大智度論 義疏通講 · 冊17Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Exposition Throughout · Vol. 17

Overview

The name "The Three Wisdoms" lies wholly in the chapter's title. Searching through the two sūtras and two treatises, the two Chinese characters 「三慧」 tr. "the three wisdoms" do not fall even once into the main text; at its opening the sūtra has only three questions: 「世尊！菩薩摩訶薩云何行般若波羅蜜？云何生般若波羅蜜？云何修般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā? How does he give rise to prajñāpāramitā? How does he cultivate prajñāpāramitā?" These three matters of practising, giving rise, and cultivating are precisely the three wisdoms named in the title. The Buddha's answers are extremely short: of practising, 「色寂滅故，色空故，色虛誑故，色不堅實故，應行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "because form is quiescent, because form is empty, because form is false and deceptive, because form is not firm and real, one should practise prajñāpāramitā"; of giving rise, 「如虛空生故，應生般若波羅蜜」 tr. "because it arises like space, one should give rise to prajñāpāramitā"; of cultivating, 「修諸法破壞故，應修般若波羅蜜」 tr. "because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas, one should cultivate prajñāpāramitā". Next the time is asked, and the answer is 「從初發意乃至坐道場，應行、應生、應修般若波羅蜜」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening, one should practise, should give rise to, should cultivate prajñāpāramitā"; next the use of the mind is asked, and the answer is 「常不捨薩婆若心，不令餘念得入」 tr. "never abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, not letting any other thought get in", and the sentence that follows close upon it already hides the key of the whole chapter—「若心、心數法不行故，為行般若波羅蜜、為生般若波羅蜜、為修般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "If it is because mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move, this is practising prajñāpāramitā, this is giving rise to prajñāpāramitā, this is cultivating prajñāpāramitā." Since mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move, the one word 「修」 tr. "cultivating" is the first to become hard to establish: Subhūti at once asks about sarvajñā with the four questions of cultivating, not cultivating, cultivating and not cultivating, and neither cultivating nor not cultivating, and the Buddha answers every one of them 「不」 tr. "No". The momentum of the whole chapter comes from this one turn: it is not that one is not allowed to cultivate; it is that the word cultivating cannot be received by grasping at marks. The whole chapter, two sūtras and two treatises, spans the two fascicles eighty-three and eighty-four and is divided into three parts—the First Part, one sūtra and one treatise, lists the marks of practising, giving rise, and cultivating, and sentence by sentence clears away what is attained in them; the Middle Part, one sūtra, turns to the meaning of the three vehicles, the three knowledges, the severance of the fetters, and how prajñā obtains its name; the Last Part, one treatise, explains it sentence by sentence, and lays down its brush with 「無所得即是得，以是得無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained". The chapter title names the three wisdoms, and yet within the chapter there are in truth three sets of three dharmas: the three wisdoms of practising, giving rise, and cultivating; the three knowledges of omniscience, the knowledge of the kinds of paths, and the omniscience of all kinds; and the several meanings by which prajñā obtains the name pāramitā. The three wisdoms open out and become the three knowledges, the three knowledges join and return to one prajñā—the whole bone of the chapter lies right here.

The First Part lists the marks and clears away attaining. Sūtra ①, from the three questions onward, presses all the way to where nothing can be established: to the four questions on cultivating and not cultivating the answer is always 「不」 tr. "No"; Subhūti asks in return 「若不爾，云何當得薩婆若」 tr. "if it is not so, how will one obtain sarvajñā", and the Buddha answers 「菩薩摩訶薩得薩婆若，如如相」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva obtains sarvajñā like the mark of suchness"; asked about like the mark of suchness, he answers 「如實際」 tr. "like the limit of reality"; asked about like the limit of reality, he answers 「如法性」 tr. "like the nature of dharmas"; asked about like the nature of dharmas, he answers 「如我性、眾生性、壽命性」 tr. "like the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life". A string of lofty names comes to rest at the end, of all places, on the self of ordinary people's daily use; the Buddha then at once asks in return 「我、眾生、壽命法可得不」 tr. "can the dharmas of a self, a being, and a life be found?", Subhūti says 「不可得」 tr. "unfindable", and so he concludes 「若我、眾生、壽命不可得，云何當說有我性、眾生性、壽命性」 tr. "if a self, a being, and a life are unfindable, how should one say that there are the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life?" Unspeakability having been established, Subhūti then presses on its real use: if all dharmas are unspeakable, why does one still say 「是地獄、是畜生、是餓鬼、是人、是天」 tr. "this is the hells, this is the animals, this is the hungry ghosts, this is humans, this is the gods", and so on up to 「是諸佛」 tr. "this is the buddhas"? The Buddha still answers by the unfindability of names, and returns it to a single admonition: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，應當學一切法不可說。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he should train in the unspeakability of all dharmas." Below this the marks of what is trained in are pressed back layer by layer: one who trains in form and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds 「應學色不增不減」 tr. "should train in form as neither increasing nor decreasing"; asked how it is neither increasing nor decreasing, the answer is 「不生不滅故學」 tr. "one trains because of neither arising nor ceasing"; asked how it is neither arising nor ceasing, the answer is 「不起不作諸行業若有、若無故」 tr. "it is because one does not raise up and does not make the deeds of conduct, whether existent or non-existent"; asked how one does not raise up and does not make, the answer is 「觀諸法自相空故」 tr. "it is because one contemplates the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas"; asked how one contemplates the emptiness of specific marks, the Buddha then lists them item by item—「應觀色，色相空」 tr. "one should contemplate form: the mark of form is empty", and so on up to 「應觀內空，內空相空」 tr. "one should contemplate inner emptiness: the mark of inner emptiness is empty", 「應觀自相空，自相空相空」 tr. "one should contemplate the emptiness of specific marks: the mark of the emptiness of specific marks is empty". The emptiness of specific marks having been exhausted, Subhūti then asks what further practice there is within it, and the Buddha answers with one clean-cut sentence: 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā." Why it is so he also explains plainly himself: 「般若波羅蜜不可得故，菩薩不可得，行亦不可得，行者、行法、行處亦不可得故」 tr. "because prajñāpāramitā is unfindable, the bodhisattva is unfindable, practice too is unfindable, and the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice are also unfindable". One who has first aroused intent is bound to be bewildered on hearing this, so the Buddha separately sets up his road—「菩薩從初發意已來，應學空無所得法」 tr. "the bodhisattva, from the first arousing of intent onward, should train in the dharma of emptiness with nothing to be attained"; giving, upholding the precepts, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, all are 「用無所得法故」 tr. "by the dharma with nothing to be attained". From this there turns out the first group of pivotal words of the whole chapter: 「諸有二者，是有所得；無有二者，是無所得」 tr. "whatever has duality is with something to be attained; what is without duality is with nothing to be attained", and what makes duality duality is 「眼、色為二，乃至意、法為二，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提、佛為二」 tr. "the eye and form are a duality, and so on up to the mind and dharmas are a duality, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the Buddha are a duality". Subhūti asks further from where nothing to be attained is obtained, and the Buddha blocks both ends—「不從有所得中無所得，不從無所得中無所得」 tr. "one does not obtain nothing to be attained from within something to be attained, nor does one obtain nothing to be attained from within nothing to be attained"—and after that sets up his proper teaching: 「有所得、無所得平等，是名無所得。」 tr. "The equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained—this is named nothing to be attained." The final three questions and three answers gather it up like a single thread: one who goes from one ground to another ground does not abide in something to be attained, for 「無所得是般若波羅蜜相」 tr. "nothing to be attained is the mark of prajñāpāramitā"; one who distinguishes the marks of dharmas in truth 「不得色，不得受、想、行、識」 tr. "does not obtain form, does not obtain feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness"; for what matter does one practise prajñā—the answer is 「無所為故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "he practises prajñāpāramitā because there is nothing it is done for".

