Chapter Sixty-one, Not Realising It in a Dream"; but the fascicle heading of the Song edition and the Palace edition reads 「大智論釋夢誓品第六十一上」 tr. "The Treatise on Great Wisdom, Explaining ‘The Dream Oath’, Chapter Sixty-one, First Part," the Yuan edition reads 「大智度論釋夢誓品第六十一上」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Explaining ‘The Dream Oath’, Chapter Sixty-one, First Part," and the Ming edition reads 「釋夢誓本第六十一之上經作夢中品」 tr. "Explaining ‘The Dream Oath’, Text Sixty-one, First Part; the sūtra has ‘In a Dream’"—the Ming edition further notes of itself that the wording of the sūtra text it cites still reads ‘in a dream’, so that within a single edition the sūtra's title and the treatise's title differ from each other, and this is recorded as it is; the Shōgozō manuscript reads 「摩訶般若波羅蜜夢中不證品第六十」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā, Not Realising It in a Dream, Chapter Sixty," and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript reads 「摩訶般若波羅蜜品第六十夢中不證品七十七」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā, Chapter Sixty, Not Realising It in a Dream, seventy-seven," the title numbering in both differing from the base text by one step, consistent with the several preceding chapters. The continuation titles at the fascicle's end are the same: the Song and Yuan editions read 「大智度論卷第七十七釋夢誓品第六十一下訖第六十三品」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Fascicle Seventy-seven, Explaining ‘The Dream Oath’, Chapter Sixty-one, Last Part, ending at the sixty-third chapter," the Ming edition reads 「大智度論卷第七十七釋夢誓品第六十一之下」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Fascicle Seventy-seven, Explaining ‘The Dream Oath’, Chapter Sixty-one, Last Part," and the Shōgozō manuscript reads 「大智度經論卷第七十七釋第六十品訖第六十二品」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, Fascicle Seventy-seven, explaining the sixtieth chapter through the sixty-second chapter." In the transmitted text of the great sūtra that it explains, this chapter's proper title reads 「夢誓品第六十一」 tr. "Chapter Sixty-one, The Dream Oath," and only the interlinear note of the Khitan edition reads 「夢中不證品」 tr. "Not Realising It in a Dream," agreeing in wording with this treatise's base text; the chapter-order number that the general table of contents at the head of its fascicles attaches to this chapter is one more than the proper title, and so it is for the several neighbouring chapters—this is a shift within the markup layer of the table of contents itself, and it is recorded as it is without forcing an explanation. The Ishiyama-dera manuscript, moreover, marks the head of fascicle seventy-seven right at this chapter's title, so that its fascicle boundary is simply the chapter boundary, unlike the base text, whose fascicle boundary falls within the chapter; both are kept and recorded side by side without judgement.

The commentaries of the ancient masters explain these two names by each other. Jizang, in his Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, follows the great sūtra it explains and reads 「夢誓品第六十一」 tr. "Chapter Sixty-one, The Dream Oath," and at the very opening reconciles the two names himself: 「此品亦云夢中不證者，不證明覺時不證，今夢中亦不證也。上云證據覺不證，今明夢誓就夢中發願」 tr. "This chapter is also called ‘Not Realising It in a Dream’: ‘not realising’ made clear that one does not realise while awake; now one does not realise even in a dream. Above, realisation was spoken of with reference to not realising while awake; now it makes clear the dream oath, which is making a vow within a dream"; and he sets the earlier chapter, "Dream Conduct," against this chapter—「前云夢行者，如文夢中脩行，今是夢中發願，故兩品行願各舉也」 tr. "Earlier it was called ‘Dream Conduct’ because, as the text has it, one cultivates practice in a dream; now it is making a vow in a dream; therefore the two chapters each bring up one of practice and vow"—and judges its substance, saying, 「即夢覺相對，亦是願行一雙，亦是上不證是自行，今發誓是化他也」 tr. "That is, dream and waking are set against each other; it is also a pair of vow and practice; it is also that the not realising above is one's own practice, while the making of the oath now is the transforming of others." The question he sets also runs parallel to the treatise-author's own question: the treatise-author asks himself, 「〈阿鞞跋致品〉中已廣說阿鞞跋致相，今何以更說」 tr. "In the chapter ‘Avaivartika’ the marks of the avaivartika have already been explained at length; why are they explained again now," and Jizang here likewise sets a question and answers it, saying, 「此體始終皆說般若」 tr. "the substance of this, from beginning to end, is all the teaching of prajñā," and again, 「但佛隨眾生信悟故，或就人門說，或就法門說，或就人法門雜說也」 tr. "It is only that the Buddha, following the faith and understanding of beings, speaks sometimes by way of the gate of persons, sometimes by way of the gate of dharmas, and sometimes by way of the gates of persons and dharmas mixed together." His explanation of the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘not craving’ divides into two faces: 「若云不貪二地，夢中不證空也。不貪三界，不證有也。」 tr. "When it says he does not crave the two grounds, it means that in a dream he does not realise emptiness. Not craving the three realms means he does not realise existence." And the most essential sentence for judging gain and loss lies within, not without—「若就內因明得失者，內心無所得行故為得，有所得行故失也。」 tr. "If gain and loss are made clear with regard to the inner cause: because the inner mind practises with nothing to be attained, it is gain; because it practises with something to be attained, it is loss." As for the section on seclusion, Jizang cites an outside book by way of comparison: 「外書云：小隱隱山林，大隱隱朝帀。況佛法以山色而判得失，故在方等，不在喧靜也。」 tr. "An outside book says: ‘The lesser recluse hides in mountains and forests; the greater recluse hides in court and marketplace.’ How much less does the Buddha-Dharma judge gain and loss by the colour of the mountains! Therefore it lies in the vaipulya, not in clamour or quiet." He also sets a question and answer that faces directly the auspicious signs seen in the course of practice: 「謂有實瑞，亦不應心動。若心動，恃輕他，雖見實瑞，即是魔也。」 tr. "Even supposing there is a real auspicious sign, the mind should not be moved by it. If the mind is moved, and one relies on it and slights others, then although one sees a real auspicious sign, it is Māra."

There is another ancient master who wrote a commentary on this treatise itself. Huiying's Commentary sets up a chapter of its own for this chapter and explains it section by section; its heading reads 「釋夢中不證品第六十一」 tr. "Explaining Chapter Sixty-one, Not Realising It in a Dream," and the continuation section in fascicle seventy-seven is set up separately as 「釋夢中不證品第六十一之餘」 tr. "Explaining the Remainder of Chapter Sixty-one, Not Realising It in a Dream," so that in his book this chapter is not seen as an appendage of some other chapter, but is a direct object of a commentary made independently chapter by chapter. At its very opening it explains the meaning of the order: 「何故次學空不證品後明於此品？不退菩薩乃至夢中尚不取證，何況晝日明白心學而當取證？」 tr. "Why is this chapter made clear next, after the chapter ‘Training in Emptiness without Realising It’? The non-retrogressing bodhisattva does not take realisation even in a dream—how much less would he take realisation while training by day with a clear and bright mind?" Its sectional division divides the whole chapter into three parts; of the second part it says, 「明脩學之來須託善知識」 tr. "it makes clear that the coming of cultivation and training must rely on the good friend," and of the third part, 「明波若體扶脩學儀軌」 tr. "it makes clear the substance of prajñā, which supports the rules of cultivation and training"; and at the turning point within the first part it judges: 「上明是不退相即是佛事，今明非不退相即是魔事也。」 tr. "Above it made clear that the marks of non-retrogression are the deeds of the Buddha; now it makes clear that what are not the marks of non-retrogression are the deeds of Māra." On the section on seclusion, his words and Jizang's bring each other out: 「若雖在城湟，能離二乘心，即是菩薩脩遠離行。若不爾者，雖處山間，猶名散亂也。」 tr. "If, though he is within the city and its moat, he can leave the mind of the two vehicles, this is the bodhisattva's cultivating the practice of seclusion. If it is not so, then though he dwells among the mountains, he is still called scattered." In explaining the item on seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma in a dream, he points out that mind and object are both forgotten: 「菩薩能亡心於內、亡境於外，境智俱真，是故言心與法合，亦無合相也。」 tr. "The bodhisattva can forget the mind within and forget the object without; object and knowledge are both true; therefore it is said that the mind unites with the Dharma, and yet there is no mark of uniting." In explaining the good friend, beyond the treatise-author's twofold division into persons and dharmas, he brings out a separate explanation: 「有人言：有三種：以三乘聖人為人善知識，以六度等為法善知識，實際等為理善知識。此亦無妨也。」 tr. "Someone says: there are three kinds: the noble ones of the three vehicles are the good friends who are persons; the six perfections and the like are the good friends that are dharmas; the limit of reality and the like are the good friends that are principle. This too is no hindrance." Explaining the acceptance of equality, he says, 「諸法平等忍者，即是無生忍也」 tr. "The acceptance of the equality of dharmas is precisely the acceptance of non-arising"; explaining hearing without fear, he says, 「若六識分別存於生，則有怖也」 tr. "If the discrimination of the six consciousnesses holds on to arising, then there is fear." Huiying's own chapter numbering, too, forms a separate system: he calls this chapter the sixtieth and the next chapter the sixty-first, and this stands alongside the Shōgozō manuscript's one-step difference from the base text and the one-more of the table of contents of the great sūtra it explains—the three systems all differ from one another, and this is recorded as it is without forcing them into one. As for Junzheng's book of essentials on the four treatises, a thorough search under both headings, "Not Realising It in a Dream" and "The Dream Oath," is in every case 〔not found〕; his book is in the form of an outline of essentials, not a passage-by-passage explanation, and this is no defect; in the books of the Tiantai line—the Profound Meaning, the Annotations, and the commentaries and records on calming and contemplation—a thorough search likewise finds no text under these two headings, and no connection is forced; this is recorded as it is.

Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, the two parties to the chapter's name precisely illuminate the two faces of this chapter's meaning. The name ‘Not Realising It in a Dream’ picks out what he does not do—the marks of the whole chapter all lie in a single ‘not’: in a dream he 「不貪聲聞、辟支佛地，亦不貪三界」 tr. "does not crave the śrāvaka ground or the pratyekabuddha ground, nor craves the three realms"; seeing what is fearful he 「不驚、不怖，亦不憂惱」 tr. "is not startled, not terrified, nor grieved and vexed"; and so on to the Last Part, where round after round the answer is 「不也！須菩提！」 tr. "No, Subhūti!", until at the end he 「不作是念」 tr. "does not form this thought" and receives the prediction. The name ‘The Dream Oath’ picks out what he does—in a dream, seeing hell-fire, he 「作是誓」 tr. "makes this oath"; awake, seeing fire in the city walls, he 「自立誓言：是火當滅」 tr. "himself sets up an oath, saying: ‘May this fire go out’"; seeing a person troubled by a non-human, by his 「至誠誓」 tr. "oath of utmost sincerity" he makes it go far away. The one ‘not’ and the one oath look contrary, yet in truth they come from one place: precisely because 「是夢及諸法，無二無別」 tr. "this dream and all dharmas are without duality and without difference," the realisation not taken in the dream and the oath made in the dream are both not matters inside the dream; they are the appearing of this person's ground of mind. And the treatise-author's judging of the false lies precisely between these two words—alike an oath, one who 「用是空誓，無方便力故，生增上慢」 tr. "by this empty oath, having no power of skilful means, gives rise to overweening pride" at once makes it a deed of Māra; alike not realising, if 「恃是證故，輕弄毀蔑諸餘菩薩」 tr. "relying on this as his realisation, he slights, mocks, disparages, and scorns the other bodhisattvas," then the not realising turns instead into something realised. The two names stand together without standing in each other's way: what he does not do is the two grounds and the grasping at marks; what he does is the vow and the oath; one negating and one affirming, together they make one avaivartika.

So what "Not Realising It in a Dream" leaves us in the end is a set of tests that can be carried into daily use. When a sign appears before me and I rejoice, I remember that what Māra says in this chapter wears entirely the shape of true words—he tells you your former lives, your name and clan, your dhūta merit, your seclusion—and the sickness lies only in one who, having heard, 「即歡喜生慢憍心」 tr. "at once rejoices and gives rise to a mind of pride and arrogance." When I dwell alone in the mountains and forests and think myself better than others, I remember that the Buddha says himself, 「我不讚是遠離」 tr. "I do not praise this seclusion," and that what he approves is 「遠離聲聞、辟支佛心」 tr. "being secluded from the mind of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha," and only then dwelling in empty and quiet places. When I seek someone to confirm what I have attained, I remember that this chapter has said all there is to say about two kinds of mistaken recognition: one who, when the non-human goes, presumes it to be his own power 「不知是惡魔力」 tr. "does not know that it is the power of evil Māra"; one who gains a name and takes it for the prediction 「但以空名字輕弄毀蔑餘人」 tr. "merely with an empty name slights, mocks, disparages, and scorns other people." When I hear of ultimate emptiness and my mind shrinks back, I remember that the treatise-author says only one sentence: 「凡夫著我心故有畏，是菩薩我相斷故無所畏」 tr. "Ordinary people have fear because they cling to the mind of self; this bodhisattva has nothing to fear because the mark of self is severed." When I ask myself what use it is to read this chapter when I have not yet obtained the acceptance of non-arising, I remember that one simile: 「未得無生忍法，用力艱難，譬如陸行；得無生法忍已，用力甚易，譬如乘船。」 tr. "Before obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, effort is arduous, as in travelling by land; having obtained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, effort is very easy, as in riding a boat." Though the boat is not yet reached, the going is not given up; and so, though the whole chapter has said all there is to say about not realising, at the last it still comes back to one exhortation of the utmost plainness—「若菩薩摩訶薩欲不虛食國中施，欲示眾生三乘道，欲為眾生作大明，欲拔出三界牢獄，欲與一切眾生眼，應常行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "If a bodhisattva-mahāsattva wishes not to eat the alms of the country in vain, wishes to show beings the path of the three vehicles, wishes to be a great light for beings, wishes to pull them out of the prison of the three realms, wishes to give all beings eyes, he should constantly practise prajñāpāramitā."

Training Alike: Why ‘Not Mixed with Other Minds and Mental-Factor Dharmas’ Is the Watershed of Receiving and Upholding Prajñā; Why Śakra's Praise of Those Who Uphold the Sūtra Must Be Weighed against the Ten Wholesome Paths, the Four Dhyānas, the Four Immeasurables, and the Four Formless Absorptions; Why the Bhikṣu's Saying ‘Surpasses Yours, Sir’ Is Not Raising One Person Up and Putting Another Down; Why Śakra, Accepting the Words, Does Not Give Rise to a Haughty Mind; Why ‘With a Single Arousing of the Mind He Surpasses Me’ Is Not Belittling the Noble Fruits; Why Ānanda Must Wonder Whether Śakra Speaks by His Own Power or by the Buddha's Power; Why the Bodhisattva's Training in the Deep Prajñā Makes Evil Māra Give Rise to Doubt and Be Grieved and Pained; Why the Conditions by Which Māra Finds His Opening All, One by One, Fall within One's Own Mind; Why Contention among Fellow Practitioners Is the Gravest Fault; Why, to ‘Can the Evil Mind Be Repented?’, the Buddha Says ‘I Do Not Say There Is a Way Out’ and Yet Opens the One Road of Correcting and Repenting Oneself; Why Bodhisattvas Dwelling Together Must Look on One Another as on the World-Honored One; Why, of the True Companion Riding Together in One Boat, the Boat Is the Six Perfections; and Why ‘What He Trains in I Train in’ Also Says ‘If He Practises Mixedly, I Should Not Train in That Way’

What Is Being Asked

What this chapter asks about is the matter between fellow practitioners. The chapters before this one broadly set out the depth of prajñā and broadly set out the merit of receiving, upholding, reading, and reciting it, and what they spoke of was mostly the relation between one person and the Dharma; in this chapter the lens turns and comes to rest on two people, on a group of people—how those who alike seek the Buddha path regard one another, how they dwell, how they train. The two Chinese characters of the chapter name, 「同學」 tr. "training alike," are the very answer to this question, and the sūtra text places the answer in its last sentence and only there says it.

At the opening it is not yet training alike; it is weighing. Śakra Devānām Indra praises the one who receives and upholds prajñā as one who 「不從小功德來」 tr. "has not come from small merit," and adds a qualifying phrase—「不雜餘心心數法」 tr. "not mixed with other minds and mental-factor dharmas." After the Buddha approves it, he at once sets up a weighing: the beings of Jambudvīpa accomplishing the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions do not compare with one person who receives and upholds the deep prajñā and practises as taught, the difference reaching the point of being beyond the reach of calculation and simile. Here the first difficulty appears: the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions are all the true Dharma—how can they, after all, not count as much? The treatise-author's answer is only one sentence—this merit, 「離諸法實相故」 tr. "because it is apart from the real mark of all dharmas," is false, not firm, impermanent, exhausted, and ceasing, and so though much it is not much; and he himself brings out the simile of blades of grass and the vajra, dividing 「多」 tr. "much" and 「勝」 tr. "surpassing" into two matters.