Treatise ① explains it, and at every point speaks out the hard places on the reader's behalf. At its start it first settles the listeners' minds: 「聽者聞種種讚般若功德，得善知一切事，而貴愛是般若波羅蜜，方便欲得。」 tr. "The listeners, hearing the merits of prajñā praised in every way, and that it is able to know all matters well, prize and delight in this prajñāpāramitā and wish to obtain it by skilful means." It then records one school's old reading—「有人言：行者，在乾慧地；生者，得無生忍法；修者，得無生忍法後，以禪波羅蜜熏修般若」 tr. "Someone says: practising is on the ground of dry wisdom; giving rise to it is obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising; cultivating it is, after obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, perfuming and cultivating prajñā by dhyānapāramitā"—records it without judging, and still takes this sūtra's answer as the correct one: the five aggregates are the place of bondage, nirvāṇa is the mark of quiescence, and 「菩薩以般若波羅蜜利智慧力故，能破五眾，通達令空，即是涅槃寂滅相」 tr. "the bodhisattva, by the power of the keen wisdom of prajñāpāramitā, is able to break the five aggregates, penetrate them, and make them empty—this is the mark of the quiescence of nirvāṇa". The explanation of 「如虛空生」 tr. "arises like space" is most worth reading: space, 「無法、無形、無觸，無作相故」 tr. "because it is a non-existent dharma, without shape, without touch, and has the mark of making nothing", cannot give rise, and also has nothing that it gives rise to; and in the Mahāyāna, 「虛空名無法，不得說常、不得說無常」 tr. "space names a non-existent dharma: one cannot say it is permanent, cannot say it is impermanent"; prajñā is likewise, 「能觀世間似如虛空」 tr. "able to contemplate the world as though like space". The explanation of cultivating makes plain what it breaks: 「菩薩得般若已，入甚深禪定，以般若力故，觀禪定及禪定緣皆破壞。」 tr. "The bodhisattva, having obtained prajñā, enters very deep meditative concentration, and by the power of prajñā contemplates meditative concentration and the objects of meditative concentration as all breaking up." The question of the time is answered in a change of name, not a change of principle—「是般若到佛心中轉名薩婆若。理雖一，名變故，言至道場應行。」 tr. "When this prajñā reaches the Buddha's mind, its name changes and it is called sarvajñā. Though the principle is one, because the name changes, it is said that one should practise it up to the seat of awakening." The question of a single mind is answered in continuity, not in the instant—「心有二種：一者、念念生滅心，二者、相續次第生，總名一心」 tr. "Mind is of two kinds: the first is the mind that arises and ceases thought by thought; the second is what arises continuing in sequence, and this is named in general a single mind"; what is called constantly keeping in mind is 「心無餘向，縱使死急事至，不忘薩婆若」 tr. "the mind has no other direction it tends toward; even if the urgent matter of death arrives, one does not forget sarvajñā". The long stretch of debate below this is where the doctrinal backbone of the whole chapter shows most: a challenger cites the mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving in the absorption without perception, in the absorption of cessation, and in nirvāṇa without remainder, to raise a difficulty against the bodhisattva, and the treatise-author cuts it off with a single sentence—「是事阿毘曇中說，非大乘中義」 tr. "this matter is what is said in the Abhidharma; it is not the meaning within the Great Vehicle"—and admonishes, 「是故不應以阿毘曇難摩訶衍」 tr. "therefore one should not use the Abhidharma to raise difficulties against the Mahāyāna"; to the further difficulty of 「緣涅槃無相法」 tr. "taking as object the signless dharma of nirvāṇa", the treatise-author retorts 「汝云何言緣」 tr. "how can you say one takes it as object?", and at the end settles it by citing the Buddha's words: 「涅槃，無相、無量、不可思議，滅諸戲論。」 tr. "Nirvāṇa is signless, immeasurable, inconceivable, and extinguishes all idle discourse." For the 「不」 tr. "No" of the four alternatives, the treatise-author likewise gives the place of the sickness one by one: 「修尚不得，何況不修」 tr. "if even cultivating does not obtain it, how much less not cultivating"; of cultivating-and-not-cultivating, 「二俱有過」 tr. "both have faults"; and the fault of the fourth alternative lies only in the mind of the one who asks—Subhūti 「以取相著心問」 tr. "asks with a mind that grasps at marks and clings", and so the Buddha says 「不」 tr. "No"; if one spoke of it with a mind that does not grasp at marks, 「則無有過」 tr. "there is no fault". Why suchness and the limit of reality serve as similes for each other is answered very plainly: 「如、實際雖是一物，觀時異」 tr. "though suchness and the limit of reality are one thing, when contemplated they differ"; suchness is 「諸法體性」 tr. "the essential nature of dharmas", the limit of reality is 「行者心取證」 tr. "the realisation that the practitioner's mind takes up", and so what Subhūti himself has realised is taken as the simile. Since Subhūti speaks well of suchness and yet still asks here, the treatise-author sets up one more simile to resolve it: 「是如甚深無量故，須菩提有處解、有處不解；譬如大水，有人入深者、入淺者，皆名入水」 tr. "because this suchness is very deep and immeasurable, there are places where Subhūti understands and places where he does not understand; it is like great waters: some people enter deep and some enter shallow, and all are named entering the water". The explanation of duality and non-duality must especially be kept in mind: 「二相者，眼一、色一，兩一和合名為二」 tr. "the mark of duality: the eye is one, form is one, and the two ones coming together are named two", while the wise 「知是二法皆虛誑、屬因緣，不以是二為二」 tr. "know that these two dharmas are both false and deceptive and belong to causes and conditions, and do not take these two as two"; and the single move of equality speaks out in full the order of taking up and giving up—「因無所得破有所得，事既辦亦捨無所得。」 tr. "By nothing to be attained one breaks something to be attained; the matter once done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well."