Next a bhikṣu breaks in, saying that the one who practises prajñā 「勝於仁者」 tr. "surpasses yours, sir," putting Śakra below him to his face. Śakra is not only not vexed; he himself says it out more fully: he surpasses not only me, but even the bodhisattva who practises prajñā without the power of skilful means. Here the treatise-author distinguishes two layers of mental conduct: the reason the bhikṣu speaks so is that he reveres the wholesome dharma, and, knowing moreover that Śakra has already attained the śrāvaka path, he spurs his mind on; the reason Śakra does not give rise to a haughty mind is that he is deeply mindful of the Buddha-Dharma, and knows for himself that his reward of merit is slight and thin and is for his own person, while the bodhisattva's merit is pure and thick and is dedicated, for the sake of all beings, to the Buddha path. A sentence that looks as though it would wound turns out, on both sides, to wound no one—this is precisely the forerunner of the teaching on 「共住」 tr. "dwelling together" in the latter half of this chapter.

The latter half turns to the deeds of Māra and to dwelling together. Ānanda wonders whether what Śakra says is by his own power or by the Buddha's power; the Buddha approves Śakra's words, and says that when the bodhisattva trains in the deep prajñā, evil Māra gives rise to doubt and suspicion, and even is greatly grieved and pained, as though an arrow had entered his heart; Ānanda presses on to ask whether Māra troubles every bodhisattva, and the Buddha answers that there are those he troubles and those he does not trouble, and enumerates the conditions by which Māra finds his opening. What is most unsettling to read in this list is the last few items—it is not outside paths coming to break things; it is those who practise the bodhisattva path fighting and contending with one another, it is those who have not received the prediction giving rise to an evil mind toward those who have obtained the prediction. Ānanda then asks the weightiest question of the whole chapter: such an evil mind must pass through that many kalpas—is there in between a way out? The Buddha's answer is in two parts: for one who holds resentment, does not repent, and does not let go, 「我不說有出」 tr. "I do not say there is a way out"; if he corrects and repents himself, then there is another road. Last, Ānanda asks 「菩薩、菩薩共住云何」 tr. "how do bodhisattva and bodhisattva dwell together," and the Buddha answers that they should look on one another as on the World-Honored One, should think, this is my true companion, riding together in one boat, what he trains in I train in—and the treatise-author explains this simile: the boat is the six perfections, the three realms and the three outflows are the water, the further shore is the Buddha path. People riding together in one boat do not come to blows in the boat; this is training alike.

Passage by Passage

1. Śakra praises the one who receives and upholds prajñā as not having come from small merit. The chapter opens with Śakra Devānām Indra speaking to the Buddha. He first establishes the mark of prajñā: 「無諸憶想分別，畢竟離故」 tr. "without any recollection, imagining, and discrimination, because it is ultimately separated from them"—prajñā is not a set of views that can be recollected, imagined, and discriminated. Next he says that the person able to receive, uphold, read, and recite it, and so on up to practising as taught, 「不從小功德來」 tr. "has not come from small merit," and adds the qualifying phrase 「不雜餘心心數法」 tr. "not mixed with other minds and mental-factor dharmas." In reading this passage one must first see clearly that two matters stand side by side: first, the dharma received and upheld is without recollection, imagining, and discrimination; second, the mind of the person who receives and upholds it is not mixed. Since the dharma is without discrimination, if a person receives it with a mixed mind, that is taking up a dharma without discrimination with a discriminating mind, and taking it up he does not obtain it. This qualifying phrase is the hinge of the whole chapter; further on, the treatise-author sets out four accounts for it in particular.

2. The Buddha approves his words and sets up the weighing against the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions. The Buddha does not stop at approval; he at once asks Kauśika in return: if the beings of Jambudvīpa accomplished the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions, how would they compare with one person who receives and upholds the deep prajñā and practises as taught? The answer is a hundredfold, a thousandfold, ten million koṭi-fold, and so on up to being beyond the reach of calculation and simile. The way of reading here matters: what the Buddha sets up for comparison is not evil dharmas but the highest wholesome dharmas and meditative dharmas of the world; precisely because what is set up is high, the weighing has force. Whenever one meets a weighing in the sūtra, look first at what it is compared with—the more precious the thing compared, the deeper the meaning shown.

3. The bhikṣu says to Śakra: the merit of practising prajñā surpasses yours, sir. The sūtra text suddenly brings in a bhikṣu, who says to Śakra's face that the one who practises prajñā 「勝於仁者」 tr. "surpasses yours, sir." To the ears of the assembly this sentence comes close to discourtesy, yet the sūtra text adds no comment and simply records it. The reader at this point naturally has doubts: why must the bhikṣu say it to his face? Will Śakra not be displeased? Both doubts the treatise-author answers further on; here one need only remember this: the sūtra text sets a scene, the one among people most apt to stir up trouble, in front of the teaching of 「同學」 tr. "training alike," and that is no idle stroke of the brush.

4. Śakra states for himself: with a single arousing of the mind he surpasses me, and so on up to surpassing the one who practises prajñā without the power of skilful means. Śakra's reply goes a step further than the bhikṣu, and advances layer upon layer: with a single arousing of the mind he surpasses me, how much more one who practises as taught; he surpasses not only me, he also surpasses all the gods, humans, and asuras of the world; not only does he surpass them, he also surpasses the srota-āpanna and so on up to the pratyekabuddha; not only does he surpass them, he also surpasses the bodhisattva who practises the five perfections and is far from prajñā; not only does he surpass them, he also surpasses the bodhisattva who practises prajñā without the power of skilful means. Five layers going all the way up, and the last two layers matter most—those surpassed are already bodhisattvas, and the difference lies only in being far from prajñā and in lacking skilful means. This passage is not ranking seats; it is pointing out a line: whether there is prajñā or not, whether there are skilful means or not.

5. The one who practises as taught does not cut off the seed of the Buddha, constantly sees the buddhas, quickly draws near to the seat of awakening, and trains in order not to train in the training of the two vehicles. Śakra goes on to state the marks of the bodhisattva who practises prajñā as taught: he does not cut off the seed of the Buddha, constantly sees the buddhas, quickly draws near to the seat of awakening; he practises in this way in order to pull out the beings sunk in the long stream; to train in this way is 「不學聲聞、辟支佛學」 tr. "not to train in the training of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha." The last sentence is put negatively; in reading, do not mistake it for disparaging the two vehicles: what is called not training in the training of the two vehicles is said with respect to the fruit tended toward and the mind aroused; it does not mean that the dharma-gates practised by the two vehicles are all to be put aside—above, Śakra himself is precisely one who has attained the śrāvaka path, and the sūtra text grants that what he says is 「皆佛威神」 tr. "all the Buddha's majestic power."

6. The gods of the Four Heavenly Kings foretell the offering of the four bowls, and the buddhas of the ten directions constantly keep him in mind. The sūtra text goes on to bring out two layers of outer protection: the gods of the heaven of the Four Heavenly Kings come to where the bodhisattva is and foretell that on the day he sits at the seat of awakening and attains awakening he shall, like the buddhas of the past, receive the offering of the four bowls, and the gods too shall make offerings; and the buddhas of the ten directions also constantly keep this bodhisattva in mind. This passage is easily read as a promise of future glory, yet in fact its place is after the weighing—what is weighed is the surpassing of merit, and what this passage shows is the sign of that surpassing: the gods come first and the buddhas constantly keep him in mind, which shows that the dharma this person practises is on one and the same road as the buddhas, and not that the person himself is precious.

7. The world's calamities are forever absent, and the four hundred and four sicknesses are absent from his body. Śakra goes further and speaks of merit in the present life: all the world's calamities and toilsome sufferings shall never again be present; the world has the four hundred and four sicknesses, yet in this bodhisattva's body these sicknesses are absent. This passage is the most concrete promise of the whole chapter, and also the one most easily read as a means of seeking blessings. One must keep hold of the cause the sūtra text itself gives—「以行深般若波羅蜜故，得是現世功德」 tr. "because he practises the deep prajñāpāramitā, he obtains this merit in the present life": the merit in the present life is a by-product of practising the deep prajñā, not the purpose of practising prajñā; if one practises with this as the purpose, one falls squarely into what is spoken of below as 「雜餘心心數法」 tr. "mixed with other minds and mental-factor dharmas."

8. Ānanda thinks to himself: does Śakra speak by his own power? Does he speak by the Buddha's spiritual power? The scene turns again. Ānanda makes no sound, but has this thought in his mind: does Śakra Devānām Indra speak by his own power, or does he speak by the Buddha's spiritual power? This thought is not doubt of Śakra's virtue; it is a sense that what he says is too deep—how could a lord of the gods who has attained the śrāvaka path speak so deep a dharma? Here the reader may learn Ānanda's mental conduct: on meeting words of Dharma that go beyond the standing of the speaker, first give rise to a mind that examines carefully, neither lightly believing nor lightly disparaging.

9. Śakra, knowing what Ānanda had in mind, answers: all is the Buddha's majestic power. Śakra does not wait for Ānanda to speak; knowing what he had in mind, he answers straight away: 「我之所說，皆佛威神！」 tr. "What I say is all the Buddha's majestic power!" This answer can be seen in two layers: first, Śakra does not claim the credit; second, he even resolves on the other's behalf the doubt in the other's own mind, and the dharma by which he resolves it he still returns to the Buddha. The hardest thing among fellow practitioners is to be secretly doubted and yet give rise to no rift; Śakra's response here is the first ready-made example of this chapter's teaching on dwelling together.

10. The Buddha approves his words and speaks of evil Māra giving rise to doubt and suspicion. The Buddha approves Śakra's words and at once raises a further meaning: when the bodhisattva trains in the deep prajñā, the evil Māras in the three-thousand great-thousand world all give rise to doubt and suspicion—they doubt whether this bodhisattva 「為當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "will attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," or 「當中道於實際作證，墮聲聞、辟支佛地」 tr. "will midway realise the limit of reality and fall to the ground of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha." What Māra doubts is exactly the practitioner's fork in the road. This passage is the starting point of the latter half of the whole chapter: the first half speaks of the surpassing of the one who upholds the sūtra; the latter half speaks of how, where there is surpassing, there must be difficulty.

11. If he does not part from prajñā, Māra is greatly grieved and pained, and lets loose fire and wind wishing to make him give rise to a single disordered thought. Once Māra's doubt and suspicion is resolved—the bodhisattva does not part from prajñāpāramitā—Māra is 「大愁毒，如箭入心」 tr. "greatly grieved and pained, as though an arrow had entered his heart," and so he lets loose great fire and wind rising in all four directions, and all he seeks is to make the bodhisattva's mind sink, be terrified, and grow lazy, and 「於薩婆若中乃至起一亂念」 tr. "within sarvajñā give rise to even a single disordered thought." The measure of this passage is well worth savouring: Māra's aim is not to make a person break the precepts and do evil, but to make a person give rise to one disordered thought. From this it can be seen that what is guarded is fine, and what is lost is fine as well. The reason the side-title of the chapter name is Māra's Grief lies precisely in this passage.

12. Ānanda asks whether Māra troubles all bodhisattvas, and the Buddha answers that there are those he troubles and those he does not trouble. Ānanda, following on, asks: does Māra trouble and disorder all bodhisattvas, or are there some who are not troubled and disordered? The Buddha answers very briefly: 「有嬈者，有不嬈者。」 tr. "There are those he troubles, and there are those he does not trouble." After a brief answer there is sure to be a broad explanation; this is a way of teaching this sūtra often uses. Here the reader must first catch this answer that ‘draws a distinction’: the deeds of Māra are not something every practitioner must necessarily bear in equal measure; they have conditions, and the next passage is the list of those conditions.

13. The Buddha enumerates the conditions by which Māra finds his opening. The Buddha, answering Ānanda's question 「何等菩薩為惡魔所嬈」 tr. "which bodhisattvas are troubled by evil Māra," brings them out one by one. First, in a former life he heard the deep prajñā and his mind did not have faith and understanding. Second, on hearing it taught, his mind doubts, 「為實有？為實無？」 tr. "Is it really existent? Is it really non-existent?" Third, he is far from the good friend and taken in by the evil friend, and so does not hear, does not know, does not see, does not ask. Fourth, he is far from prajñā and takes up evil dharmas, and Māra thinks, 「是輩當有伴黨，當滿我願」 tr. "This lot will have companions and partisans; they will fulfil my wish"; this person himself falls to the two grounds and also makes others fall. Fifth, he says to others, 「是般若波羅蜜甚深，我尚不能得其底」 tr. "This prajñāpāramitā is very deep; even I cannot reach its bottom," and urges them that there is no need to hear it and train in it. Sixth, he slights other bodhisattvas and, presuming on his name and clan and on being known to many people, has Māra aid his majestic power so that others believe and accept his words, which in turn increases the fetters and the three evil destinies. Seventh, one who practises the bodhisattva path fights and contends with the household of those who seek the śrāvaka path, and Māra thinks, 「是遠離薩婆若」 tr. "This is far from sarvajñā." Eighth, bodhisattva and bodhisattva fight and contend with hatred and abuse, and Māra says, 「兩離薩婆若遠」 tr. "Both are far from sarvajñā." Ninth, a bodhisattva who has not received the prediction gives rise to an evil mind toward a bodhisattva who has obtained the prediction, fighting, contending, and abusing, and according to how many thoughts arise he must make up that number of kalpas. Read through, the nine conditions have a clear direction: the first several are about one's attitude to the Dharma, the later several are about one's attitude to fellow practitioners; and Māra's great joy and leaping lies wholly in the later several.

14. Ānanda asks: the evil mind passes through that many kalpas—is there in between a way out? Ānanda, taking up the last item, asks: such an evil mind must actually pass through that number of kalpas—in between, is there a way out? This question is asked in compassion—what he asks is not the weight of the sin but whether there is a road back. Whenever someone reading the sūtra sees heavy retribution spoken of and grows afraid, he may learn from this question of Ānanda's: first ask for the way out; do not first pass judgement.

15. The Buddha answers that for one who does not repent and does not let go he does not say there is a way out, but for one who corrects and repents himself it is not so. The Buddha's answer is in two parts, and one may not take only one part. The first part: though I say that those who seek the bodhisattva path and the śrāvakas can get out of sin, yet if they fight and contend together with hatred and abuse and hold resentment, not repenting and not letting go, 「我不說有出」 tr. "I do not say there is a way out"; he must surely pass again through that number of kalpas, and if he does not abandon the omniscience of all kinds, only then the great adornment. The second part: if he then corrects and repents himself, having the thought 「我為大失」 tr. "I have made a great mistake," vows to bow low for the sake of all beings, to bring about reconciliation in this life and later lives alike, to bear all beings treading upon him as upon a bridge, to be as one deaf, as one dumb, and not answer people with evil words, and admonishes himself that he should not destroy the very deep mind of awakening. Only the two parts seen together are the Buddha's meaning: what cannot get out is the mind that holds resentment and does not let go, not the person; once the mind corrects itself and repents, the road opens differently.

16. Ānanda asks how bodhisattva and bodhisattva dwell together. Here the sūtra text draws together to this chapter's proper question: 「菩薩、菩薩共住云何？」 tr. "How do bodhisattva and bodhisattva dwell together?" Among the nine conditions above, four arise in how fellow practitioners treat one another, and Ānanda's question is very exact—since how fellow practitioners treat one another matters so much, how, in the end, should they live together? The name of the whole chapter comes out of the answer to this question.

17. The Buddha answers that they should look on one another as on the World-Honored One, as true companions riding together in one boat, what he trains in I train in: this is training alike. The Buddha's answer is in three sections. First, the standard: 「菩薩、菩薩共住，相視當如世尊」 tr. "bodhisattva and bodhisattva dwelling together should look on one another as on the World-Honored One"—not respecting one another as friends, but looking on one another as on the Buddha. Second, the reason: one should have this thought, 「是我真伴，共乘一船，彼學我學」 tr. "This is my true companion, riding together in one boat; what he trains in I train in," and what is trained in runs from dānapāramitā and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. Third, the discrimination: if this bodhisattva practises mixedly and parts from the mind of sarvajñā, I should not train in that way; if he does not practise mixedly and does not part from the mind of sarvajñā, I too should train in that way—and at the end it concludes 「是為同學」 tr. "this is training alike." The third section matters greatly: training alike is not assimilation without condition; what is alike lies in the mind of sarvajñā, not in the person.

18. The explanation: only one who does not let other minds and mental factors be mixed in attains the unsurpassed. The treatise-author begins his explanation, first unfolding the meaning of what Śakra said above: Śakra said that receiving, upholding, and rightly recollecting obtains immeasurable merit, and now the meaning of it is told—one who reads and recites prajñā, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and 「不令餘心、心數雜者」 tr. "does not let other minds and mental factors be mixed in," obtains the merit spoken of above; 「但從聞說而不能行餘心不入者，雖得功德，不名為無上」 tr. "one who only hears it taught and cannot practise it so that other minds do not enter, though he obtains merit, it is not called unsurpassed." The treatise-author divides merit into two grades: merit, and unsurpassed merit. The difference lies not in hearing or not hearing, but in practising or not practising, in the mind being mixed or not mixed.

19. Singling out 「餘心、心數法雜」 tr. "other minds and mental-factor dharmas mixed" and explaining it point by point. The treatise-author sets up a heading especially for this phrase—「餘心、心數法雜」 tr. "other minds and mental-factor dharmas mixed"—and this is the only phrase of sūtra in the whole chapter that the treatise-author singles out for a gloss of its own. Why does he gloss this phrase alone? Because the preceding passage has already judged that whether merit is unsurpassed or not rests wholly on it, while in the sūtra text it is only a short phrase, never defined. Whenever one sees the treatise-author set up a heading of gloss for a short phrase on its own, one knows that this phrase is the load-bearing place of that passage.