The Middle Part, bearing at the head of its fascicle the continuation title with 「之餘」 tr. "continued", turns from the practising marks to the marks of the fruit. Sūtra ② opens its mouth with a difficulty: 「若諸法無所為、無所作，不應分別有三乘」 tr. "if dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, one should not distinguish that there are three vehicles". The Buddha answers that distinguishing lies not in the dharmas but in clinging—「有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing"; ordinary persons cling to the five aggregates of clinging and so on up to clinging to awakening, and so there is obtaining and not obtaining, whereas 「我以五眼觀，尚不得色乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。是狂愚人無目，而欲得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提、度脫眾生生死」 tr. "I contemplate with the five eyes, and I do not even obtain form, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. These mad and foolish people, without eyes, yet wish to obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and to deliver beings from birth and death". The question of the three groups is answered in the same way: the Buddha says of himself, 「我得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，初不得眾生三聚」 tr. "I obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and from the very beginning did not obtain the three groups of beings"; the reason he distinguishes is only 「以眾生無法有法想，我以除其妄著，世俗法故說有得，非第一義」 tr. "because beings give rise to the perception of an existent dharma with regard to a non-existent dharma, in order to remove their false clinging I say, by way of worldly dharmas, that there is something to be attained; it is not the highest meaning". Subhūti then presses the question of where the Buddha abides: does he obtain it abiding in the highest meaning? The answer is 「不也」 tr. "No". Does he obtain it abiding in inversion? The answer is 「不也」 tr. "No". If he abides in neither, would it not be that he does not obtain? The Buddha then answers directly—「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住若有為相、若無為相」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere—whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned"—and sets up the simile of the conjured person to carry it through all that follows: the conjured person does not abide in the two marks, and yet 「亦有來有去、亦坐亦立」 tr. "he too comes and goes, also sits and also stands", practises the six perfections, and so on up to 「得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，轉法輪」 tr. "obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and turns the wheel of the Dharma", and asked whether he really has something he practises, the answer is 「不也」 tr. "No". The simile established, the Buddha then judges directly: 「佛亦如是，知諸法如化，如化人度化眾生，無有實眾生可度。」 tr. "The Buddha too is like this: he knows that dharmas are like a conjuration, and it is like a conjured person delivering beings—there are no real beings to be delivered." Going further, asked what difference there is between the Buddha and a conjured person, the answer is 「佛與化人無有差別」 tr. "the Buddha and a conjured person are without difference", and he brings up the Buddha Suśānta as proof—「化作佛已，而自滅度；是化佛住半劫作佛事，授應菩薩行者記已，滅度」 tr. "having conjured a Buddha, he himself passed into extinction; this conjured Buddha abode for half a kalpa doing the work of a Buddha, and having given the prediction to those who were to practise the bodhisattva path, passed into extinction". Difference being absent, whether giving is pure or not becomes a doubt; the Buddha answers that both Buddhas alike have 「諸法實相」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas" as their field of merit, and all the way down reduces it further and further: keeping the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind, scattering a single flower into space while keeping the Buddha in mind, and so on up to 「若有人一稱南無佛，乃至畢苦，其福不盡」 tr. "if a person once calls out namo Buddha, up to the ending of suffering his merit is not exhausted". Since it has been said that the real mark should not be ruined, Subhūti then retorts that the Buddha himself ruins the marks of dharmas; the Buddha answers 「以名字相故示諸法，欲令眾生解；佛不壞諸法法相」 tr. "it is by the marks of names that dharmas are shown, wishing to make beings understand; the Buddha does not ruin the dharma-marks of dharmas"; asked further how that which is nameless and without marks is shown to people by names and marks, the Buddha answers 「隨世俗法有名相，實無著處」 tr. "following worldly dharmas there are names and marks, and yet there is really no place of clinging", and sets up an extremely sharp reflection in reverse—「若名著名、相著相，空亦應著空，無相亦應著無相，無作亦應著無作」 tr. "if name clung to name and mark clung to mark, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, the signless too should cling to the signless, non-action too should cling to non-action"; hence the bodhisattva, 「但名相中住，應行般若波羅蜜，是名相中亦不應著」 tr. "abiding only within names and marks, should practise prajñāpāramitā, and within these names and marks too he should not cling". Below this it turns to the three knowledges: 「薩婆若是一切聲聞、辟支佛智，道種智是菩薩摩訶薩智，一切種智是諸佛智」 tr. "sarvajñā is the knowledge of all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; the knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas; the omniscience of all kinds is the knowledge of the buddhas"; the reason the knowledge of the kinds of paths belongs to the bodhisattva lies in 「一切道，菩薩摩訶薩應知」 tr. "all paths the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should know", while 「亦不作實際證」 tr. "he also does not make the realisation of the limit of reality"; asked when he should not realise it, the answer is 「是菩薩未淨佛土、未成就眾生，是時不應實際作證」 tr. "while this bodhisattva has not yet purified a buddha-land and has not yet brought beings to accomplishment, at this time he should not realise the limit of reality". Subhūti goes on to ask about the place of abiding with four alternatives, and the Buddha answers each 「不也」 tr. "No", and turns to question him in return about himself: when you abode in the path, did you exhaust the outflows and obtain liberation? He answers 「不也」 tr. "No"; and so on until the four alternatives have been asked to the end, when Subhūti speaks out his own truth himself—「我無所住，不受諸法，漏盡心得解脫」 tr. "I have nowhere I abide; not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted, my mind obtained liberation"—and the Buddha at once seals the bodhisattva with this: the bodhisattva 「亦如是，無所住，應實際作證。」 tr. "too is like this: abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality." Of the mark of the omniscience of all kinds, the answer is 「一相故名一切種智，所謂一切法寂滅相」 tr. "because of one mark it is named the omniscience of all kinds, namely that all dharmas have the mark of quiescence". The question of the severance of the fetters shows its gradations most clearly: the three knowledges have higher and lower, and yet 「煩惱斷無差別」 tr. "in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference"; what differs is only the residues—「諸佛煩惱習一切悉斷，聲聞、辟支佛煩惱習不悉斷」 tr. "the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all entirely severed, while the śrāvakas' and pratyekabuddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are not all entirely severed", and as for what a residue is, the Buddha defines it himself: 「習非煩惱」 tr. "the habitual residue is not an affliction". Below this he says that within the unconditioned dharma there is originally no difference, and that because of worldly speech there is distinction, 「第一義中無言說道」 tr. "within the highest meaning there is no path of speech"; the prior and later limits likewise: 「諸法自相空中，無有前際，何況有後際」 tr. "within the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas there is no prior limit—how much less is there a later limit". The last great section explains the name directly: by what meaning is prajñā named pāramitā? The Buddha brings up six meanings in a row—「得第一度，一切法到彼岸」 tr. "it obtains the foremost crossing and makes all dharmas reach the further shore", 「諸佛、菩薩、辟支佛、阿羅漢用是般若波羅蜜得度彼岸」 tr. "the buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and arhats use this prajñāpāramitā to cross over to the further shore", 「分別、籌量破壞一切法，乃至微塵，是中不得堅實」 tr. "distinguishing and reckoning, it breaks up all dharmas, down to atoms, and within them nothing firm and real is obtained", 「諸法如、法性、實際皆入般若波羅蜜中」 tr. "the suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality in all dharmas all enter within prajñāpāramitā", 「是般若波羅蜜無色、無形、無對，一相所謂無相」 tr. "this prajñāpāramitā is without form, without shape, without resistance; it is of one mark—that is, the signless", 「是般若波羅蜜能生一切法、一切樂說辯、一切照明」 tr. "this prajñāpāramitā can give rise to all dharmas, to all the eloquence of delighting in speech, and to all illumination". The meanings having been spoken in full, the Buddha further speaks of the items of meaning that should be practised—impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, and so on up to 「盡智義、無生智義、如實智義」 tr. "the meaning of the knowledge of exhaustion, the meaning of the knowledge of non-arising, the meaning of the knowledge of things as they really are". Subhūti then asks: since benefit and non-benefit are unfindable, what is named benefit, that one should practise it? The Buddha answers that one should think 「貪欲非義，如是義不應行」 tr. "greed is non-benefit; such a matter should not be practised", and the reason lies in the mark of suchness—「三毒如相，無有義、無有非義」 tr. "the mark of suchness of the three poisons has no benefit and no non-benefit"; extended to form and so on up to awakening, all are 「非義、非非義」 tr. "neither benefit nor non-benefit". The simile of space gathers it up most squarely: 「譬如虛空如，不能益眾生、不能損眾生」 tr. "it is as the suchness of space can neither benefit beings nor diminish beings", and prajñā likewise 「無有增、無有損」 tr. "has no increase and no decrease". The final four questions and four answers drop straight onto the eye of the whole chapter: training in the unconditioned prajñā, one shall obtain the omniscience of all kinds, 「不以二法故」 tr. "because it is not by two dharmas"; can a non-dual dharma obtain a non-dual dharma? The answer is 「不也」 tr. "No". Can two dharmas obtain a non-dual dharma? The answer is 「不也」 tr. "No". If neither duality nor non-duality can obtain it, how then shall one obtain it? The Buddha answers in twelve Chinese characters—「無所得即是得，以是得無所得。」 tr. "Nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained."