20. Four accounts of 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" explain 「餘心、心數法雜」 tr. "other minds and mental-factor dharmas mixed" . The treatise-author does not set up an account of his own, but sets out four schools side by side. First: the evil minds of stinginess, greed, and the rest, and of breaking the six perfections, are it. Second: there need not be no evil mind at all, but the evil mind is not allowed to grow and gain strength; when it comes it is extinguished. Third: the mind of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha is not allowed to enter. Fourth: the indeterminate and scattered mind, though not evil, because it blocks the wholesome path is also not allowed to enter. The four accounts run from coarse to fine: the first blocks evil, the next blocks the growth of evil, the third blocks the retreat into the two vehicles, the fourth blocks even the indeterminate and the scattered. The four accounts stand together and are not judged, and the reader need not hurry to choose one—the minds the four block are each a layer finer than the last, and serve exactly as four sieves for examining oneself. The treatise-author's last sentence returns to the sūtra text: 「是故是人不從小功德來。」 tr. "Therefore this person has not come from small merit."

21. The meaning of the Buddha's approval and of the weighing—the simile of blades of grass and the vajra. The treatise-author explains the meaning of the Buddha's approval and his question in return: wishing to distinguish the strength of pure practice, he asks in return 「若閻浮提人一切成就十善道」 tr. "if the people of Jambudvīpa all accomplished the ten wholesome paths" and so on. Next he gives his judgement: this merit, though much, 「離諸法實相故，虛妄、不牢固、無常、盡、滅，不足為多」 tr. "because it is apart from the real mark of all dharmas, is false, not firm, impermanent, exhausted, and ceasing, and does not count as much"; and he himself brings out a simile—「如草芥雖多，不如一小金剛」 tr. "as blades of grass, though many, are not equal to one small vajra." In this simile one must see clearly what is being compared: not quantity, but substance. However many the blades of grass, they cannot do the work of one vajra; so the merit of the ten wholesome paths and the four dhyānas, though much, cannot match a single part of prajñā. Holding to this simile, one can avoid the faults of both sides: neither abandoning the ten wholesome paths and the four dhyānas because they are false, nor resting content with them because they are many.

22. Question and answer one: why does the bhikṣu say to Śakra 「善男子福德勝仁者」 tr. "the good man's merit surpasses yours, sir" ? The treatise-author sets up his first question, and what it asks is exactly the doubt left over from passage 3. The answer has two sections. First, Śakra has already become, within the fruit and reward of merit, lord of gods and humans, of majestic virtue and honoured; the bhikṣu, revering the wholesome dharma and wishing to display this merit, therefore compares it with the most honoured one—the more honoured the one compared, the clearer what is displayed. Second, the bhikṣu had heard that Śakra had attained the śrāvaka path, and therefore said, 「汝雖有福德，是菩薩勝汝」 tr. "Though you have merit, this bodhisattva surpasses you," to spur his mind toward the Great. Seen together, the two sections show that the bhikṣu's words do not disparage a person; they use a person to display the Dharma, and use the Dharma to spur a person on.

23. The reason Śakra accepts the words without giving rise to a haughty mind. The treatise-author goes on to explain Śakra's side: Śakra has attained the path and is deeply mindful of the Buddha-Dharma, and so does not give rise to a haughty mind; on the contrary, he accepts the words and himself acknowledges that the bodhisattva, merely by arousing the mind, surpasses me. How is he able to do so? The treatise-author gives two reasons: Śakra's reward of merit is slight and thin, the bodhisattva's merit is pure and thick; and again, Śakra's merit clings to heavenly pleasure and is for his own person, while the bodhisattva's meritorious virtue is dedicated, for the sake of all beings, to the joy of the Buddha path. The first reason concerns its measure, the second concerns its direction. Being put below another before the assembly without giving rise to a haughty mind rests not on forbearance learned by self-cultivation, but on seeing clearly that where oneself and the other are heading are not the same.

24. The assembly at the time gives rise to a mind that slights Śakra, and so Śakra himself states the causes and conditions of surpassing. The treatise-author adds a layer of the story that others do not easily see: the listeners in the assembly at the time, hearing the bhikṣu say 「勝於仁者」 tr. "surpasses yours, sir," and seeing moreover that Śakra accepted his words, all then gave rise to a mind that slighted Śakra. Śakra therefore said the words out still more thoroughly—he surpasses not only me, but even the one who practises prajñā without the power of skilful means—and himself told the causes and conditions of surpassing, namely the passage the treatise-author cites in brief from the sūtra text, 「是菩薩如說行般若，不斷佛種」 tr. "this bodhisattva practises prajñā as taught and does not cut off the seed of the Buddha" and so on up to 「以行般若波羅蜜故，得是現世功德」 tr. "because he practises prajñāpāramitā, he obtains this merit in the present life." What Śakra does here is not self-defence; it is leading the slighting mind of the many away from the person and back to the Dharma.

25. Question and answer two: why does Ānanda give rise to the thought of his own power or the Buddha's power? The treatise-author sets up the second question: why does Ānanda have this thought, 「帝釋自以力說？用佛力說？」 tr. "Does Śakra speak by his own power? Does he speak by the Buddha's power?" The answer says: Ānanda knew that Śakra was a śrāvaka, and what he said was very deep, beyond the knowledge of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha; therefore he gave rise to doubt and asked. This answer sets Ānanda's doubt upon a clear criterion—the dharma spoken goes beyond the standing of the speaker. This criterion can be used in reading any words of Dharma.

26. Question and answer three: since Śakra has wisdom of his own, why does he speak of the Buddha's power?—the Sūtra of Holding the Mind cited as proof. The treatise-author sets up the third question, and it is asked more sharply still: Śakra has wisdom of his own and can ask and can answer; why must he say it is the Buddha's power? The answer says: prajñā is very deep, very hard, immeasurable, and boundless; if even speaking it elsewhere is hard, how much more speaking it before the Buddha in the great assembly. Next it cites the Sūtra of Holding the Mind as proof: 「佛以光明威神入其身故，能於佛前難問有所說。」 tr. "Because the Buddha's light and majestic power entered his body, he was able, before the Buddha, to raise difficult questions and to speak." The work this proof does is to turn 「佛力」 tr. "the Buddha's power" from a phrase of modesty into a real matter—it is not that Śakra is being polite; speaking the deep Dharma before the Buddha truly has the Buddha's empowerment.

27. The Buddha approves Śakra's words and further praises the great majestic virtue; Māra constantly seeks an opening, as spoken of in the "Māra" chapter. The treatise-author follows the turn of the sūtra text: the Buddha approves what Śakra says, and further praises the bodhisattva who practises the deep prajñā as having great majestic virtue, namely: 「阿難！是菩薩習學深般若時，惡魔生疑」 tr. "Ānanda! When this bodhisattva trains in the deep prajñā, evil Māra gives rise to doubt." The treatise-author points out the reason in passing: evil Māra is the enemy and thief of the bodhisattva, constantly seeking an opening against the bodhisattva, as spoken of in the "Māra" chapter; because the bodhisattva practises prajñā deeply, Māra greatly contrives means to ruin the bodhisattva's mind; if the bodhisattva is lazy, Māra is greatly delighted: 「是人自當墮落」 tr. "This person will fall of himself!" This passage joins the deeds of Māra and the surpassing of this chapter into one matter: the very reason there is Māra is that what is practised is deep.

28. Someone says 「一切菩薩應有魔怨」 tr. "all bodhisattvas must have Māra as enemy" , and so Ānanda asks. The treatise-author points out where Ānanda's question comes from: someone says 「一切菩薩應有魔怨」 tr. "all bodhisattvas must have Māra as enemy," and therefore Ānanda asks, 「為盡有魔？亦有無者？」 tr. "Do all have Māra? Or are there also those without?" The 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" here differs in nature from the four accounts of passage 20—those four accounts were divergent understandings of one phrase in the sūtra; this single account brings in a common view that is to be refuted. In reading the treatise one should tell them apart: someone says is sometimes divergent understandings set out side by side, and sometimes set up to bring in a difficulty.

29. The Buddha answers by distinguishing: with a deep and pure mind there is no disturbance from Māra. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's distinguishing answer: one who practises the bodhisattva path with a deep and pure mind has no disturbance from Māra; one who is not pure is ruined by Māra, as the sūtra says at length. Whether there is Māra or not rests not on Māra but on whether the mind is pure or impure—this one sentence draws together all nine conditions of passage 13 at once: of what the nine conditions list, every one lies where one's own mind is impure, and not one is something Māra can impose directly on the practitioner.

30. Question and answer four: all conditioned dharmas can be turned and can be abandoned—why does Ānanda doubt whether the sin can be repented? The treatise-author sets up the fourth question: as the Buddha says, 「一切有為法皆可轉可捨」 tr. "all conditioned dharmas can be turned and can be abandoned"; why then does Ānanda doubt and ask, 「是罪可悔不」 tr. "Can this sin be repented or not?" The answer says: Ānanda knew that prajñāpāramitā is an inexhaustible cause and condition; if one makes offerings to it, the merit is boundless, so that even on attaining buddhahood the merit is still not exhausted; if one rebukes it in hatred, the sin too is boundless in the same way. Therefore he asked the Buddha. The wonder of this answer lies in its symmetry: the boundlessness of merit and the boundlessness of sin come from one source—what they face is an inexhaustible dharma. The reason slighting and hatred weigh so heavily here is precisely that the one hated is a person who upholds that same inexhaustible dharma.

31. The Buddha answers that one who binds resentment and does not let go cannot get out, while one who with a lowly intent repents makes up the kalpas and arouses the great adornment. The treatise-author explains the line of reasoning in the Buddha's answer: though the Dharma has a way out of sin, if a bodhisattva fights and binds resentment and does not at once let it go, he cannot get out; why? Because this bodhisattva in his deep mind slights and hates the other bodhisattva. Because of hatred and arrogance he cannot with a lowly intent repent together, but wishes instead to practise other merit to seek the extinction of this sin. The treatise-author cites the Buddha's words to settle it: because he holds resentment, though he makes other merit, none of it is pure; because it is not pure it has no strength; because it has no strength it cannot extinguish the sin; if this person wishes to become a buddha, one who does not abandon omniscience and with a lowly intent repents makes up that number of kalpas, and only then arouses the great adornment. The most pressing point of this passage lies in the six Chinese characters rendered here as 「不能下意共悔」 tr. "cannot with a lowly intent repent together"—the reason he cannot get out is not that the sin is great; it is that single thought of arrogance that would put merit in the place of repentance.

32. Question and answer five: how can the resentment held in the mind be extinguished? The treatise-author sets up the last question: the resentment held in the mind—how can it be extinguished? The answer is only one sentence: 「破瞋因緣，如經說。」 tr. "Break the causes and conditions of hatred, as the sūtra says." This answer is extremely short, so short it seems not to answer, yet in fact it hands the gate of practice back to the sūtra text—hatred is not subdued by resolve pressing it down; it is by breaking its causes and conditions. Elsewhere in this treatise the treatise-author speaks at length of the method of breaking hatred; here he does not repeat it, only points out its road. When in reading the treatise one meets short answers of this kind, one should know that they point out a road and do not skip over it.

33. Ānanda, with fear in his heart, asks about dwelling together, and the Buddha answers that it should be as looking on the Buddha. The treatise-author adds the state of mind in which Ānanda asked: Ānanda knew that all beings are bound to the causes and conditions of their deeds, are not free, and that none can save them; with fear in his heart, he therefore asked, 「菩薩共住云何？云何用心恭敬？」 tr. "How do bodhisattvas dwell together? How should they use the mind in reverence?" The Buddha answers: 「供養恭敬，當如視佛。」 tr. "Make offerings and revere, as when looking on the Buddha." The treatise-author adds one sentence as the reason: 「是未來佛故。」 tr. "Because he is a future buddha." These five Chinese characters are the ground of the whole chapter's teaching on dwelling together—looking on one another as on the Buddha is not exalting the other; it is seeing truly where he is heading.

34. The gloss on riding together in one boat—the boat is the six perfections, the three realms and the three outflows are the water, the further shore is the Buddha path, the same precepts, the same view, the same path: this is called the bodhisattvas' training alike. In the last passage the treatise-author glosses the sūtra's simile word by word. The boat is the six perfections; the three realms and the three outflows are the water; the further shore is the Buddha path—each of the three things in the simile points to something, and what is ridden together is the dharma practised, not the crowd one is among. Next he glosses 「彼學我學」 tr. "what he trains in I train in": what he trains in I too should train in, and what is trained in is the six perfections and so on, 「同戒、同見、同道」 tr. "the same precepts, the same view, the same path." Next he brings out a simile: as brothers among the white-robed should not fight together, so I, a brother in the same Dharma, should also not contend—if brothers of the world do not even fight together, how could those of the same Dharma contend with one another? Next he keeps the discrimination: if this bodhisattva practises mixedly and parts from the mind of sarvajñā, I should not train in that way; why? 「勝事應從他學，惡事應捨」 tr. "In excellent matters one should train after the other; evil matters should be abandoned." At the end he concludes: if the bodhisattva trains in this way, the matters of slighting and hatred all cease; this then is called the bodhisattvas' training alike. The whole chapter begins from 「不雜餘心心數法」 tr. "not mixed with other minds and mental-factor dharmas" and concludes at 「輕慢、瞋恨事皆滅」 tr. "the matters of slighting and hatred all cease"; head and tail speak of one and the same matter—one whose mind is not mixed does not contend with others either.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「不雜餘心心數法」 tr. "not mixed with other minds and mental-factor dharmas" as not being permitted to give rise to thoughts. The treatise-author sets up four accounts for this phrase, and what the four block are, respectively, the evil mind, the growth of the evil mind, the mind of the two vehicles, and the indeterminate and scattered mind; not one account says the practitioner should make the mind empty of anything at all. What the first three accounts block all have a clear direction—greed and stinginess breaking the perfections, retreating and falling to the two vehicles; the fourth account, though it blocks the indeterminate and the scattered, also gives as its reason 「以遮善道故」 tr. "because it blocks the wholesome path," not that giving rise to thoughts is a fault. So this phrase is an orientation in the gate of practice, not a prohibition laid on the ground of the mind.

Do not read the Buddha's weighing as belittling the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions. What the sūtra text sets up are the highest wholesome dharmas and meditative dharmas of the world, and the treatise-author's judgement too says only that they are false and not firm 「離諸法實相故」 tr. "because they are apart from the real mark of all dharmas"; it never says they should not be cultivated. The simile of blades of grass and the vajra speaks of substance, not of having or not having—grass remains grass, the vajra remains the vajra, and the simile does not say that grass may therefore be thrown away. If a practitioner, because of this passage, slights the ten wholesome paths and abandons meditative concentration, he falls squarely into the other side that the treatise-author refutes: before obtaining prajñā, he has already lost its provisions.

Do not read 「勝於仁者」 tr. "surpasses yours, sir" and ‘also surpasses the srota-āpanna and so on up to the pratyekabuddha’ as a war of words over who is higher or lower. The treatise-author gives an explanation for both sides: the reason the bhikṣu says these words is that he reveres the wholesome dharma, and, knowing that Śakra has already attained the śrāvaka path, wishes to spur him toward the Great; the reason Śakra accepts them without giving rise to a haughty mind is that he knows for himself that his reward of merit is slight and thin and is for his own person, while the bodhisattva's merit is pure and thick and is dedicated, for the sake of beings, to the Buddha path. A single sentence is, for the one who speaks it, a display of the Dharma, and for the one who receives it, a mirror held to himself; neither side is contending over persons. If it is read as the sūtra permitting people to slight one another, it runs directly against the teaching on dwelling together in the latter half of this chapter.

Do not read the conditions by which Māra finds his opening as harm inflicted by an outside force. Among the nine conditions, the first several are lack of faith in the Dharma, doubt, being far from the good friend, taking up evil dharmas, and obstructing others from hearing and training; the later several are slighting fellow practitioners, fighting and contending with those who seek the śrāvaka path, bodhisattvas contending with one another, and giving rise to an evil mind toward one who has obtained the prediction—in every one of them one's own mind moves first, and only then does Māra find his opening. The treatise-author further draws it all together in one sentence: one who practises the bodhisattva path with a deep and pure mind has no disturbance from Māra; one who is not pure is ruined by Māra. So in reading this passage one should look inward, not look outward to lay the blame.

Do not read 「我不說有出」 tr. "I do not say there is a way out" as the sin being fixed and unrepentable. The Buddha's answer itself has a second part—if he then corrects and repents himself, having the thought 「我為大失」 tr. "I have made a great mistake," vows to bow low for the sake of all beings, to be as a bridge, as one deaf, as one dumb, and not answer people with evil words. The treatise-author explains it more clearly still: the reason he cannot get out is that he 「不能下意共悔」 tr. "cannot with a lowly intent repent together" and wishes to seek the extinction of this sin with other merit; if he does not abandon omniscience and with a lowly intent repents, he still makes up that number of kalpas and only then arouses the great adornment. From this it can be seen that what is cut off is the mind that holds resentment and does not let go, not the person's road.

Do not read 「彼學我學」 tr. "what he trains in I train in" as going along with everything alike. The sūtra text carries its own discrimination: if this bodhisattva practises mixedly and parts from the mind of sarvajñā, I should not train in that way; and the treatise-author further gives the judgement 「勝事應從他學，惡事應捨」 tr. "in excellent matters one should train after the other; evil matters should be abandoned." So the alikeness of training alike lies in the mind of sarvajñā and the six perfections and so on, not in following one another out of personal feeling. If it is read as meaning that whatever fellow practitioners do should all be imitated, then the conditions of slighting and of fighting and contending listed in the first half of this chapter would have no way of being told apart.

Bearing on Practice

The first use is that the four accounts can serve as four sieves. The treatise-author sets out the four accounts without judging them, which suits the gate of practice exactly for examining oneself layer by layer: today, in meeting the Dharma, is there any evil mind of stinginess, greed, and the rest that breaks the six perfections? When an evil mind comes, is it allowed to grow and gain strength instead of being extinguished at once? At the hard places, is there a mind quietly retreating toward the two vehicles? Between sitting in meditation and doing the work, is there the indeterminate and the scattered that, though it does no evil, has blocked the wholesome path? The four questions run from coarse to fine and can be used anywhere in the course of a day; only one who can pass the fourth question is unmixed as the sūtra speaks of it.

The second use is to apply the meaning of the weighing to provisions and not to comparison. Of the merit of the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions, the treatise-author says plainly that it is false and not firm, yet he never says it may be abandoned. Here the practitioner should work with two hands: with one hand, go on as before cultivating merit, keeping the precepts, and practising meditative concentration; with the other, not take what is cultivated as enough, and not exalt himself because of what he cultivates. Blades of grass and the vajra lie in one place without hindering each other—the only thing to guard against is passing off blades of grass as the vajra.

The third use is a way of bearing oneself when put below another. Śakra's manner is most worth learning: he does not argue, is not vexed, accepts the words straight away, and leads the slighting mind of the many back to the Dharma. As for why he can do this, the treatise-author gives the reason—he knows for himself that where he is heading is not the same as the bodhisattva. In daily life, when someone to one's face holds another up and puts oneself down, one can use this as a mirror: if what the other says is the true state of things in the Dharma, accepting it does no harm; if it is the bias of personal feeling, there is no need to contend either—once contention starts, it is the eighth condition listed in this chapter.

The fourth use is to turn the checklist of the deeds of Māra around and use it. Since every one of the nine conditions arises from one's own mind, one can ask oneself item by item: toward the deep Dharma, do I have faith or doubt? Do I draw near to the good friend, or keep far from him? Have I cut off another's resolve with words like ‘this Dharma is very deep; even I have not reached its bottom’? Have I, presuming on my name and clan and on being known to many people, slighted others who practise the good? Have I fought and contended with those not on my path? Have I given rise to an evil mind toward fellow bodhisattvas? Wherever one item is answered yes, one knows that here Māra has already found his opening, and there is no need to look further to outer circumstances.

The fifth use is that the teaching on dwelling together can be put into practice at once. The standard the Buddha gives is extremely simple: look on one another as on the World-Honored One, and think, 「是我真伴，共乘一船」 tr. "This is my true companion, riding together in one boat." The treatise-author explains the boat as the six perfections, the water as the three realms and the three outflows, the further shore as the Buddha path—what those in one boat share is the Dharma and the destination, not temperament and what they have seen and heard. In the Saṅgha and among fellow practitioners, the practitioner can hold to three sentences to guard himself: first, look on one another as future buddhas; second, in excellent matters train after the other, and evil matters abandon and do not follow; third, brothers in the same Dharma should not contend. When these three sentences are practised, the matters of slighting and hatred cease of themselves, and this is the training alike of which the sūtra speaks.

Further Resonances

The backbone of this chapter is one passage of sūtra text and one passage of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins from Śakra Devānām Indra speaking to the Buddha, praising prajñā as without recollection, imagining, and discrimination, and the one who receives and upholds it and practises as taught, not mixed with other minds and mental-factor dharmas, as not having come from small merit; the Buddha approves his words and sets up the weighing against the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions; a bhikṣu tells Śakra that the merit of practising prajñā surpasses yours, sir, and Śakra states for himself that with a single arousing of the mind he surpasses me, and so on up to surpassing the one who practises prajñā without the power of skilful means, and says that the one who practises as taught does not cut off the seed of the Buddha, constantly sees the buddhas, and quickly draws near to the seat of awakening, and speaks of the promise that the gods of the Four Heavenly Kings will present the bowls, of the buddhas of the ten directions constantly keeping him in mind, of the world's calamities being forever absent, and of the four hundred and four sicknesses being absent from his body; next it turns to Ānanda thinking to himself whether Śakra speaks by his own power or by the Buddha's power, Śakra, knowing what he had in mind, answering that all is the Buddha's majestic power, and the Buddha approving it and saying that evil Māra gives rise to doubt and suspicion, and that if the bodhisattva does not part from prajñā, Māra is greatly grieved and pained and lets loose fire and wind wishing to make him give rise to a single disordered thought; Ānanda asks whether Māra troubles all or not, the Buddha answers that there are those he troubles and those he does not trouble, and enumerates the conditions by which Māra finds his opening, the last two of which both arise from fellow practitioners contending with one another; Ānanda asks whether an evil mind passing through that many kalpas can find a way out, and the Buddha answers that for one who holds resentment, does not repent, and does not let go, he does not say there is a way out, while for one who corrects and repents himself a separate road is opened; last Ānanda asks how bodhisattva and bodhisattva dwell together, and the Buddha answers that they should look on one another as on the World-Honored One, that this is my true companion riding together in one boat, what he trains in I train in, and that of one who practises mixedly and parts from the mind of sarvajñā, I should not train in that way, and concludes, this is training alike. Treatise ① explains following the text, under "The explanation says": first it unfolds the meaning of what Śakra said above and divides merit into what is unsurpassed and what is not; next it sets up a heading of gloss for 「餘心、心數法雜」 tr. "other minds and mental-factor dharmas mixed" and sets out the four accounts of someone says side by side; next it explains the meaning of the Buddha's approval and of the weighing and brings out the simile of blades of grass and the vajra; next it sets up five rounds of question and answer—the reason the bhikṣu spoke to Śakra, the reason Ānanda doubted whether it was his own power or the Buddha's power, why Śakra, who has wisdom of his own, speaks of the Buddha's power, with the Sūtra of Holding the Mind cited as proof, why, when all conditioned dharmas can be turned and can be abandoned, Ānanda doubts whether the sin can be repented, and how the resentment held in the mind can be extinguished; in between it explains the Buddha's further praise of the great majestic virtue and Māra's constantly seeking an opening as spoken of in the "Māra" chapter, brings out someone's saying 「一切菩薩應有魔怨」 tr. "all bodhisattvas must have Māra as enemy" and the Buddha's distinguishing answer that with a deep and pure mind there is no disturbance from Māra, and explains the Buddha's answer that one who binds resentment and does not let go cannot get out, while one who with a lowly intent repents makes up the kalpas and arouses the great adornment; the last passage glosses word by word the simile of riding together in one boat—the boat is the six perfections, the three realms and the three outflows are the water, the further shore is the Buddha path, the same precepts, the same view, the same path, brothers among the white-robed should not fight together, in excellent matters one should train after the other and evil matters should be abandoned—and concludes that the matters of slighting and hatred all cease, and this is called the bodhisattvas' training alike.

The doctrinal veins between this chapter and the chapters before and after it can be seen along three lines. First, looking back: the preceding chapter made clear the meaning of not realising it in a dream, and this chapter, carrying on its momentum of ‘training without falling’, asks how fellow practitioners are to treat one another; so the sūtra text at its opening still takes Śakra's weighing of the merit of receiving and upholding as the joint, and does not set up a stove afresh. Second, within the chapter there is a turn of its own: the first half speaks of the surpassing of the one who upholds the sūtra, the latter half of how, where there is surpassing, there must be difficulty from Māra, and the two halves pivot on the passage of ‘Ānanda doubting whether it is his own power or the Buddha's power’—since what Śakra says is the Buddha's majestic power, the Buddha's going on to speak of the deeds of Māra is no separate matter but still one and the same instruction. Third, looking ahead: this chapter concludes on 「同學」 tr. "training alike," the next chapter concludes on ‘equal training’; the two chapters stand one after the other, and the reader may view the two chapters together to see the difference between alike and equal.

Of the ancient masters' explanations, two schools can be recorded for this chapter. Jizang, in his sectional division of this chapter, says: 「此是第三親近善友得無邊功德，為三：第一明不雜心得大功德，二明巧學般若令魔驚怖，第三廣明留難令行者識知。從第二段作名，故言魔愁」 tr. "This is the third, drawing near to the good friend and obtaining boundless merit; it is in three: the first makes clear that the unmixed mind obtains great merit; the second makes clear that skilfully training in prajñā makes Māra startled and afraid; the third makes clear at length the hindrances, so that practitioners may recognise and know them. The name is made from the second section; therefore it says Māra's Grief"—dividing this chapter into three parts, the unmixed mind, making Māra startled and afraid, and making clear at length the hindrances, and stating for himself that the reason the chapter name is Māra's Grief comes from the second section; this and this treatise's sūtra passage, which concludes with training alike as its name, each take one meaning, and they are recorded side by side without judgement. Jizang also lists four explanations of the phrase 「餘心」 tr. "other minds," saying: 「一解云：六弊心為餘心，二云二乘心為餘心，三云無記散亂心，四云一切有所得妨正觀者皆名餘心也」 tr. "One explanation says: the six obscuring minds are the other minds; the second says: the minds of the two vehicles are the other minds; the third says: the indeterminate and scattered mind; the fourth says: all that has something to be attained and obstructs right contemplation is called other minds"—the number of the four explanations corresponds to this treatise's four accounts of someone says, yet the fourth explanation reads 「一切有所得妨正觀者」 tr. "all that has something to be attained and obstructs right contemplation," differing in wording from this treatise's 「無記、散亂心」 tr. "the indeterminate and scattered mind"; this is Jizang's own explanation, and both are kept. His explanation of the conditions by which Māra finds his opening further says, 「此中九事前亦兩兩相次」 tr. "Of the nine matters here, the earlier ones also follow one another in pairs," dividing the items by the method of pairs following one another; and his explanation of dwelling together says: 「如世尊知者，當來皆是佛也，以有佛性故也」 tr. "‘As the World-Honored One’ is known thus: in the future they will all be buddhas, because they have the Buddha-nature"—explaining 「相視當如世尊」 tr. "should look on one another as on the World-Honored One" by the Buddha-nature, which is close in the meaning it takes to this treatise's sentence 「是未來佛故」 tr. "because he is a future buddha," yet differs in the words it rests on; this too is recorded side by side without judgement. Huiying, explaining this chapter, marks its main idea, saying: 「此品明脩和敬成就生忍，令同上信明於一學，次等學品明因於平等得於法忍」 tr. "This chapter makes clear cultivating harmony and reverence and accomplishing the acceptance of beings, making all alike in the higher faith and clear in the one training; the next chapter, Equal Training, makes clear obtaining the acceptance of dharmas by way of equality"—judging this chapter by harmony, reverence, and the acceptance of beings, and the next chapter by equality and the acceptance of dharmas, which brings out exactly the meaning spoken of above, of training alike and equal training standing one after the other; his explanation of the latter half of the sūtra text says: 「共住云何已下品之第二。明脩和敬具足生忍，不行雜學脩一大乘，明同學之義也」 tr. "From ‘how do they dwell together’ onward is the second part of the chapter. It makes clear cultivating harmony and reverence and fulfilling the acceptance of beings, not practising mixed training but cultivating the one Great Vehicle; it makes clear the meaning of training alike"; his explanation of 「我不說有出」 tr. "I do not say there is a way out" says: 「我不說有出者，只以長遠故爾說耳」 tr. "‘I do not say there is a way out’—it is said so only because it is long and far," and explaining the treatise text he further says: 「不能下意共悔已下，以此義故說不出，非是永不可出也」 tr. "From ‘cannot with a lowly intent repent together’ onward: it is because of this meaning that it says there is no way out; it is not that there is forever no way out"—these two sayings accord with the measure kept in the fifth item of the section ‘Do Not Misread’ above, and can serve as supporting evidence. In his commentary Huiying also calls this chapter 「第六十一品者，名為同學品」 tr. "the sixty-first chapter, named Training Alike," its place in the order of chapters differing by one from the base text of this edition; its variant chapter titles, the division into fascicles in the various editions, and the fact that later Tiantai masters, citing this chapter's passage on 「共乘一船」 tr. "riding together in one boat," mark a fascicle number that does not match the base text, are examined in detail in the Apparatus.

Equal Training: Why the Dharma of Equality Is Precisely Inner Emptiness and So On up to the Emptiness of Specific Marks; Why Training for the Sake of the Exhaustion, Separation, Cessation, and Non-arising of Form Turns Out to Be Training in Sarvajñā; Why the Buddha Must Ask in Return Whether the Suchnesses Can Be Exhausted, Ceased, or Severed; Why Training in Suchness Can Exhaust the Limits of All Training; Why the Merits of Training in This Way Are Ranged All the Way to Wishing to Show the Unconditioned Nature; Why the Inferior Person Cannot Train in This Way; Why Not Taking In Evil People and Those Who Break the Precepts Does Not Go against the Bodhisattva's Original Vow to Deliver Evil People; Why, When All Dharmas Are Pure in Their Original Nature, It Is Still Said That the Bodhisattva Obtains Purity; Why the Few Places on the Great Earth That Yield Gold and Silver Speak of Fewness and Not of Preciousness; Why Deep Prajñā's Encompassing All the Perfections Needs the Two Similes of the View of Self and the Life-Faculty; Why the Merit of Making Offerings to Immeasurable Buddhas Does Not Equal Training in Prajñā and Practising as Taught; Why Being Able to Obtain All the Merits of the Śrāvaka and the Pratyekabuddha and Not Abiding in Them Is the Mark of Non-retrogression; Why, of the Three Kinds of Having This Thought, the First Is Wrong, the Next Blocks, and Only the Last Speaks the Right; Why the Treatise-Author's Two Kinds of Acceptance of Equality Are as the Two Ends of a Scale Coming to Rest Level; Why the Three Wrong Views of the Inferior Each Turn Round on Delivering or Not Delivering; Why the Great Person Must First Break the Inversions and Then Also Abandon This Path; Why the Nine Causes of Leaving Evil Each Fall upon One's Own Mind; and Why the View of Self Is the Root of the Sixty-two Wrong Views

What Is Being Asked

What this chapter asks about is the word 「學」 tr. "training." The previous chapter spoke of how people who practise together treat one another, and it concluded in the two Chinese characters 「同學」 tr. "training alike"; this chapter goes on to ask: the dharma in which those who train alike train alike—what, in the end, is it? Subhūti's very first sentence asks it with the utmost directness—「何等是菩薩摩訶薩等法，菩薩所應學？」 tr. "What is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's dharma of equality, in which the bodhisattva should train?" The whole chapter unfolds from here, and at the end it still closes on training; therefore the chapter's name is Equal Training.

The Buddha's answer is unexpectedly short: inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and so on up to the emptiness of specific marks is the dharma of equality; form's emptiness of the mark of form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness's emptiness of the mark of consciousness, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi's emptiness of the mark of awakening—this is called the dharma of equality. What is called 「等」 tr. "equal" is not setting the dharmas out in a row and saying that their standing is the same; it says that once the marks of each of the dharmas are seen to be empty of themselves, difference has nowhere to settle, and the mind within them is then equal. The treatise-author uses the comparison of a scale to say this meaning in full: as the two ends of a scale come to rest level. What the end of the previous chapter spoke of was the acceptance of the equality of beings; what this chapter speaks of is the acceptance of the equality of dharmas—it is the same single word 「等」 tr. "equal," the one falling on persons, the other falling on dharmas.

The question that follows is harder still: if training is for the sake of the exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising of form, is that not seeking annihilation? The Buddha first goes along with Subhūti's words, saying 「如須菩提所說」 tr. "as Subhūti has said," but, turning round, he asks a question in return: the suchness of form and so on up to the suchness of the Buddha—can these suchnesses be exhausted, can they be made to cease, can they be severed? Subhūti answers with only the two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘no indeed’. This counter-question is the pivot of the whole chapter—exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising are practices that counteract the inversions, not the ultimate of what is trained in; the ultimate place is suchness, and suchness cannot be exhausted, cannot be made to cease, cannot be severed. The treatise-author, in the treatise section, separates these two layers still more clearly: that exhaustion, separation, and severing are practised in order to remove the inversions; they are not the ultimate.

After this the sūtra text sets out, all along the line, the merits of 「如是學」 tr. "training in this way": training in suchness is training in the six perfections and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; it is for the sake of exhausting the limits of all training; Māra cannot break him; he goes straight to the ground of the avaivartika; and so on up to training in opening the gate of ambrosia and training in wishing to show the unconditioned nature; on the reverse side there is the inferior person who cannot train in this way, and there are the various evil places that one who trains in this way leaves behind. In the middle two sets of similes are inserted—few are the places on the great earth that yield gold, silver, and precious things; few are the people who take up and practise the work of a wheel-turning sage king—and what they speak of is not the preciousness of prajñā but the fewness of those who can train. The latter half turns to the weighing of merit and to the distinguishing of the three kinds of 「作是念」 tr. "having this thought": the merit of making offerings to immeasurable buddhas does not equal training in prajñā, practising as taught, and rightly recollecting; and if one who practises prajñā has the thought 「我以是般若波羅蜜得一切種智」 tr. "by this prajñāpāramitā I obtain the omniscience of all kinds," on the contrary he is not called practising prajñā. Of the three thoughts at the very end of the chapter, the first is wrong, the next blocks, and the third then speaks the real mark; the treatise-author sets up a special question for this, and it is the section most needing to be seen clearly where this chapter draws to its close.