The Last Part is wholly the sentence-by-sentence explanation of Treatise ②; reading it is like seeing the treatise-author setting down his brush at every point beside the sūtra text. On the doubt about the three vehicles, the treatise-author first distinguishes the persons: ordinary persons, who have not obtained the path, 「著五眾故，亦著是空、無作、無起法故生疑」 tr. "because they cling to the five aggregates, and also cling to this dharma of emptiness, non-action, and non-rising, give rise to doubt"; but Subhūti has already obtained the path—why does he doubt as well? The three groups are set up only to break the inversions—「能破顛倒者名正定；必不能破顛倒者是邪定」 tr. "one who can break the inversions is named rightly assured; one who certainly cannot break the inversions is wrongly assured", and all are 「以世俗法故說，非最第一義」 tr. "spoken according to worldly dharmas; it is not the very highest meaning". The treatise-author sets a question himself—「佛實住第一義中得道」 tr. "the Buddha really abode in the highest meaning and obtained the path"—so why, when Subhūti asked, did he answer 「不」 tr. "No"? He answers cleanly: 「顛倒有法中尚不可住，何況第一義無所有中住！」 tr. "Even within the inverted existent dharmas one may not abide; how much less abide within the highest meaning, which is without anything existent!" In the section on the conjured Buddha, the treatise-author defends its meaning difficulty by difficulty: the conjured person cannot really practise, rather 「眾生眼見似有所行」 tr. "the eyes of beings see what seems to be something practised"; the conjured Buddha is equal to the true Buddha because 「十力等諸功德皆入諸法實相」 tr. "the ten powers and all such merits all enter into the real mark of all dharmas"; since they are equal, why is a heinous sin not established for harming a conjured Buddha? The treatise-author answers 「惡人定謂化佛是真而惡心出血，血則為出，便得逆罪」 tr. "the evil person firmly holds that the conjured Buddha is the true one and with an evil mind draws his blood; the blood is then drawn, and he incurs the heinous sin"; that in the Vinaya killing a conjured person does not violate the precept against killing is because 「毘尼中皆為世間事、攝眾僧故結戒，不論實相」 tr. "in the Vinaya the precepts are all laid down for the sake of worldly matters and for holding the Saṅgha together; the real mark is not discussed", and he cites one sentence to judge on what the weight rests—「意業最大，非身、口業。」 tr. "The deed of mind is greatest, not the deeds of body and speech." The merit of once calling the Buddha's name, too, the treatise-author does not explain as something wondrous; he speaks only of what the mind takes as its object: 「是人曾聞佛功德，能度人老、病、死」 tr. "this person has formerly heard of the Buddha's merits, that he can deliver people from old age, sickness, and death", and so 「福田無量故，雖濡心布施，其福亦無盡」 tr. "because the field of merit is immeasurable, even though one gives with a soft mind, the merit too is without end". In the section on names and marks, the treatise-author points out that the Buddha's speaking of the Dharma is something he cannot forgo—it is 「以眾生無及佛者，欲牽引令解故」 tr. "because among beings there is none who reaches the Buddha, wishing to draw them on and make them understand" that he says ‘this is wholesome, this is evil’—and cites as comparison the three vehicles used as a lure in the burning house of the Lotus Sūtra; going a step further, he analyses its two sides: if dharmas were fixedly real and not names and marks, there would be no arising and ceasing, and no four truths by which to be delivered; if they were only empty names and marks without anything real, there would also be no arising and ceasing, and nothing by which to be delivered; therefore 「今菩薩知一切法名相等空，則離世間顛倒；亦知名相空，亦離名相空。如是離有離無、處中道，能度眾生」 tr. "now the bodhisattva knows that the names and marks and the like of all dharmas are empty, and so leaves the inversions of the world; he also knows that names and marks are empty, and also leaves the emptiness of names and marks. Thus leaving existence and leaving non-existence, and dwelling in the middle way, he is able to deliver beings". In the explanation of the three knowledges, the treatise-author fills in a whole map for the knowledge of the kinds of paths: 「道有四種：一者、人天中受福樂道，所謂種福德；并三乘道為四」 tr. "the paths are of four kinds: the first is the path of receiving the happiness of merit among humans and gods, namely the planting of merit; together with the paths of the three vehicles, they make four", and the bodhisattva 「以佛道自為、為人，以餘三道但為眾生」 tr. "uses the Buddha path both for himself and for others, and uses the other three paths solely for beings". As to why the four alternatives on the place of abiding are all answered 「不也」 tr. "No", the treatise-author likewise speaks out on Subhūti's behalf their two faults: 「有結使人不應有畢竟清淨正智」 tr. "a person who has fetters should not have the right knowledge of ultimate purity", and 「一切有為法皆是虛誑，和合故有」 tr. "all conditioned dharmas are false and deceptive; they exist through coming together". As to why the Buddha does not answer directly but asks in return, the answer is 「是故佛以須菩提所得證反問」 tr. "therefore the Buddha used the realisation Subhūti had obtained to ask in return", making him say himself 「我無所住而得漏盡」 tr. "with nowhere to abide I obtained the exhaustion of the outflows"—this is sealing what he doubts with what he has realised. The meaning of the omniscience of all kinds the treatise-author explains by two marks: the first is 「通達諸法實相故寂滅相」 tr. "because it penetrates the real mark of all dharmas, it is the mark of quiescence", and its simile is most beautiful—「如大海水中風不能動，以其深故波浪不起；一切種智亦如是，戲論風所不能動」 tr. "as in the waters of the great sea the wind cannot stir it, because it is deep, and no waves rise; the omniscience of all kinds too is thus—the wind of idle discourse cannot stir it"; the second is 「一切諸法可以名相文字言說，了了通達無礙」 tr. "all dharmas that can be spoken of by names, marks, letters, and words it penetrates clearly and plainly without obstruction". That the severance of the fetters is without difference while residues remain, the treatise-author makes plain with the knife as a simile—「譬如刀有利鈍，斷時有遲速，斷已無差別」 tr. "it is like a knife that may be sharp or blunt: at the time of cutting there is slowness or swiftness, but once cut there is no difference"; and he brings up two matters to show what makes a residue a residue: the arhat Madhuvāsiṣṭha, 「五百世在獼猴中」 tr. "who for five hundred lives was among monkeys", still 「騰跳樹木」 tr. "leaps and bounds among the trees"; the arhat Pilindavatsa, 「五百世生婆羅門中，習輕蔑心故」 tr. "who for five hundred lives was born among brahmins, because a mind of disdain had become habitual", still says to the spirit of the river Ganges 「小婢！止流」 tr. "Little slave-girl! Stop the flow". That the Buddha has no residues is proved by a whole string of favourable and adverse circumstances: a brahmin 「一時以五百事罵佛，佛無慍色」 tr. "at one time reviled the Buddha with five hundred matters, and the Buddha had no look of displeasure", and then with five hundred good matters praised the Buddha, and 「佛亦無喜色」 tr. "the Buddha also had no look of joy"; Sundarī, a woman of the brahmin ascetics, 「殺身謗佛」 tr. "slandered the Buddha by her being killed", an evil name spread abroad, and his mind had no difference; going out with an empty bowl and the offering of heavenly food, thorns and cold wind and the heavenly white jewel-stone, Devadatta rolling a rock at the Buddha and Rāhula joining his hands and bowing to the Buddha—「於此二人，其心平等，如愛兩眼」 tr. "toward these two persons his mind was equal, as one loves one's two eyes"; and at the end the simile of true gold—「譬如真金，燒磨鍛截，其色不變。」 tr. "It is like true gold: burned, ground, forged, and cut, its colour does not change." The six meanings by which prajñā obtains its name the treatise-author expounds meaning by meaning, and among them the one meaning of the foremost crossing is analysed into many layers: the knowledge of the three vehicles has lower, middle, and upper, and 「以上上智慧度，故名第一度」 tr. "because one crosses by the upper-upper wisdom, it is named the foremost crossing"; again it is spoken of in terms of the general and the specific marks—「聲聞、辟支佛但總相度，於別相少；菩薩一切法總相、別相皆了了知」 tr. "the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas cross only by the general mark, and of the specific marks they have little; the bodhisattva knows clearly and plainly both the general mark and the specific marks of all dharmas"; and again it takes the provisions for the journey as a simile—「如人乘七寶船，牢治行具，上有種種好食、有好導師，遇隨意好風，則為好度；若人乘草栰度恐怖，不名好度」 tr. "as a person rides a ship of the seven jewels, with the gear for the journey made firm and ready; on it there are all kinds of good food, there is a good guide, and he meets a good wind as he would wish—then it is a good crossing; if a person crosses riding a raft of grass in terror, it is not named a good crossing". The power of prajñā is spoken of with the most light—「星宿日月不能照處，般若能照，能破邪見、無明黑闇故」 tr. "where the stars, the sun, and the moon cannot illuminate, prajñā can illuminate, because it can break the darkness of wrong views and ignorance". Among the ten knowledges, the knowledge of things as they really are alone stands out; the treatise-author first records one school's explanation, 「能知諸法實相，所謂如、法性、實際，是名如實智相」 tr. "being able to know the real mark of all dharmas—namely suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality—this is named the mark of the knowledge of things as they really are", and then by the simile of the lamp divides the complete from the incomplete: the first lamp has already removed one portion of darkness, the later lamp removes a second portion, yet 「不得言初燈無照」 tr. "one may not say that the first lamp gave no illumination", and so 「遍如實智，是佛；但如實智，二乘及菩薩所共」 tr. "the pervading knowledge of things as they really are is the Buddha's; the knowledge of things as they really are simply is shared by the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas". In the section on benefit and non-benefit, the treatise-author breaks open the three divisions: the afflictions are non-benefit, wholesome dharmas are benefit, and form and the like, being indeterminate dharmas, are 「非義非非義」 tr. "neither benefit nor non-benefit"; toward these three people give rise respectively to minds of hatred, love, and delusion, and so the Buddha has both given up; what this rests on is still the mark of suchness—「惡法、善法、無記法，一如相，無有義、非義」 tr. "evil dharmas, wholesome dharmas, and indeterminate dharmas are of the one mark of suchness, and have no benefit and no non-benefit". The simile of space too is pushed one layer further: 「虛空雖無法，一切世間因虛空故得有所作；般若波羅蜜亦如是，雖無相、無為，而因般若能行五波羅蜜等一切佛道法。」 tr. "Although space is a non-existent dharma, all the world, by reason of space, is able to have something it does; prajñāpāramitā too is thus: although it is signless and unconditioned, yet by reason of prajñā one can practise the five perfections and all the dharmas of the Buddha path." At the end he binds up the whole chapter: prajñā is of two kinds, 「學有為般若，能具足六波羅蜜，住十地中；學無為般若，滅一切煩惱習，成佛道」 tr. "training in the conditioned prajñā, one can fulfil the six perfections and abide within the ten grounds; training in the unconditioned prajñā, one extinguishes all the afflictions and their habitual residues and accomplishes the Buddha path"; the non-dual cannot obtain because 「無為無有得不得相」 tr. "the unconditioned has no mark of obtaining or not obtaining"; two dharmas cannot obtain because 「二法虛誑不實故，云何行不實而得實法」 tr. "two dharmas are false and deceptive, not real—how could one practise the unreal and obtain the real dharma?"; and so it returns to those twelve Chinese characters, for which the treatise-author sets down one last note: 「雖行有為法得是無所得，心不取相故無所得。」 tr. "Although one practises conditioned dharmas and obtains this nothing to be attained, because the mind does not grasp at marks, it is nothing to be attained."

The distinction of the three parts can be settled in a word: the First Part speaks of practice, the Middle Part speaks of the fruit, the Last Part speaks out in their stead the reasons why. What the First Part clears away is ‘the practising marks’—practising, giving rise, and cultivating having been listed, sentence by sentence it takes apart the places where they could be obtained, ending with 「無所為故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "he practises prajñāpāramitā because there is nothing it is done for"; what the Middle Part clears away is ‘the marks of the fruit’—the three vehicles, the three groups, the three knowledges, the severance of the fetters, the prior and later limits: wherever there can be distinguishing, it first grants it as worldly and then takes away its standing in the highest meaning, ending with 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining"; the Last Part is the treatise-author turning up the difficulty in every sentence of the Middle Part and setting each in its place one by one. Between the three parts one thread runs through, namely the two Chinese characters 「不二」 tr. "non-duality": the First Part sets up its judgement with 「諸有二者，是有所得」 tr. "whatever has duality is with something to be attained", the Middle Part carries on the judgement with 「不以二法故」 tr. "because it is not by two dharmas", and the Last Part concludes the judgement with 「此中二、不二，即是無分別，皆無所得」 tr. "the duality and non-duality here are non-discrimination, and are all nothing to be attained". The chapter title names the three wisdoms while the main text has no name of the three wisdoms, and the reason too lies here: practising, giving rise, and cultivating, spoken of separately, are three; spoken of together, they are only one prajñā—just as the three knowledges, spoken of separately, have the difference of śrāvakas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas, and yet 「煩惱斷無差別」 tr. "in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference". Wherever one dharma can be divided into three, dividing it is for teaching and transforming, joining it is the real mark—that the whole chapter first opens and then joins is just this meaning.