The course of the treatise section corresponds to that of the sūtra section, but is finer. The treatise-author first aligns the chapter above and this one and brings out the two kinds of acceptance of equality; next, following the text, he explains exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising, and that suchness cannot be severed; next he explains exhausting the limits of all training, the chain of cause and effect of great kindness and great compassion, and the glosses on ambrosia and the three gates of liberation; next he explains the three kinds of wrong view of the inferior and the great person's weighing of the real mark, and sets up four rounds of question and answer—if beings are empty, what then is there to deliver; why he does not take in evil people; how the view of self includes the views; why there is further a third statement. The places where the four questions stand are precisely the four junctures in the whole chapter where the reading most easily goes astray.

Passage by Passage

1. Subhūti asks what the bodhisattva's dharma of equality is. At the head of the chapter Subhūti addresses the Buddha. What he asks about is the two Chinese characters 「等法」 tr. "dharma of equality," and he adds a qualifying phrase: 「菩薩所應學」 tr. "in which the bodhisattva should train." In reading this question one must first see clearly that what is asked about is a dharma, not a practice—he does not ask how the bodhisattva trains; he asks which dharma it is that is trained in. The previous chapter concluded in training alike, and that in which they are alike was never named; this question is precisely the chasing out of that unnamed thing. Whenever the concluding words of a preceding chapter of the sūtra leave a word undetermined, the opening of the next chapter often takes it as its question; this is a way of joining common in this sūtra.

2. The Buddha answers that inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of specific marks is the dharma of equality, and that abiding in this dharma of equality he obtains awakening. The Buddha does not answer from the gate of practice; he answers directly with headings from among the eighteen emptinesses: inner emptiness is the dharma of equality; outer emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of specific marks is the dharma of equality; and he pushes one layer further—form's emptiness of the mark of form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness's emptiness of the mark of consciousness, and so on up to awakening's emptiness of the mark of awakening. The last sentence is the most essential: 「住是等法，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Abiding in this dharma of equality, he obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." In reading this passage one misunderstanding easily arises: taking 「等」 tr. "equal" to say that the dharmas are the same as one another; in fact what is made equal lies in the emptiness of the marks, not in the substance of the dharmas. The marks of the dharmas are each different, and each is empty of itself, so that the mind finds nowhere to settle; only this is called equality. The sūtra text itself gives the criterion—wherever equality is spoken of, it is always tied to the one word 「空」 tr. "empty."

3. Subhūti asks whether training for the sake of the exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising of form is training in sarvajñā. The second question turns to practice. Subhūti sets out one by one the four marks of practice 「盡、離、滅、不生」 tr. "exhaustion, separation, cessation, non-arising"; he asks this of form, asks this of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to asking this of cultivating the four foundations of mindfulness and on to the eighteen unshared dharmas. This question is asked with great weight: the four Chinese characters rendered here as ‘exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising’ sound no different from the quiescence toward which the two vehicles tend, so Subhūti must ask it clearly—training in this way, does it count as training in sarvajñā? Here the reader need not be quick to judge him over-doubtful; he is asking the doubt out ahead of time on behalf of those who read the sūtra in later ages.

4. The Buddha answers: as Subhūti has said. The Buddha's first layer of answer is a complete acknowledgement: as Subhūti has said, training for the sake of the exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising of form and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas is training in sarvajñā. If one read this answer only up to here, one would conclude that the training of prajñā and the practice of annihilation are not two. But the sūtra text does not stop here—in the next passage the Buddha at once asks in return. Therefore, whenever in reading the sūtras one meets words of approval such as ‘as you have said’, one must see whether a turning phrase follows them; this passage is a ready example.

5. The Buddha asks in return whether the suchnesses can be exhausted, ceased, or severed, and Subhūti answers no. The Buddha asks: 「於汝意云何？」 tr. "What do you think?" Next he lists the suchness of form, the suchness of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the suchness of awakening and the suchness of the Buddha, and asks whether these suchnesses are 「盡、滅、斷不」 tr. "exhausted, ceased, severed, or not." Subhūti only answers: 「不也！世尊！」 tr. "No, World-Honored One!" One question and one answer—the words extremely few, the weight extremely heavy. The reason for asking in return is to set the approval of the previous passage in its correct place: what exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising exhaust and make cease is the grasping of the inversions, not suchness. This section is the watershed of how this chapter is read—above, it takes up the approval of the fourth passage; below, it opens the training in suchness of the sixth passage.

6. The Buddha says that training in suchness is training in sarvajñā; that suchness is not realised, does not cease, and is not severed; that this is training in the six perfections and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; and that it is for the sake of exhausting the limits of all training. The counter-question finished, the Buddha establishes the meaning directly: the bodhisattva who trains in suchness in this way trains in sarvajñā; and with three phrases he blocks and settles it—「是如，不作證、不滅、不斷」 tr. "this suchness is not realised, does not cease, is not severed." Next he extends it more widely: training in this way is training in the six perfections, training in the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; if one trains in the six perfections and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, this is training in sarvajñā. At the end he brings out the chapter's first key phrase: 「如是學，為盡諸學邊。」 tr. "Training in this way is for the sake of exhausting the limits of all training." What is called exhausting the limits of all training is not having finished learning all the subjects; it is that what is trained in has already reached its limit, and there is nothing further to seek outside. This sentence must be read together with what precedes it: the reason one can exhaust the limits is precisely that what is trained in is suchness.

7. The benefits of training in this way, ranged from Māra's being unable to break him to wishing to show the unconditioned nature. The sūtra text gives a dozen or more instances of 「如是學」 tr. "training in this way" one after another, one sentence, one benefit: Māra and the gods of Māra cannot break him; he goes straight to the ground of the avaivartika; it is training in the path the Buddha practises; it is for obtaining protection; it is training in great kindness and great compassion; it is training in purifying buddha-worlds and bringing beings to accomplishment; it is training in the wheel of the Dharma of three turnings and twelve aspects, for the sake of turning it; it is training in delivering beings; it is training in not cutting off the seed of the Buddha; it is training in opening the gate of ambrosia; it is training in wishing to show the unconditioned nature. This passage has two essentials for reading: first, it may not be pressed into the single phrase ‘all kinds of merit’ and passed over—the sūtra text gives one matter per sentence, each pointing to something different, and the treatise section later explains each item as well; second, one must see its order—starting from not being broken by Māra, passing in the middle through practising oneself and transforming others, and returning at the end to showing the unconditioned nature. The end-point of the merits is not obtaining something; it is being able to show others the unconditioned.

8. The inferior person cannot train in this way; one who trains in this way does so wishing to pull out beings sunk in birth and death. The sūtra text suddenly turns and says 「下劣之人不能作是學」 tr. "the inferior person cannot train in this way," and on the reverse side points out the measure of mind of one who can train: 「如是學者，為欲拔出沈沒生死眾生。」 tr. "One who trains in this way does so wishing to pull out beings sunk in birth and death." The two Chinese characters rendered here as ‘inferior’ are only touched on at this place; their definition opens only in the treatise section. In reading this passage first catch hold of one distinction: with the very same Dharma-gate, some can train in it and some cannot, and the difference lies not in intelligence but in the size of the measure of the mind. This is the reason for all the leaving of evil below.

9. The places left behind by one who trains in this way, from the three evil destinies to not taking in evil people and those who break the precepts. The sūtra text enumerates the places at which one who trains in this way in the end never arrives: he does not fall into the hells, among the hungry ghosts, or among animals; he is not born in a border land; he is not born in a caṇḍāla family; he is not deaf, blind, mute, or crippled, and his faculties are not lacking; his retinue is accomplished and he is never orphaned and poor; he does not kill living beings, and so on up to not holding wrong views; he does not live by wrong livelihood; he does not take in evil people and those who break the precepts. This passage must be noted down item by item, because the treatise section gives a cause for every item—this is the most orderly paired listing of cause and effect in this chapter. Among them the last item, 「不攝惡人及破戒者」 tr. "does not take in evil people and those who break the precepts," most easily gives rise to doubt: how could a bodhisattva not take someone in? For this doubt the treatise section sets up a special question and answers it; here it is kept in hand for now.

10. By the power of skilful means he enters the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions, yet is not born according to the dhyānas, and obtains purity within all dharmas. The sūtra text goes on to speak of the use of the power of skilful means: because of the power of skilful means he is not born in the heavens of long life; as to what the power of skilful means is, the sūtra text itself points the way—「如〈般若波羅蜜品〉中所說。」 tr. "As is said in the ‘Prajñāpāramitā’ chapter." Next it says that the bodhisattva, by the power of skilful means, enters the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions, and yet does not receive birth according to the dhyānas, the immeasurables, or the formless absorptions. The last sentence closes on purity: 「菩薩如是學，一切法中得清淨，所謂淨聲聞、辟支佛心。」 tr. "The bodhisattva who trains in this way obtains purity within all dharmas, namely, he purifies the mind of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha." In reading this passage keep your eye on the two Chinese characters 「不隨」 tr. "not according to": to enter absorption and yet not receive birth according to the absorption is exactly the concrete meaning of the power of skilful means; what is called purifying the mind of the two vehicles is not rejecting the dharmas of the two vehicles; it is not receiving birth and not receiving the fruit there.

11. Subhūti asks: if all dharmas are pure in their original nature, how can it be said that he obtains purity? Subhūti seizes on the last word of the sentence above and asks: 「一切法本性清淨，云何言菩薩一切法中得清淨？」 tr. "All dharmas are pure in their original nature; how can it be said that the bodhisattva obtains purity within all dharmas?" This question is extremely precise—if dharmas are originally pure, purity does not wait to be obtained; if purity can be obtained, dharmas are not originally pure. Whenever one meets in the sūtras both ‘it is so from the beginning’ and ‘it is made so by cultivation’, this question can always be used. Subhūti here sets up for the reader a general form of doubt.

12. The Buddha answers that the mind's penetrating and not sinking is prajñā, and that because ordinary people do not know and do not see, the bodhisattva practises the six perfections for them. The Buddha first approves in two phrases: 「如是！如是！」 tr. "Just so! Just so!"—acknowledging that all dharmas are pure in their original nature; and at once he gives where the 「得」 tr. "obtaining" lies—「若菩薩摩訶薩於是法中心通達、不沒，即是般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's mind within this dharma penetrates and does not sink, this is prajñāpāramitā." What is obtained is not purity; it is that the mind within the pure dharma penetrates and does not sink. Next he says that all ordinary people do not know and do not see, and for the sake of these beings the bodhisattva practises dānapāramitā and so on up to prajñāpāramitā, practises the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds; and he says that one who trains in this way obtains knowledge, the powers, and fearlessness within all dharmas, and can know completely that toward which the minds of all beings tend. This passage resolves the doubt of the eleventh passage: original purity is a matter on the side of dharmas, obtaining purity is a matter on the side of the mind, and the two do not obstruct each other.

13. The simile of the few places on the great earth that yield gold, silver, and precious things, and the simile of the few people who take up and practise the work of a wheel-turning sage king. The sūtra text gives two similes in a row. First, as on the great earth only few are the places that yield gold, silver, and precious things, so it is with beings too: few are the people who can train in prajñā; most fall to the ground of the two vehicles. Second, as few are the people who take up and practise the work of a wheel-turning sage king, and most take up and practise the work of a minor king, so it is with beings too: few practise prajñā and seek omniscience; most practise the path of the two vehicles. Next it speaks further of the inside of the bodhisattvas: among those who have aroused the mind and seek awakening, few practise as taught; many practise prajñā but are without the power of skilful means, and therefore few are the people who abide on the ground of the avaivartika. What the two similes compare is ‘few’, not ‘precious’—the reason this must be seen clearly is that reading it as precious and base gives rise to thoughts of high and low, while only reading it as many and few gives rise to a mind that spurs itself on. The last sentence of the sūtra text itself states the intent: therefore, one who wishes to abide on the ground of the avaivartika should train in this deep prajñāpāramitā.

14. Again, when training in prajñā he does not give rise to minds of stinginess and greed and the rest, and does not give rise to a mind that grasps at marks. The sūtra text starts another passage, speaking of two layers of non-arising in the mind when training in deep prajñā: first, he does not give rise to minds of stinginess and greed, of breaking the precepts, of hatred, of laziness, of distraction, of folly, or of the various other faults—these six are exactly the opposites of the six perfections; second, he does not give rise to a mind that grasps at the mark of form and so on up to grasping at the mark of awakening. And it states the reason itself: 「是菩薩摩訶薩行是深般若波羅蜜，無有法可得；以不可得故，於諸法不生心取相。」 tr. "This bodhisattva-mahāsattva, practising this deep prajñāpāramitā, has no dharma to be found; because it is unfindable, he does not give rise to a mind that grasps at the marks of dharmas." Do not, in reading this passage, wrongly take it that the power of prajñā can sever the afflictions entirely at one stroke—the treatise section later has its own words of measure; here first remember that the sūtra text only says ‘does not give rise to’, and does not say ‘has severed’.

15. Deep prajñā encompasses all the perfections; the simile of the view of self including the sixty-two wrong views, and the simile of a person's dying and the life-faculty ceasing. The sūtra text says that deep prajñā encompasses all the perfections, makes all the perfections grow, and that all the perfections follow it, and itself explains why: 「是深般若波羅蜜，諸波羅蜜悉入中。」 tr. "Into this deep prajñāpāramitā all the perfections enter." Next it gives two similes. First, as within the view of self all the sixty-two wrong views are included—a simile of encompassing; second, as when a person dies, because the life-faculty ceases all the other faculties cease along with it—a simile of following. The division of labour between the two similes is very clear: the former simile speaks of 「攝」 tr. "encompassing," the latter of 「隨」 tr. "following." Here the reader can learn a way of looking at similes—when within one passage two similes are given in a row, most often they are not a repetition; each takes up one meaning from what came before.

16. The Buddha asks whether the beings in the three-thousand great-thousand world are many; Subhūti answers that even those of a single Jambudvīpa are many. The sūtra text turns from doctrine to weighing. The Buddha first asks: 「三千大千世界中眾生多不？」 tr. "Are the beings in the three-thousand great-thousand world many?" Subhūti answers: 「一閻浮提中眾生尚多，何況三千大千世界！」 tr. "Even the beings in a single Jambudvīpa are many—how much more those of the three-thousand great-thousand world!" This one question and one answer lays the groundwork for the weighing of the next passage. Whenever the sūtras set up a great weighing, they first make firm the quantity that is weighed; this is that method; the reader need not find it roundabout—if the quantity is not made firm, the weighing has no force.

17. The Buddha sets up the weighing of merit; Subhūti answers: very much, very much. The Buddha sets up an extremely great supposition: if the beings in the three-thousand great-thousand world all at once obtained a human body and all obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and a bodhisattva for the whole of his life made offerings to that number of buddhas with robes, food and drink, bedding, medicine, and whatever is needed to sustain life, would the merit he obtains be much or not? Subhūti answers: 「甚多！甚多！」 tr. "Very much! Very much!" The merit set up here has already reached the utmost the world can imagine—those offered to are buddhas, the number offered to is the number of the beings of the three-thousand great-thousand world, the time of offering is the whole of a lifetime. The greater what is compared, the more force the verdict of the next passage has.

18. The Buddha rules that this does not equal the much merit obtained by training in prajñā, practising as taught, and rightly recollecting. The Buddha's verdict is utterly decisive: 「不如是善男子、善女人學般若波羅蜜如說行、正憶念，得福多。」 tr. "It does not equal the much merit obtained by this good man or good woman who trains in prajñāpāramitā, practises as taught, and rightly recollects." And he himself states the cause—prajñāpāramitā has force; it can make the bodhisattva obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The ground of this verdict lies not in there being anything wrong with the merit of making offerings, but in prajñā's being able to make a person become a Buddha. In reading the weighing passages keep to this method: look at the cause it gives, not at the quantity it compares. The former is the meaning; the latter is only the vessel.

19. From wishing to go above all beings to wishing to cut off the doubts of all beings, one should train in deep prajñā. The sūtra text gives a dozen or more sentences of 「欲」 tr. "wishing" one after another—wishing to go above all beings, wishing to be a protection for beings without protection, wishing to be a refuge for beings without refuge, wishing to be the ultimate path for beings without an ultimate path, wishing to be eyes for the blind, wishing to obtain the merits of a Buddha, wishing to do the sovereign play of the buddhas, wishing to make the Buddha's lion's roar, wishing to strike the Buddha's bell and drum, wishing to blow the Buddha's conch, wishing to ascend the Buddha's high seat and teach the Dharma, wishing to cut off the doubts of all beings—all uniformly concluding in 「當學深般若波羅蜜」 tr. "should train in deep prajñāpāramitā." This passage corresponds exactly with the dozen or more instances of 「如是學」 tr. "training in this way" of the seventh passage: that passage speaks of the cause starting from the fruits; this passage speaks of the training starting from the wish. The last sentence sums it all up: 「菩薩摩訶薩若學深般若波羅蜜，諸善功德無事不得。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva trains in deep prajñāpāramitā, of all wholesome merits there is none he does not obtain."

20. Subhūti asks whether he also obtains the merits of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha; the Buddha answers that he can obtain them all but does not abide in them. Subhūti asks very finely: one who trains in prajñā—does he really obtain even the merits of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha? The Buddha's answer falls into three parts: he can obtain them all; but he does not abide in them; having contemplated them with knowledge, he passes straight over and enters the bodhisattva's position. This answer is the place in this chapter where the attitude toward the two vehicles is plainest—it is not that he does not obtain them; it is that he obtains them and does not abide in them. What the tenth passage earlier called 「淨聲聞、辟支佛心」 tr. "purifies the mind of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha" has its meaning precisely here. If the reader reads every word in the Great Vehicle sūtras that sets the two vehicles apart as rejection, he will run against this section.

21. One who trains in this way draws near to sarvajñā and is a field of merit for gods, humans, and asuras; this is called not abandoning and not leaving prajñā; one should know that he is non-retrogressing. The sūtra text goes on to give five sentences of 「如是學」 tr. "training in this way": he draws near to sarvajñā and quickly obtains awakening; he is a field of merit for all the world's gods, humans, and asuras; he surpasses the fields of merit of the two vehicles; this is called not abandoning and not leaving prajñāpāramitā, constantly practising prajñāpāramitā; one should know that this is a non-retrogressing bodhisattva. These five sentences speak together of the two sides, benefiting oneself and benefiting others, and at the end return to non-retrogression. This passage should be read together with the ninth passage—the earlier passage speaks of the difficulties that training in this way leaves behind, this passage of the position that training in this way reaches; the two passages are a head and a tail, separated in the middle by the weighing and the similes, and the 「如是學」 tr. "training in this way" that they name is from first to last one and the same thing—training in suchness.

22. The distinction of the three kinds of 「作是念」 tr. "having this thought" . At its last section the sūtra text sets out three sentences of thought. First, if he has this thought, 「是般若波羅蜜，我以是般若波羅蜜得一切種智」 tr. "This is prajñāpāramitā; by this prajñāpāramitā I obtain the omniscience of all kinds," he is not called practising prajñā. Second, if he does not have this thought, 「是般若波羅蜜，是人有般若波羅蜜；是般若波羅蜜法，是人行般若波羅蜜得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "This is prajñāpāramitā; this person has prajñāpāramitā; this is the dharma of prajñāpāramitā; this person practises prajñāpāramitā and obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," this is called practising prajñā. Third, if he has this thought, 「無是般若波羅蜜，無人有是般若波羅蜜；無有行是般若波羅蜜得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "There is no such prajñāpāramitā; no person has this prajñāpāramitā; there is none who practises this prajñāpāramitā and obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," this too is called practising prajñā; and it gives the reason why—「一切法如、法性、實際常住故。」 tr. "Because all dharmas constantly abide in suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality." At a first reading the three sentences seem to repeat one another; the treatise-author later sets up a special question and distinguishes them; here, first remember the difference among the three sentences: the first sentence has an agent and an object; the next blocks their existence; the third further blocks their non-existence and returns to constant abiding.

23. The explanation says: aligning the chapter above and this one, bringing out the two kinds of acceptance of equality and the simile of the two ends of a scale coming to rest level. The treatise section begins with 「釋曰」 tr. "The explanation says." The treatise-author first aligns them: above, Ānanda asked about quarrelling, and the Buddha answered with the purity of training alike; now Subhūti asks about the very deep dharma of equality of one mind, and the Buddha answers that inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of specific marks is called the dharma of equality. Next he establishes two kinds of acceptance of equality—at the end of the previous chapter the acceptance of the equality of beings was spoken of; in this chapter the acceptance of the equality of dharmas is spoken of—and gives the simile: 「如稱兩頭停等，如是內空等諸空於諸法中平等。」 tr. "As the two ends of a scale come to rest level, so inner emptiness and the other emptinesses are equal among all dharmas." Next he explains its mark: as inner dharmas have all kinds of differences, on obtaining inner emptiness they are all equal and without dharmas; and so on up to the emptiness of specific marks: the marks of all dharmas are all empty of themselves, and at that time the mind is equal. The last sentence closes on obtaining the fruit: the bodhisattva, abiding in this equality, can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This passage, as soon as it opens its mouth, binds the two chapters into one matter; one who reads the treatise section should first read this passage and then look back at the sūtra text.

24. Explaining that, contemplating form as impermanent, the mind leaves form and obtains the dharma of non-arising; and that because suchness is not gathered and does not come together, it has no exhaustion, no cessation, and no severing. Following Subhūti's second question the treatise-author explains: contemplating form and the rest as impermanent, ceasing thought by thought and not abiding—if one obtains this contemplation, the mind leaves form; because the mind leaves form, the afflictions cease; because the afflictions cease, one obtains the dharma of non-arising. This speaks straight down the road of exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising. Next he turns to suchness: 「是如從本已來，不集、不和合，云何有盡？本來不生，云何有滅？是法本來虛誑，無有定相，云何可斷？」 tr. "This suchness from the beginning has not been gathered, has not come together; how could there be exhaustion? From the beginning it has not arisen; how could there be cessation? This dharma from the beginning is false and deceptive and has no fixed mark; how could it be severed?" The three questions come down in one breath, answering directly to the Buddha's counter-question in the sūtra text. In reading this passage keep your eye on the treatise-author's change of footing—the first half speaks from the contemplative knowledge of the practitioner, the latter half from the original mark of dharmas; the reason why the sūtra text first approves and then asks in return lies right here.

25. Explaining that suchness is permanent and cannot be realised, made to cease, or severed; that exhaustion, separation, and severing are for removing the inversions and are not the ultimate; and that the meaning of the ultimate lies in training while not fixing on one dharma. The treatise-author's verdict is perfectly clear: 「是如，常、不可證、不可滅、不可斷；是盡、離、斷，除顛倒故行，非是究竟。」 tr. "This suchness is permanent, cannot be realised, cannot be made to cease, cannot be severed; this exhaustion, separation, and severing are practised in order to remove the inversions; they are not the ultimate." Next he cites words from within the treatise to explain the ultimate: 「如是學，雖不定為一法故學而學薩婆若。」 tr. "Training in this way, although he does not train for the sake of fixing on one dharma, he trains in sarvajñā." What is called not training for the sake of fixing on one dharma says that what is trained in does not fall on any single fixed dharma, and yet the training is not abandoned. This sentence is the hardest place in the whole chapter to put into words, and also the most essential place: without this sentence, the exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising of the preceding text would become the ultimate, and the three kinds of having this thought of the later text would also have no way of being distinguished.

26. Explaining exhausting the limits of all training: training in sarvajñā is training in the six perfections and the rest; because merit and wisdom are complete, Māra cannot subdue him; he goes straight to the ground of the avaivartika. The treatise-author explains the phrase in the sūtra 「為盡諸學邊」 tr. "for the sake of exhausting the limits of all training": if he trains in sarvajñā, this is training in the six perfections and the rest; if he can train in the six perfections and the rest, this is exhausting the limits of all training. Next he joins cause and effect: if he exhausts the limits of all training, because this person's immeasurable merit and wisdom are complete, Māra and Māra's people cannot subdue him; because he trains rightly in this way, he goes straight to the ground of the avaivartika; training in this way is training in the path the Buddha practises; training in this way, he is protected by all the buddhas and great bodhisattvas of the ten directions, by the gods, and by good people. In reading this passage one can see the treatise-author's way of explaining—the sentences that the sūtra text sets side by side, the treatise-author strings into one chain of cause and effect, the former sentence the cause, the latter the effect.

27. Explaining the chain of cause and effect of great kindness and great compassion, and the glosses on the gate of ambrosia and the three liberations. The treatise-author continues the string: one who can train in this way has no wrong views, and his mind has nothing it clings to; toward all beings he can give rise to great kindness and great compassion; because of great kindness and great compassion he can teach and transform beings; because beings' minds are pure, the Buddha's realm is pure; the Buddha's realm having been purified, he obtains the Buddha path, turns the wheel of the Dharma of three turnings and twelve aspects, and delivers immeasurable beings by the three vehicles; because he delivers beings by the Great Vehicle, he does not cut off the seed of the Buddha; because he does not cut off the seed of the Buddha, in the world he constantly opens the Dharma-gate of ambrosia and constantly shows beings the unconditioned nature. At the end he gives three glosses: 「無為性者，所謂如、法性、實際、涅槃。甘露者，無為性；門者，三解脫門。」 tr. "The unconditioned nature is what is called suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, nirvāṇa. Ambrosia is the unconditioned nature; the gate is the three gates of liberation." What is most to be learned in this passage is the direction in which the chain runs—it starts from the non-clinging of the trainee's own mind, passes through the purity of beings' minds to the purity of the Buddha's realm, and again from the purity of the Buddha's realm to turning the wheel of the Dharma and delivering beings; purifying one's own mind and purifying the buddha-land are, under the treatise-author's brush, not two matters.

28. Explaining the definition of the inferior and the three kinds of wrong view of the inferior. The treatise-author sets a boundary for the two Chinese characters 「下劣」 tr. "inferior" in the sūtra text: 「下劣者，名懈怠、放逸，不樂佛法，不一心行道，罪福雜行。」 tr. "The inferior are called lazy and heedless; they do not delight in the Buddha's Dharma, do not practise the path single-mindedly, and practise sin and merit mixedly." Next he gives the thoughts that the inferior have—three in all. First, 「我身及親屬是我所應護，諸餘眾生何豫我事」 tr. "My own body and my kin are what I ought to protect; what have all the other beings to do with me?", reaching as far as 「我今何為捨樂求苦」 tr. "Why should I now give up pleasure and seek suffering?" Second, 「眾生無量無邊，度不可盡；若可度盡，即是有量有邊，一佛便可度盡。」 tr. "Beings are immeasurable and boundless and cannot be delivered to the last; if they could be delivered to the last, they would be measurable and bounded, and a single Buddha could deliver them all." Third, 「佛說一切法空、不生不滅，我復何所度？求佛道、不求佛道，同如幻夢。」 tr. "The Buddha says all dharmas are empty, not arising and not ceasing; what then is there for me to deliver? Seeking the Buddha path and not seeking the Buddha path are alike like an illusion and a dream." The three thoughts each turn round on delivering or not delivering: the first thought is unwillingness to deliver; the next thought does not deliver on the grounds that beings are endless; the third thought does not deliver on the grounds that dharmas are empty. The latter two thoughts deserve special attention—what they borrow are both words of the Buddha's Dharma. In reading this passage, know that wrong views need not lie outside the words of the Buddha's Dharma; to be able to borrow the Buddha's words so as to excuse oneself from practice is exactly what the treatise-author rebukes.

29. Explaining the meaning of the great person: weighing the real mark, breaking inverted views, turning back and abandoning this path, entering straight into the nature of dharmas, and giving rise to great compassion. Over against the inferior, the treatise-author says 「或時有大人出世」 tr. "at times a great person appears in the world." His practice has four stages: first, he weighs and reflects on the real mark of all dharmas, namely neither permanent nor impermanent, neither bounded nor unbounded, neither existent nor non-existent, and so on; second, he practises such a path and breaks inverted views; third, he turns back and abandons this path, enters straight into the nature of dharmas, and constantly abides in this pure nature of dharmas; fourth, because all beings do not know this matter, he gives rise to the mind of great compassion, and afterwards cultivates and gathers the six perfections and the other merits, the Buddha's supernormal powers, wisdom, and unobstructed liberation, obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and delivers beings widely by all kinds of gates of skilful means. The third stage is the most essential—the path that breaks the inversions must also be abandoned; otherwise, though what is broken is gone, what does the breaking is still there. This is exactly the concrete working-out, in the gate of practice, of the meaning of 「非是究竟」 tr. "they are not the ultimate" in the twenty-fifth passage.

30. Question and answer one: beings are immeasurable and boundless, and it is also said that beings are empty—how can there be anyone to deliver? The treatise-author sets the first question, and what it asks is precisely the difficulty left by the second and third thoughts of the twenty-eighth passage: as was said earlier, 「眾生無量無邊」 tr. "beings are immeasurable and boundless," and it is also said, 「眾生空，復何所度？」 tr. "beings are empty; what then is there to deliver?"—this being so, how can there be anyone to deliver? The answer is extremely short: 「此是下劣人所說，何足以之為證？」 tr. "This is what inferior people say; how is it worth taking as proof?" This answer seems not to answer, but in fact it is the most essential move—the treatise-author does not dispute the reasoning of the wrong view with it; he first discerns the mouth it comes out of. Whenever the fault of a statement lies not in its wording but in the intent behind it, disputing the reasoning is of no benefit; one must first judge where it comes from.

31. Again, explaining that the wrong views of the inferior are all included in the sixty-two views; that the great person is without desire and abides in the nature of dharmas; and the simile of giving with a giving mind without taking a price, and the simile of the petty person trading in the market. The treatise-author goes a layer further: the inferior person, from causes and conditions of wrong view and greed, has thoughts and says 「眾生有邊、無邊」 tr. "beings are bounded, unbounded," 「一切法空無所有、一切法常實」 tr. "all dharmas are empty and without anything existent; all dharmas are permanent and real"—all of these are included in the sixty-two wrong views. Next he speaks of the great person: without desire, reflecting and weighing, he leaves such faults and offences behind, abides in the nature of dharmas, and gives rise to the mind of great compassion. Next he gives the simile: 「譬如大人但以施心施與他財，而不取價。」 tr. "As a great person gives wealth to others simply with a giving mind and does not take a price." Whereas the greedy person gives seeking causes and conditions, and the person of wrong view relies on bounded, unbounded, and the like; none of them can act without some benefit in it—「譬如小人市易，求利乃與。」 tr. "As a petty person trades in the market, and gives only when he seeks a profit." At the end he says further that the great person, the bodhisattva, has nothing he seeks or desires, can give his head, eyes, and the rest to beings, and gives away as well the reward he obtains; his mind relies on nothing among all dharmas, and yet he can gather all merits. Therefore the Buddha says: 「欲拔一切眾生沈沒生死者，能如是學。」 tr. "One who wishes to pull out all beings sunk in birth and death can train in this way." The contrast of the two similes is very vivid: the difference lies not in giving or not giving, but in taking a price or not taking a price.

32. Again, explaining the causes of leaving the evil destinies, from not falling into the hells to not taking in evil people and those who break the precepts. The treatise-author, item by item, matches a cause to the fruits of the ninth passage; they are listed below. First, because he always has a mind of kindness, compassion, and pity and does not vex beings, he does not fall into the hells. Second, because he always contemplates causes and conditions and the real mark of all dharmas and does not give rise to folly, he does not fall among animals. Third, because he always practises giving and breaks the mind of stinginess and greed, he is not born among the hungry ghosts. Fourth, because toward the twelve divisions of the scriptures and the eighty-four thousand heaps of Dharma he is never begrudging, he is not born in a border land. Fifth, because he always makes offerings to elders and good people and breaks arrogance, he is not born among the low and base, such as the caṇḍāla. Sixth, because with a deep mind he loves beings and fully carries out beneficial deeds, the body he receives is whole and complete. Seventh, because he transforms many beings by wholesome dharmas, his retinue is accomplished and he is never orphaned and poor. Eighth, because he deeply loves and delights in śīlapāramitā, he does not practise the ten evil paths or wrong livelihood. Ninth, because he has no mind of self and only benefits beings and does not act for himself, he does not take in evil people and those who break the precepts. This passage is the place in this chapter where cause and effect are most orderly, and no item may be compressed: the cause of each item falls on one concrete mark of practice of one's own mind; not one of them is something sought for. The reader can look back on himself item by item; what he gets is a ready-made checklist.

33. Explaining the threefold definition of evil people and breaking the precepts. The treatise-author sets boundaries for 「惡人」 tr. "evil people" and 「破戒」 tr. "breaking the precepts," in three layers. First, 「惡人名心惡，破戒者名身、口惡。」 tr. "Evil people means evil of mind; those who break the precepts means evil of body and speech." Second, 「行三不善道名惡人，行七不善道名破戒。」 tr. "Practising the three unwholesome paths is called being an evil person; practising the seven unwholesome paths is called breaking the precepts." Third, 「若在家攝惡人名惡人，出家攝惡人名破戒。」 tr. "Evil people included among householders are called evil people; evil people included among those who have gone forth are called those who break the precepts." The three layers go from inside to outside: the first in terms of mind and of body and speech, the next in terms of the paths of deeds that are practised, the last in terms of the stations of the householder and of one who has gone forth. In reading this passage do not take only one layer and discard the other two—the treatise-author gives three statements in a row and does not decide among them, precisely so that people will know that these two names are given their meaning according to the place, and are not a fixed label for a person's character.

34. Question and answer two: the bodhisattva appears in the world in order to deliver evil people—why does he not take in evil people? The treatise-author sets the second question, and asks it very squarely: 「菩薩為度惡人故出現於世，譬如良醫療諸疾病，何以故不攝惡人？」 tr. "The bodhisattva appears in the world in order to deliver evil people, as a good physician cures the various illnesses; why does he not take in evil people?" The answer falls into three parts: first, of evil people and those who break the precepts, there are those who can be transformed and those who cannot be transformed; here only those who cannot be transformed are spoken of; second, if he takes them in and dwells together with them, he ruins his own path and is of no benefit to them; third, he gives a simile—「譬如救溺，自不能浮而欲濟彼，二俱不免。」 tr. "As in rescuing the drowning: one who cannot himself float and yet wishes to bring the other across—neither of the two escapes." The last sentence closes: 「是故說遠離惡人。」 tr. "Therefore it is said: keep far from evil people." This answer resolves the doubt left by the ninth passage, and also gives a general measure: what is given up is not the person but the dwelling together; what is measured is not his evil but one's own strength.