Therefore, in reading each passage of this chapter, one can ask at least three layers of questions. First, is what is blocked here the dharma, or the mind? To the four alternatives the answer is always 「不」 tr. "No", and the treatise-author says plainly that Subhūti 「以取相著心問」 tr. "asks with a mind that grasps at marks and clings", and so the Buddha says 「不」 tr. "No"; if one spoke of it with a mind that does not grasp at marks, 「則無有過」 tr. "there is no fault"; the Buddha's not abiding in the highest meaning is not because the highest meaning has a fault either; it is only that 「顛倒有法中尚不可住，何況第一義無所有中住」 tr. "even within the inverted existent dharmas one may not abide; how much less abide within the highest meaning, which is without anything existent". So whenever one sees a 「不」 tr. "No", first ask whether what is blocked is that dharma, or the mind that grasps that dharma. Second, is what is granted here the worldly, or the highest meaning? The place in the whole chapter where it is easiest to read astray is precisely where the Buddha on one side says 「我以五眼觀，尚不得色乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "I contemplate with the five eyes, and I do not even obtain form, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi", and on the other side distinguishes the three groups, distinguishes the three knowledges, distinguishes the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha; and his words of judgement are consistent from first to last: 「世俗法故說有得，非第一義」 tr. "by way of worldly dharmas it is said that there is something to be attained; it is not the highest meaning", 「世間言說故有差別，非第一義」 tr. "because of worldly speech there is difference; it is not the highest meaning". Distinguishing is not wrong; holding distinctions to be real is what is wrong; so all the names and items in the sūtra should be taken as pointers, not as real things—「是一切法但有名相，是法不住名相中。」 tr. "All these dharmas have only names and marks; these dharmas do not abide within names and marks." Third, I have not yet obtained this knowledge—of what use is this chapter to me? The answer too is within the chapter: first, the place to set one's hand is extremely low—「但以敬心念佛」 tr. "only keeping the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind", and so on up to 「一稱南無佛」 tr. "calling out namo Buddha once", of which the merit is 「乃至畢苦，其福不盡」 tr. "up to the ending of suffering, the merit is not exhausted"; second, the place to use the mind is extremely clear—「常不捨薩婆若心，不令餘念得入」 tr. "never abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, not letting any other thought get in", and what is called constantly keeping in mind the treatise-author explains as 「心無餘向，縱使死急事至，不忘薩婆若」 tr. "the mind has no other direction it tends toward; even if the urgent matter of death arrives, one does not forget sarvajñā"; third, when habitual residues appear before one and one comes to doubt what one has obtained, remember that those of the two vehicles still have the residues of 「騰跳樹木」 tr. "leaping and bounding among the trees" and 「小婢！止流」 tr. "Little slave-girl! Stop the flow"—severing the afflictions and exhausting the habitual residues are from the first two layers of matter. Read on along the two sūtras and two treatises, and one will come to rest at last on those six Chinese characters: 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining"—it is not that one has obtained a thing called nothing to be attained; it is, as the treatise-author notes, 「雖行有為法得是無所得，心不取相故無所得」 tr. "although one practises conditioned dharmas and obtains this nothing to be attained, because the mind does not grasp at marks, it is nothing to be attained".