35. Explaining that because the desire realm has much evil he gives rise to pity and is therefore born in the desire realm, and that he practises the dhyānas yet is not born according to the dhyānas. The treatise-author explains the meaning, in the sūtra, of not being born in the heavens of long life and not being born according to the dhyānas: because the desire realm has much evil, he gives rise to a mind of pity, and therefore is born within the desire realm; though he practises the dhyānas and his mind is tamed and soft, by the power of skilful means, at the end of life, he is not born according to the dhyānas. The essential of this passage lies in the five Chinese characters 「生憐愍心故」 tr. "because he gives rise to a mind of pity"—not receiving birth according to the dhyānas is not a lack of the power of dhyāna; it is upheld by the power of skilful means. Here the reader can distinguish two kinds of not being born: one is being unable to enter; one is entering and not abiding; what the sūtra and the treatise speak of is always the latter.

36. Explaining that purity means relinquishment, being without anything existent, and ultimate emptiness; Subhūti's question; and the Buddha's approving his words and stating the causes and conditions for him. The treatise-author takes up the sūtra phrase 「菩薩如是學，於一切法中得清淨」 tr. "the bodhisattva who trains in this way obtains purity within all dharmas," and first glosses the word 「淨」 tr. "pure": 「淨名捨離、無所有、畢竟空。」 tr. "Pure means relinquished, without anything existent, ultimately empty." Next he takes up Subhūti's question; next he takes up the Buddha's answer and marks its pattern—「佛可須菩提言，為說因緣」 tr. "the Buddha approves Subhūti's words and states the causes and conditions for him"; the causes and conditions stated are the section of the sūtra text 「於是中心不沒、不却」 tr. "the mind within this does not sink and does not shrink back," and the treatise-author further adds a gloss for 「不沒」 tr. "does not sink": 「不沒名不疑、不生邪見。」 tr. "Not sinking means not doubting and not giving rise to wrong views." Next he explains penetration: not contending with emptiness—this is called prajñāpāramitā. The two glosses added in this passage are the most to be treasured—not sinking is not the same as being unshaken; it is not doubting and not giving rise to wrong views; penetration is not the ability to speak of emptiness; it is not contending with emptiness.

37. Explaining the mark of the bodhisattva's obtaining purity within all dharmas, his knowing completely the minds and mental-factor dharmas of beings, and that therefore it is said he exhausts the limits of all training; and bringing in the two similes of gold and silver and of the work of a wheel-turning sage king. The treatise-author continues explaining: the bodhisattva's dharma is that he should teach and transform these beings; this is called the bodhisattva's obtaining purity within all dharmas, namely abandoning the inversions of the three realms, passing beyond the ground of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, and within all dharmas obtaining the power of pure wisdom; because he obtains this merit, of all beings of the three times and the ten directions he can know completely their minds and mental-factor dharmas, and the causes and conditions of the various deeds to which the workings of their minds give rise; having known them, he teaches the Dharma and opens and transforms them as each befits. At the end it returns: 「如是等利益，皆是學般若故得，是故言盡諸學邊。」 tr. "Such benefits as these are all obtained through training in prajñā; therefore it is said that he exhausts the limits of all training." Next follows a turning sentence: 「少有能如是學，是人難得！」 tr. "Few can train in this way; such a person is hard to find!" Because the Buddha wished to make this meaning clear, he spoke similes—gold and silver, the work of a wheel-turning sage king, and the rest. This passage joins the 「盡諸學邊」 tr. "exhausting the limits of all training" of the sixth passage and the two similes of the thirteenth passage into one line—the reason for speaking of few is that what is trained in has already reached its limit; those who reach the limit are naturally few.

38. Again, explaining that not giving rise to minds of stinginess and the rest is restraint and not having already severed them, and that not grasping at marks is so as not to fall into existence and non-existence but to practise straight along the middle way. The treatise-author adds, for the sūtra phrase 「不生慳等心」 tr. "does not give rise to minds of stinginess and the rest," a most important word of measure: because the bodhisattva trains in prajñāpāramitā, he restrains the afflictions; 「煩惱雖未盡，無所能作，是故言不生。」 tr. "Although the afflictions are not yet exhausted, they can do nothing; therefore it is said that they do not arise." Next he explains not grasping at marks: the bodhisattva practising prajñā knows that the marks of all dharmas are all false and deceptive and unreal, and therefore does not grasp at the mark of form and so on up to the mark of awakening; the reason for this is 「不欲令墮有無見中故，直行中道，集菩薩行。」 tr. "because he does not wish to fall into the views of existence and non-existence, he practises straight along the middle way and gathers the bodhisattva's practices." This passage resolves the doubt kept in hand in the fourteenth passage: the sūtra says they do not arise; the treatise says they are not yet exhausted—not arising means they can do nothing, not that the afflictions are already exhausted. The student here can avoid two losses: he neither doubts the sūtra's words because the afflictions are not yet exhausted, nor, on account of the sūtra's words, takes himself to have already severed them.

39. Explaining the causes and conditions of nothing to be attained stated by the Buddha himself, the meaning of encompassing all the perfections, and why the two similes of the view of self and the life-faculty are spoken. The treatise-author takes up the causes and conditions stated by the Buddha himself: 「菩薩行般若，於一切法無所得，無所得故，無有法可取相——若善、若不善等。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practising prajñā has nothing to be attained in all dharmas; because there is nothing to be attained, there is no dharma whose mark can be grasped—whether wholesome, whether unwholesome, and so on." Next he explains encompassing: if the bodhisattva can train in this way, he encompasses all the perfections; giving and the other perfections are not apart from prajñāpāramitā; by the power of prajñāpāramitā the other perfections are made to leave all wrong views and greedy clinging, and each obtains growth. At the end he points to where the two similes come from: because the Buddha wished to make this meaning clear, he spoke similes, such as the view of self and the life-faculty. What this passage adds is the six Chinese characters 「離諸邪見、貪著」 tr. "leave all wrong views and greedy clinging"—encompassing is not gathering the five perfections into prajñā; it is that prajñā makes the five perfections each leave clinging and grow.

40. Question and answer three: the view of self and the other views each have distinct marks—how are they included within the view of self? The answer: the view of self is the root and gives rise to the fifty-seven views. The treatise-author sets the third question: 「我見、諸見各有別相，云何攝入我見中？」 tr. "The view of self and the other views each have distinct marks; how are they included within the view of self?" The answer first establishes the thesis: 「雖有別相，我見是本。」 tr. "Though they have distinct marks, the view of self is the root." Next it speaks of the order of their arising—a person, from causes and conditions of ignorance, gives rise to the view of self within the empty five aggregates; because he gives rise to the view of self, he says 「是身死，如去、不如去」 tr. "when this body dies, it goes thus, or it does not go thus"; if it goes thus, this is the view of permanence; if it does not go thus, this is the view of annihilation; if, holding annihilation, he at present takes pleasure in and clings to the five desires and takes evil dharmas as the highest, then he gives rise to grasping at views; if, holding permanence, he goes forth to train in the path, keeps the precepts, and practises austerities, then he gives rise to grasping at precepts; or at times, seeing that both annihilation and permanence have faults, he then says there are no causes and conditions and no recompense, and then he gives rise to wrong view. Next the whole is gathered up: abiding within these five views, regarding the world as permanent or impermanent, the prior limit and the later limit, and so on, he gives rise to the fifty-seven views. Therefore to say 「身見攝六十二見」 tr. "the view of a body includes the sixty-two wrong views" is without fault. This passage is the place in the whole chapter where the treatise-author's power is most seen: the arising of the five views each has its source, and their sources all unfold out of the single thought of the view of self. Here the reader should see clearly the meaning of 「本」 tr. "root"—root does not mean containing; it means being able to give rise to.

41. Explaining that prajñā is the very foremost among all dharmas and that the bodhisattva, training in it, is therefore foremost among beings; that the Buddha uses the beings of the three-thousand great-thousand world as a simile to transform beings well; and so on up to: one should know that he is non-retrogressing. The treatise-author sums up the preceding text: 「如是等種種因緣譬喻故，知般若波羅蜜諸法中最第一」 tr. "Because of all these kinds of causes and conditions and similes, one knows that prajñāpāramitā is the very foremost among all dharmas"; because prajñā is the very foremost, and because the bodhisattva trains in this prajñā, he is foremost among beings. Next he takes up the weighing set up in the sūtra text: because the Buddha wished by this matter to transform beings well, he spoke a simile—「須菩提！於汝意云何？三千大千世界中眾生多不？」 tr. "Subhūti! What do you think? Are the beings in the three-thousand great-thousand world many?"—and so on, up to 「菩薩如是學，當知是不退轉，遠離二乘，近佛乘。」 tr. "The bodhisattva who trains in this way—one should know that he is non-retrogressing, far from the two vehicles, near to the Buddha Vehicle." This passage binds the two ends together with the two Chinese characters 「第一」 tr. "foremost": the foremost of the Dharma and the foremost of persons; the foremost of persons is obtained through training in the Dharma, not possessed by the person of himself. The intent of the whole long passage of weighing, the treatise-author gathers up completely with just this one sentence.

42. Again, explaining the wrongness of the first thought: displaying the mark of prajñā as existent or non-existent; the coming together of the five aggregates is provisionally named bodhisattva, and, following after the provisional name, he reckons it a self; prajñā is without clinging and without action, and yet he wishes to have something done. The treatise-author explains the first kind of having this thought. First he divides it into two branches: 「是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "This is prajñāpāramitā" is displaying the mark of prajñāpāramitā as existent or non-existent and the like, seeing prajñā, obtaining prajñā, clinging to prajñā, and the like; 「我以是般若波羅蜜得一切種智」 tr. "by this prajñāpāramitā I obtain the omniscience of all kinds" is this: the coming together of the five aggregates is provisionally named bodhisattva; the bodhisattva, following after the provisional name, reckons it to be a self, and by this prajñā has something that is done. Next he brings out two layers of contradiction: prajñā is the mark of non-clinging, and yet this person says that a prajñā possessed of marks is the highest meaning—this person, following the provisional name, gives rise to a mind of self; prajñā is the mark of non-action, and yet this person wishes to use prajñā to have something done. Therefore the Buddha says: 「作如是念者，不名行般若。」 tr. "One who has such a thought is not called practising prajñā." The last sentence brings in the second thought: 「若不如是念，名為行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "If he does not have such a thought, he is called practising prajñāpāramitā." This passage takes the illness of the first thought apart into the two sides of the person and of dharmas—toward dharmas giving rise to a view that has marks, toward the person giving rise to a self of the provisional name; the two illnesses together make up one sentence of thought.

43. Question and answer four: having this thought and not having this thought—the matter is already exhausted; why is there further a third statement? The answer: the first is wrong, the next blocks, and the last speaks the mark of right practice. The treatise-author sets the fourth question, and asks it most sharply: 「作是念、不作是念，事已盡，何以復有第三說？」 tr. "Having this thought and not having this thought—the matter is already exhausted; why is there further a third statement?" The answer has two explanations. First, 「初者是邪行相，第二遮邪行；未說正行相，是故第三說正行相。」 tr. "The first is the mark of wrong practice; the second blocks wrong practice; the mark of right practice has not yet been spoken, and therefore the third speaks the mark of right practice." Second, with a furthermore he says more: 「初是著心取相；第二破是著相，不說云何是諸法相；第三中破邪著，亦說實相。」 tr. "The first is a clinging mind grasping at marks; the second refutes this mark of clinging but does not say what the marks of dharmas are; in the third, wrong clinging is refuted and the real mark is also spoken." Where the two explanations differ is in the function of the second sentence—one explanation says it only blocks; the other says it refutes clinging but has not spoken the mark; and yet the two explanations return to one meaning: the second sentence blocks, and only the third sentence speaks the real mark. From reading this passage one can obtain a general way of reading: where the sūtras give three sentences in a row that seem repetitive, one should ask whether each sentence blocks or speaks the real mark.

44. Again, returning to the third thought as the conclusion: in all places he does not display the mark of prajñā, does not give rise to a mind of self or to the notion that he uses it, but only knows that all dharmas constantly abide, and does not contend; therefore stating the third is without fault. In his last passage the treatise-author returns to the conclusion, taking up the bodhisattva's having this thought: 「於一切處，不顯示般若波羅蜜相；亦不生我心、我用般若波羅蜜有所作；但知一切法常住如、法性、實際中，於如、法性、實際中不諍。」 tr. "In all places he does not display the mark of prajñāpāramitā; nor does he give rise to a mind of self, or to the thought that I use prajñāpāramitā to have something done; he only knows that all dharmas constantly abide in suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality, and within suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality he does not contend." And he settles it by saying: therefore the third is stated, and it is without fault. What the three sentences block answers precisely to the two illnesses taken apart in the forty-second passage, with one layer more: not displaying the mark blocks the having of marks on the side of dharmas; not giving rise to a mind of self or to the notion that he uses it blocks the provisional name on the side of the person; only knowing constant abiding and not contending—this at last is speaking the real mark. The last two Chinese characters, 「無咎」 tr. "without fault," are the same as the last two Chinese characters of the fortieth passage explaining the sixty-two views—in two places this chapter closes its brush with 「無咎」 tr. "without fault," both being cases where first there is a sūtra phrase that seems not to make sense, and after the treatise-author has distinguished it, it makes sense. The whole chapter, beginning from Subhūti's question about the dharma of equality, concludes in the faultlessness of the third thought: what is trained in is equality, what is able to train is suchness, and only when the training reaches the point of not displaying what is trained in does it count as exhausting the limits of all training.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「等法」 tr. "the dharma of equality" as the dharmas being of the same standing. The dharma of equality that the sūtra text names is inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of specific marks, and it itself states its mark—form's emptiness of the mark of form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness's emptiness of the mark of consciousness, and so on up to awakening's emptiness of the mark of awakening. What is made equal lies in the emptiness of the marks, not in the substance of the dharmas; the treatise-author explains it more plainly: as inner dharmas have all kinds of differences, on obtaining inner emptiness they are all equal and without dharmas. If it is read as the dharmas being originally all the same, then the simile 「如稱兩頭停等」 tr. "as the two ends of a scale come to rest level" of the twenty-third passage has nowhere to rest—the reason a scale comes to rest level is that each of its two ends has its thing and neither tilts, not that both ends are empty of anything.

Do not read 「為色盡、離、滅、不生故學」 tr. "training for the sake of the exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising of form" as a training of annihilation. In the sūtra text the Buddha first approves these words, then at once asks in return whether the suchnesses can be exhausted, made to cease, or severed, and Subhūti answers no; the treatise-author further rules: this exhaustion, separation, and severing are practised in order to remove the inversions; they are not the ultimate. It can be seen that exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising are marks of practice at the position of counteraction; what they exhaust and make cease is the grasping of the inversions, not suchness. If one reads only the passage of the Buddha's approval and does not read the counter-question after it, one will take a practice of counteraction for the fruit toward which one tends—this is the greatest place in this chapter where the reading goes astray.

Do not read 「盡諸學邊」 tr. "exhausting the limits of all training" as having finished learning all the Dharma-gates. The treatise-author himself states its meaning: training in sarvajñā is training in the six perfections and the rest; if one can train in the six perfections and the rest, this is exhausting the limits of all training; the later text says further that because one obtains this merit one can know completely the minds and mental-factor dharmas of the beings of the three times and the ten directions, and therefore it is said that one exhausts the limits of all training. What is exhausted is the 「邊」 tr. "limit"—what is trained in has reached its limit and there is nothing further to seek outside; it is not that the subjects are finished. Therefore this phrase is a word of depth, not a word of number; read as number, it would run against the phrase 「少有能如是學」 tr. "few can train in this way" in the same passage.

Do not read 「不攝惡人及破戒者」 tr. "does not take in evil people and those who break the precepts" as the bodhisattva abandoning people. The treatise-author sets up a special question and answers it: of evil people and those who break the precepts, there are those who can be transformed and those who cannot be transformed; here only those who cannot be transformed are spoken of; if he takes them in and dwells together with them, he ruins his own path and is of no benefit to them—as in rescuing the drowning, one who cannot himself float and yet wishes to bring the other across: neither of the two escapes. What is distinguished is the strength for dwelling together, not the vow to deliver people; moreover, the treatise-author sets up three layers of definition for evil people and breaking the precepts and does not settle on one, precisely because he does not wish people to hold on to one name so as to reject people. If it is read as the bodhisattva being able to choose people and abandon them, it runs against the great compassion spoken of widely elsewhere in this treatise.

Do not read 「一切法本性清淨」 tr. "all dharmas are pure in their original nature" and ‘the bodhisattva obtains purity’ as contradicting each other. Subhūti asks exactly this as his question, and the Buddha's answer places the 「得」 tr. "obtaining" in the mind—the mind within this dharma penetrates and does not sink; this is prajñāpāramitā; the treatise-author further glosses not sinking as not doubting and not giving rise to wrong views, and glosses penetration as not contending with emptiness. Original purity is a matter on the side of dharmas; obtaining purity is a matter on the side of the mind. If, on account of original purity, one says that practice is useless, one falls into the third kind of inferior thought rebuked in the twenty-eighth passage—not delivering on the grounds that dharmas are empty.

Do not read 「不生慳等心」 tr. "does not give rise to minds of stinginess and the rest" as the afflictions having been severed. The treatise-author specially adds a phrase at this point: although the afflictions are not yet exhausted, they can do nothing; therefore it is said that they do not arise. What the sūtra text says is that they do not arise; what the treatise text says is that, although not yet exhausted, they can do nothing. Read as already severed, then either the practitioner, the moment his own afflictions stir, doubts that the sūtra's words are true, or else, on the contrary, takes himself to have already severed them and gives rise to overweening pride; both losses arise from not reading this phrase of measure of the treatise-author.

Do not read the three kinds of 「作是念」 tr. "having this thought" as no more than the third sentence standing against the first. The treatise-author sets up a question and distinguishes them: the first is the mark of wrong practice; the second blocks wrong practice but has not spoken the mark of right practice; only the third speaks the mark of right practice; furthermore, the first is a clinging mind grasping at marks; the second refutes this mark of clinging but does not say what the marks of dharmas are; the third refutes wrong clinging and also speaks the real mark. Therefore the three sentences are not an opposition of existence and non-existence; they are a sequence of wrong, blocking, and right. If the third sentence is read as ‘saying that prajñā does not exist’, one falls again into the two views of existence and non-existence—and the treatise-author, in the earlier text, says precisely 「不欲令墮有無見中故，直行中道」 tr. "because he does not wish to fall into the views of existence and non-existence, he practises straight along the middle way."

Bearing on Practice

The first use is to set up 「學如」 tr. "training in suchness" as the standard for everyday life. In this chapter more than ten places speak of 「如是學」 tr. "training in this way," and what they point to is always the same one thing—training in suchness. Over everything he trains in, the practitioner can add one question: what I now train in—is it training in a fixed dharma, or is it training in suchness? The treatise-author gives the words of the criterion: although he does not train for the sake of fixing on one dharma, he trains in sarvajñā. If what is trained in is tied to a fixed dharma, then when the training is complete it stops; if what is trained in is suchness, then the training is without end, and yet there is nothing that can be added to it. This question can be used anywhere—in reading the sūtras, keeping the precepts, cultivating concentration, or doing work.

The second use is to use the two similes to spur oneself on and not to esteem oneself. Few are the places on the great earth that yield gold and silver; few are the people who take up and practise the work of a wheel-turning sage king—what the two similes speak of is 「少」 tr. "few." The sūtra text itself goes on to say: among those who have aroused the mind and seek awakening few practise as taught, and many practise prajñā without the power of skilful means; therefore few are the people who abide on the ground of the avaivartika. Having read out the word 「少」 tr. "few," what one should give rise to is encouragement, not superiority—what is few is the people who practise as taught, and practising as taught is something one can go and do oneself, not an inborn qualification.

The third use is the checklist of leaving the evil destinies in the thirty-second passage. The treatise-author matches the causes item by item: because he does not vex beings, he does not fall into the hells; because he contemplates causes and conditions and the real mark, he does not fall among animals; because he practises giving and breaks stinginess, he is not born among the hungry ghosts; because he does not begrudge the Dharma, he is not born in a border land; because he makes offerings to elders and breaks arrogance, he is not born low and base; because with a deep mind he loves beings, the body he receives is whole and complete; because he transforms beings by wholesome dharmas, his retinue is accomplished; because he deeply loves morality, he does not practise the ten evil paths or wrong livelihood; because he has no mind of self and only benefits beings, he does not take in evil people and those who break the precepts. Ask oneself the nine items one by one: where the answer is yes, one knows that the cause is already complete; where the answer is no, one knows that the fruit cannot yet be expected. The merit of this checklist is that every item is something that can be done in present practice; not one item requires seeking outside.

The fourth use is the distinction between taking a price and not taking a price. The treatise-author sets up the simile of the great person giving wealth without taking a price and the petty person trading in the market and giving only when he seeks a profit, and says that the greedy person gives seeking causes and conditions, and the person of wrong view relies on bounded, unbounded, and the like. In daily use—in giving, in doing people a kindness, in teaching the Dharma to people—one can reflect on oneself with this one question: in this one giving of mine, is there in my mind a waiting for a return, even if it is only a word of thanks, or a name? If there is, one has fallen on the side of market trading; though what is done is the same, the mind is already different.

The fifth use is the use of the two Chinese characters 「不沒」 tr. "not sinking." The treatise-author glosses not sinking as not doubting and not giving rise to wrong views, and glosses penetration as not contending with emptiness. When the practitioner hears it said that all dharmas are originally empty and pure and his mind sinks for a moment, that sinking is sinking; when the sinking lasts, doubt arises; when the doubt lasts, a view arises. The remedy lies not in forcibly rousing oneself but in the penetration the treatise-author points to—not contending with emptiness: that is, neither using emptiness to negate the practices aiding the path that one does, nor using the practices one does to negate emptiness.

The sixth use is that the three thoughts can serve as three checkpoints. The first checkpoint: when I now practise the Dharma, is there secretly in my mind an ‘I obtain the fruit by this’? Once this thought arises, the treatise-author rules it the mark of wrong practice. The next checkpoint: having known this thought to be an illness and not having it, does one then take that to be enough? The treatise-author says that the second sentence only blocks and has not spoken right practice. The last checkpoint: the place of right practice is not displaying the mark and not giving rise to a mind of self or to the notion that he uses it, but only knowing that all dharmas constantly abide, and not contending with them. The three checkpoints go from coarse to fine; the last checkpoint is not an empty doing of nothing; it is doing and not setting up the mark of what is done—this is exactly where the four Chinese characters 「盡諸學邊」 tr. "exhausting the limits of all training" of the whole chapter come to rest in the gate of practice.

Further Resonances

The backbone of this chapter is one passage of sūtra text and one passage of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins from Subhūti's asking what the bodhisattva's dharma of equality is; the Buddha answers that inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of specific marks, and form's emptiness of the mark of form and so on up to awakening's emptiness of the mark of awakening, are the dharma of equality, and that abiding in this dharma of equality he obtains awakening; next Subhūti asks whether training for the sake of the exhaustion, separation, cessation, and non-arising of form is training in sarvajñā; the Buddha first approves and then asks in return whether the suchnesses can be exhausted, made to cease, or severed; Subhūti answers no; the Buddha then establishes directly that training in suchness is training in sarvajñā, that suchness is not realised, does not cease, and is not severed, that this is training in the six perfections, the four foundations of mindfulness, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and that it is for the sake of exhausting the limits of all training; and he goes through the benefits of training in this way, ranged from Māra's being unable to break him to wishing to show the unconditioned nature; next he says that the inferior person cannot train in this way, while one who trains in this way does so wishing to pull out beings sunk in birth and death; next he goes through the places that one who trains in this way leaves behind, from the three evil destinies to not taking in evil people and those who break the precepts, his entering by the power of skilful means the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions yet not being born according to the dhyānas, and his obtaining purity within all dharmas; next Subhūti asks: if all dharmas are pure in their original nature, how can it be said that he obtains purity? The Buddha answers that the mind's penetrating and not sinking is prajñā, and that because ordinary people do not know and do not see, the bodhisattva practises for them the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds; and he gives the simile of the few places on the great earth that yield gold, silver, and precious things and the simile of the few people who take up and practise the work of a wheel-turning sage king; next, with furthermore, he says that when training in prajñā one does not give rise to minds of stinginess and greed and the rest, or to a mind that grasps at marks, and that deep prajñā encompasses all the perfections, giving the simile of the view of self including the sixty-two wrong views and the simile of a person's dying, the life-faculty ceasing, and the other faculties ceasing along with it; next he sets up the weighing of the beings of the three-thousand great-thousand world and of the merit of making offerings to that number of buddhas for the whole of a lifetime, rules that it does not equal the much merit of training in prajñā, practising as taught, and rightly recollecting, and goes through wishing to go above all beings and so on up to wishing to cut off the doubts of all beings, for which one should train in deep prajñā; next Subhūti asks whether he also obtains the merits of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, and the Buddha answers that he can obtain them all but does not abide in them, and passes straight over and enters the bodhisattva's position; and he says that one who trains in this way draws near to sarvajñā, is a field of merit for gods, humans, and asuras, that this is called not abandoning and not leaving prajñā, and that one should know he is non-retrogressing; at the end he gives the distinction of the three kinds of 「作是念」 tr. "having this thought" and concludes with: because all dharmas constantly abide in suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality. Treatise ① explains following the text, opening with its formula of explanation: first it aligns the chapter above and this one and brings out the two kinds of acceptance of equality and the simile of the two ends of a scale coming to rest level; next it explains that, contemplating form as impermanent, the mind leaves form and obtains the dharma of non-arising, and that because suchness is not gathered and does not come together it has no exhaustion, no cessation, and no severing; next it rules that exhaustion, separation, and severing are for removing the inversions and are not the ultimate, and cites the Buddha's words of praise to explain the meaning of the ultimate; next it explains exhausting the limits of all training and Māra's being unable to subdue him, the chain of cause and effect of great kindness and great compassion, and the glosses on the unconditioned nature, the gate of ambrosia, and the three liberations; next it sets a boundary for the inferior and brings out their three kinds of wrong view, set against the great person's weighing of the real mark, breaking inverted views, turning back and abandoning this path, and entering straight into the nature of dharmas; in between it sets up four rounds of question and answer—if beings are empty, what then is there to deliver; why the bodhisattva does not take in evil people; how the view of self and the other views are included within the view of self; why, when there is having this thought and not having this thought, there is further a third statement; with furthermore it explains that the views of the inferior are all included in the sixty-two views, together with the simile of the great person's giving mind that takes no price and the simile of the petty person trading in the market; next it explains item by item the causes of leaving the evil destinies; next it establishes the threefold definition of evil people and breaking the precepts; next it explains that because the desire realm has much evil he gives rise to pity and is therefore born in the desire realm and not born according to the dhyānas; next it explains that purity means relinquishment, being without anything existent, and ultimate emptiness, that not sinking means not doubting and not giving rise to wrong views, and that penetration is not contending with emptiness; next it explains the mark of obtaining purity and knowing completely the minds and mental-factor dharmas of beings, returning to exhausting the limits of all training and bringing in the two similes; next it explains that not giving rise to minds of stinginess and the rest is restraint and not having already severed them, and that not grasping at marks is practising straight along the middle way; next it explains the causes and conditions of nothing to be attained stated by the Buddha himself, and encompassing all the perfections so that the other perfections leave clinging and grow; next it explains that the view of self is the root and gives rise to the fifty-seven views, so that the view of a body's including the sixty-two views is without fault; next it gathers up that prajñā is the very foremost among all dharmas and the bodhisattva foremost among beings; at the end it explains the sequence of wrong, blocking, and right in the three kinds of having this thought, and concludes that the third is without fault.

The veins of meaning between this chapter and the chapters before and after it can be seen in three lines. First, taking up what went before: the previous chapter concluded in 「同學」 tr. "training alike," and that in which they were alike did not name its dharma; this chapter at its opening asks at once 「何等是菩薩摩訶薩等法」 tr. "What is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's dharma of equality?", which is precisely the chasing out of the dharma that the previous chapter had not named; therefore the treatise-author, in the very first sentence of his explanation, aligns the chapter above and this one and brings out the distinction between the acceptance of the equality of beings and the acceptance of the equality of dharmas. Second, within the chapter it makes two turns of its own: the first turn goes from the substance of the dharma of equality into the practice of training in suchness, its pivot lying in the Buddha's counter-question and Subhūti's 「不也」 tr. "No"; the latter turn goes from the benefits of training in suchness into the impossibility of grasping at the mark of what is trained in, its pivot lying in the three kinds of 「作是念」 tr. "having this thought." Third, handing down to what comes after: this chapter concludes in 「不顯示般若波羅蜜相」 tr. "does not display the mark of prajñāpāramitā," and the reason for not displaying it is 「一切法如、法性、實際常住故」 tr. "because all dharmas constantly abide in suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality"; among these, the three names suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are taken up by the following chapter, and the reader can view the chapters before and after together to see the continuity of training and not grasping.

Of the ancient masters' explanations, two schools can be recorded for this chapter. Jizang, in his sectional division of this chapter, says of its place after the preceding text: 「此第二、憑法忍以近行。」 tr. "This is the second: relying on the acceptance of dharmas so as to draw near to practice." Next he rules on its opening and closing, saying: 「品為五：第一、示平等體；二、教平等學；三、明等學利；四、秤歎等學；五、明等學得失。」 tr. "The chapter is in five: first, showing the substance of equality; second, teaching the training in equality; third, making clear the benefits of equal training; fourth, praising equal training; fifth, making clear the gains and losses of equal training."—dividing this chapter under five headings, a route different from this treatise's explaining following the text; recorded side by side without judgement. His explanation of the section in which the Buddha answers with training in suchness says: 「佛答學如者，明色本不和合不集，今豈滅耶？」 tr. "The Buddha's answering with training in suchness makes clear that form originally does not come together and is not gathered; how then could it now cease?"—close in the meaning it takes to this treatise's 「是如從本已來，不集、不和合，云何有盡」 tr. "this suchness from the beginning has not been gathered, has not come together; how could there be exhaustion?", though each words it in its own way. His explanation of the dharma of equality also says: 「非以空破法，法本相；非平等破不等，法本平等也。」 tr. "It is not that emptiness breaks dharmas—dharmas are their original mark; it is not that equality breaks inequality—dharmas are originally equal."—this is his own school's formulation. On the inferior he says 「下劣有三人」 tr. "there are three kinds of inferior person," and the three persons he lists correspond in number to this treatise's three kinds of wrong view; he also sets up a question and answer to distinguish universal delivering from equality, saying: 「等此是學平等遍度，遍度而平等乃是學平等也，直學平等而不遍度非學平等也。」 tr. "Equality here is training in equality and delivering universally; to deliver universally and be equal is training in equality; merely to train in equality and not deliver universally is not training in equality." His explanation of the section on not taking in evil people is close in intent to this treatise's distinguishing between those who can be transformed and those who cannot, and further brings out the names of persons: 「深行之人無不攝也，故善星調達雖惡，如來與之共住」 tr. "For one of deep practice there is none he does not take in; therefore, although Good Star and Devadatta were evil, the Tathāgata dwelt together with them"; and he continues: 「若惡人破戒可度者則攝之，不可度者則捨之，若不捨則於彼無益於乘有損也」 tr. "If evil people and those who break the precepts can be delivered, then he takes them in; if they cannot be delivered, then he abandons them; if he did not abandon them, it would be of no benefit to them and a harm to the vehicle." His explanation of the definition of evil people and breaking the precepts says: 「在家人惡為惡人，出家人惡為破戒人，又起意地三惡為惡人，起身口七惡為破戒也。」 tr. "The evil of a householder is being an evil person; the evil of one who has gone forth is being one who breaks the precepts; again, giving rise to the three evils of the ground of the mind is being an evil person, and giving rise to the seven evils of body and speech is breaking the precepts."—of the three layers, two are close to this treatise, though the order differs; they are kept here as well. His explanation of the gains and losses of the fifth heading says: 「既聞等學大利，便言有等法可學」 tr. "Having heard of the great benefit of equal training, he then says there is a dharma of equality to be trained in"—judging the first of the three kinds of having this thought by 「便言有等法可學」 tr. "he then says there is a dharma of equality to be trained in," which illuminates this treatise's judgement 「以是般若有所作」 tr. "by this prajñā has something that is done." Huiying marks the general meaning of this chapter, saying: 「上品明因六和敬等事得於生忍，今明因行平等得於法忍成等學義」 tr. "The previous chapter makes clear that through the six harmonious reverences and other matters one obtains the acceptance of beings; now it makes clear that through practising equality one obtains the acceptance of dharmas, completing the meaning of equal training," which corresponds exactly to this treatise's distinction between the acceptance of the equality of beings and the acceptance of the equality of dharmas; his division of this chapter says: 「就此品中亦大有二分：第一、明就十八空明法等義；第二、廣明波若之行及校量等義，亦明生等。」 tr. "Within this chapter there are also broadly two parts: first, making clear the meaning of the equality of dharmas in terms of the eighteen emptinesses; second, making clear at length the practice of prajñā, the weighing, and the rest, and also making clear the equality of beings." His explanation of the scale simile says: 「如稱兩頭已下，欲論生法，既各自參差，今得此二等，則生法均平，故云如稱也。」 tr. "From ‘as the two ends of a scale’ onward, it wishes to discuss beings and dharmas: since each is uneven of itself, now, obtaining these two equalities, beings and dharmas are balanced; therefore it says ‘as a scale’." His explanation of exhausting the limits of all training says: 「六波羅蜜既是因性，總攝萬行，故云盡諸學邊也」 tr. "Since the six perfections are of the nature of cause and encompass the ten thousand practices, therefore it says: exhausts the limits of all training," and also says: 「明菩薩觀徹真原，心窮後際，廣大如法界，究竟如虗空，故云爾也。」 tr. "It makes clear that the bodhisattva's contemplation penetrates to the true source and his mind reaches to the later limit, vast as the Dharma-realm, ultimate as space; therefore it says so." His explanation of the great person says: 「明學大法、行大智慧，如是等故名為大人」 tr. "It makes clear that because he trains in the great Dharma, practises great wisdom, and the like, he is called a great person"; his explanation of the view of self including the views says: 「雖復云云，我見為本，故云攝入也。」 tr. "Though there is this and that, the view of self is the root; therefore it says they are included." His explanation of the three thoughts says: 「文意極相似，至論意分別之也」 tr. "The meaning of the text is extremely similar; the treatise's intent distinguishes them"—the same focus as this treatise's setting up a question and separating wrong, blocking, and right. Huiying further, following the sūtra phrase 「欲撞擊佛鍾鼓」 tr. "wishing to strike the Buddha's bell and drum," gives a gloss: 「在鍾名撞，在皷名擊」 tr. "On a bell it is called ringing; on a drum it is called beating"—this treatise has no explanation here; recorded side by side for reference. Also, in Huiying's commentary he himself calls this chapter 「第六十二品者，名為等學品。」 tr. "The sixty-second chapter is named the Equal Training chapter." Its chapter number differs by one place from the base text of this edition; its variant chapter titles, the four forms of chapter title standing side by side among the editions, and the differences of fascicle division are examined in detail in the Apparatus.