Reading On in the Order of the Treatise

The Three Wisdoms, First Part: The Three Questions of Practising, Giving Rise to, and Cultivating, and the Three Answers; For How Long, and the Mind in Sequence; All Four Alternatives Are Answered No; the Chain of Suchness, the Limit of Reality, the Nature of Dharmas, and the Nature of Self; All Dharmas Are Unspeakable; Not Practising Is Named Practising; the Equality of Something to Be Attained and Nothing to Be Attained; Practising Prajñā Because There Is Nothing It Is Done For

What Is Being Asked

The chapter title reads 「三慧」 tr. "the three wisdoms", and yet within the body of the chapter the two Chinese characters 「三慧」 tr. "three wisdoms" do not appear at all—from beginning to end, the sūtra and the treatise speak only of the three matters of practising, giving rise, and cultivating, and never name them 「三慧」 tr. "the three wisdoms". What are called the three wisdoms refer to the three matters Subhūti asks about as the sūtra opens: 「云何行般若波羅蜜？云何生般若波羅蜜？云何修般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "How does one practise prajñāpāramitā? How does one give rise to prajñāpāramitā? How does one cultivate prajñāpāramitā?" The previous chapter praised the merits of prajñā at length and said that one who practises prajñā is able to know all matters well; since the listeners already prize and delight in this Dharma, what they will naturally ask next is where to set their hand. Each of the three questions has its own bounds: practising is how it is used here and now; giving rise is from where this wisdom arises; cultivating is how, once obtained, it is nourished and grown. Each of the Buddha's three answers looks less like an answer than the one before—practising is because form is quiescent, form is empty, form is false and deceptive, form is not firm and real; giving rise is 「如虛空生故」 tr. "because it arises like space"; cultivating is 「修諸法破壞故」 tr. "because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas". What is asked is how to do it, yet what is answered is entirely the aspect of the objects contemplated; this gap is precisely the entrance to this chapter.

The sūtra that follows presses this gap step by step to the very bottom. Asked for how long, it answers from the first arousing of intent up to the seat of awakening; asked whether it is the mind in sequence, it answers constantly not abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, and 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move". If the mind does not move, then does cultivating still obtain sarvajñā or not? So there come the four questions of cultivating, not cultivating, cultivating and not cultivating, and neither cultivating nor not cultivating, and the Buddha answers all of them 「不」 tr. "No". The four alternatives exhausted, Subhūti can only ask 「若不爾，云何當得薩婆若？」 tr. "If it is not so, how will one obtain sarvajñā?"—and the Buddha then hands it down in one line through suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas, and the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life, and at the end asks in return 「我、眾生、壽命法可得不？」 tr. "Can the dharmas of a self, a being, and a life be found?", setting the whole chain down on a single 「不可得」 tr. "unfindable". From here on the sūtra turns into 「一切法不可說」 tr. "all dharmas are unspeakable", and turns again into training in neither increasing nor decreasing, training in neither arising nor ceasing, not raising up and not making the deeds of conduct, and contemplating the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas, until at last it presses out 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā". And what is the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent to do? The answer is: train in the dharma of emptiness with nothing to be attained. What is with something to be attained, and with nothing to be attained? The answer is 「諸有二者，是有所得；無有二者，是無所得」 tr. "whatever has duality is with something to be attained; what is without duality is with nothing to be attained". Then is it from within something to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained, or from within nothing to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained? The Buddha allows neither end, and says only 「有所得、無所得平等，是名無所得」 tr. "the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained—this is named nothing to be attained". At the end this unit is gathered up with 「無所為故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "he practises prajñāpāramitā because there is nothing it is done for".

What the treatise-author explains is to supply the reason for every step of the sūtra. The substance of the three wisdoms: he explains practising by breaking the five aggregates, which is precisely the quiescence of nirvāṇa; explains giving rise by space, neither arising nor not arising; and explains cultivating by contemplating meditative concentration and its objects as all breaking up; and before this he records the differing explanation of 「有人言」 tr. "someone says", which matches the three wisdoms to the ground of dry wisdom, the acceptance of non-arising, and perfuming and cultivating by dhyānapāramitā, keeping it as one account without judging it. The single sentence 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move" is the most pressing; over it there are four rounds of exchange between the treatise-author and the Small Vehicle—the Abhidharma raises the difficulty that the mind does not move in the absorption without perception, the absorption of cessation, and nirvāṇa without remainder; the treatise-author cuts it off with 「不應以阿毘曇難摩訶衍」 tr. "one should not use the Abhidharma to raise difficulties against the Mahāyāna", and then argues it through to the end by way of the signless samādhi, the various meanings of the signless, whether nirvāṇa can or cannot be taken as object, and whether the three marks of nirvāṇa are provisional or real. Besides this, three rounds of question and answer explain the order of suchness, the limit of reality, and the nature of dharmas; one round of question and answer explains the fault of the fourth alternative; and one round of question and answer explains the mutual dependence of the eye and form. What this unit has to answer comes down, in the end, to only two questions: since in prajñā mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move, how in the end does it practise? And since all four alternatives of practising, giving rise, and cultivating fail to obtain it, on what does the bodhisattva rely to reach sarvajñā?

Passage by Passage

1. The three questions—practising, giving rise, cultivating. As the sūtra opens, Subhūti said to the Buddha: 「世尊！菩薩摩訶薩云何行般若波羅蜜？云何生般若波羅蜜？云何修般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā? How does he give rise to prajñāpāramitā? How does he cultivate prajñāpāramitā?" Three questions in one breath, each of the three Chinese characters holding one meaning: practising is the use here and now; giving rise is the condition of its first arising; cultivating is its continuing nourishment and growth. The framework of the whole chapter is set up from here; every question and answer in what follows grows out of these three Chinese characters.

2. The Buddha's three answers—practising because of quiescence, emptiness, falseness and deception, and not being firm and real; giving rise because it arises like space; cultivating because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas. Answering the first question, the Buddha speaks not of a technique but of the marks of the five aggregates: 「色寂滅故，色空故，色虛誑故，色不堅實故，應行般若波羅蜜。受、想、行、識亦如是。」 tr. "Because form is quiescent, because form is empty, because form is false and deceptive, because form is not firm and real, one should practise prajñāpāramitā. Feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise." Answering the second question, he takes back the words of the question and puts a simile in place of a method: 「如汝所問：『云何生般若波羅蜜？』如虛空生故，應生般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "As for what you ask, ‘How does he give rise to prajñāpāramitā?’—because it arises like space, one should give rise to prajñāpāramitā." The answer to the third question is the same: 「如汝所問：『云何修般若波羅蜜？』修諸法破壞故，應修般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "As for what you ask, ‘How does he cultivate prajñāpāramitā?’—because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas, one should cultivate prajñāpāramitā." The three answers share one format—they turn ‘how to practise’ back into ‘what the dharma practised is like’. Since the dharma is quiescent, is empty, is false and deceptive and not firm and real, the practitioner has nowhere on it to set his hand, and this having nowhere to set his hand is precisely practising.

3. For how long—from the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening. Subhūti goes on to ask about the time: 「行般若波羅蜜、生般若波羅蜜、修般若波羅蜜，應幾時？」 tr. "Practising prajñāpāramitā, giving rise to prajñāpāramitā, cultivating prajñāpāramitā—for how long should one go on?" The Buddha answers: 「從初發意乃至坐道場，應行、應生、應修般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "From the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening, one should practise, should give rise to, should cultivate prajñāpāramitā." Between one question and one answer, the length of the three wisdoms is fixed as the whole bodhisattva path—not a stretch of lessons on some ground or in some position, but, between the one thought of arousing the mind and the one seat of becoming a Buddha, the three matters of practising, giving rise, and cultivating are not broken off for a single moment.

4. The mind in sequence, and mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving. Subhūti asks again: 「世尊！次第心應行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! Should one practise prajñāpāramitā with the mind in sequence?"—is one to practise with the mind in sequence, continuing thought after thought? The Buddha's answer has two layers: 「常不捨薩婆若心，不令餘念得入，為行般若波羅蜜、為生般若波羅蜜、為修般若波羅蜜。若心、心數法不行故，為行般若波羅蜜、為生般若波羅蜜、為修般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Never abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, not letting any other thought get in—this is practising prajñāpāramitā, this is giving rise to prajñāpāramitā, this is cultivating prajñāpāramitā. If it is because mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move, this is practising prajñāpāramitā, this is giving rise to prajñāpāramitā, this is cultivating prajñāpāramitā." The first layer is a way of speaking in which there is a mind to speak of—constant mindfulness without admixture; the second layer withdraws the mind outright—mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move. The two layers stand side by side, and it is the second that is the spark of every question and difficulty that follows in this chapter.

5. All four alternatives are answered 「不」 tr. "No" . Since the mind does not move, Subhūti at once returns to the most practical concern: 「菩薩摩訶薩修般若波羅蜜，當得薩婆若不？」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who cultivates prajñāpāramitā—will he obtain sarvajñā?" The Buddha answers: 「不。」 tr. "No." Not cultivating—does one obtain it or not? 「不。」 tr. "No." Cultivating and not cultivating—does one obtain it or not? 「不。」 tr. "No." Neither cultivating nor not cultivating—does one obtain it or not? 「不。」 tr. "No." Four questions, four times the character 「不」 tr. "No", and the sūtra gives not a single sentence of explanation. The four alternatives are the fixed form by which Indian debate exhausts the possibilities; every alternative is denied—not because all four answers are wrong, but because the matter of 「得」 tr. "obtaining" itself does not stand under a question that grasps at marks.

6. If it is not so, how will one obtain it—obtaining sarvajñā is like the mark of suchness. The four alternatives exhausted, Subhūti can only ask: 「世尊！若不爾，云何當得薩婆若？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If it is not so, then how will one obtain sarvajñā?" The Buddha answers: 「菩薩摩訶薩得薩婆若，如如相。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's obtaining sarvajñā is like the mark of suchness." The answer still does not fall on ‘how to do it’ but on ‘what it is like’. That obtaining can be spoken of at all lies only in its having one and the same mark as 「如」 tr. "suchness"; apart from this mark, the word ‘obtain’ has nowhere to be set down.

7. Like the mark of suchness, like the limit of reality, like the nature of dharmas, like the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life—questions passed down four levels. Subhūti does not understand, and pursues it level by level: 「世尊！云何如如相？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How is it like the mark of suchness?" The answer: 「如實際。」 tr. "Like the limit of reality." 「云何如實際？」 tr. "How is it like the limit of reality?" The answer: 「如法性。」 tr. "Like the nature of dharmas." 「云何如法性？」 tr. "How is it like the nature of dharmas?" The answer: 「如我性、眾生性、壽命性。」 tr. "Like the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life." Four questions and four answers, each sentence shorter than the one before, and each nearer to people than the one before. The first three names—suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas—are all very deep names; the last suddenly turns to self, beings, and a life: the Buddha joins the deepest principle to the ordinary person's most familiar clinging, laying the ground for the question that follows.

8. Can the dharmas of a self, a being, and a life be found—where the four-level chain lands. Subhūti asks 「云何我性、眾生性、壽命性？」 tr. "What is the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life?" The Buddha does not explain, but asks in return: 「於汝意云何？我、眾生、壽命法可得不？」 tr. "What do you think? Can the dharmas of a self, a being, and a life be found?" Subhūti answers: 「不可得。」 tr. "They are unfindable." The Buddha then concludes: 「若我、眾生、壽命不可得，云何當說有我性、眾生性、壽命性？若般若波羅蜜中不說有一切法，當得一切種智。」 tr. "If a self, a being, and a life are unfindable, how should one say that there are the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life? If within prajñāpāramitā one does not say that there are any dharmas at all, one will obtain the omniscience of all kinds." So the answer passed down four levels comes to zero—since the nature of self is unfindable, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, and suchness are all likewise; and 「不說有一切法」 tr. "not saying that there are any dharmas at all" is precisely the road to obtaining the omniscience of all kinds. Only here is the reason given for the four times the character 「不」 tr. "No" was said earlier.

9. Is only prajñā unspeakable, or are the other dharmas unspeakable too. Subhūti presses on the scope: 「但般若波羅蜜是不可說？禪波羅蜜乃至檀波羅蜜亦不可說？」 tr. "Is it only prajñāpāramitā that is unspeakable? Are dhyānapāramitā and so on up to dānapāramitā also unspeakable?" The Buddha widens it to the utmost: 「般若波羅蜜不可說，檀波羅蜜乃至一切法——若有為、若無為，若聲聞法、若辟支佛法、若菩薩法、若佛法，亦不可說。」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is unspeakable; dānapāramitā and so on up to all dharmas—whether conditioned or unconditioned, whether dharmas of the śrāvakas, dharmas of the pratyekabuddhas, dharmas of the bodhisattvas, or dharmas of the Buddha—are also unspeakable." The conditioned and the unconditioned, the three vehicles and the Buddha—all are included. Unspeakability is not the privilege of the one dharma of prajñā; it is the actual condition of all dharmas.

10. If they are unspeakable, how are the five destinies and the worthies and sages spoken of—the names of beings are really unfindable. What follows is the most natural difficulty: 「若一切法不可說，云何說是地獄、是畜生、是餓鬼、是人、是天，是須陀洹、是斯陀含、阿那含、阿羅漢、辟支佛，是諸佛？」 tr. "If all dharmas are unspeakable, how does one say: this is the hells, this is the animals, this is the hungry ghosts, this is humans, this is the gods; this is the srota-āpanna, this is the sakṛdāgāmin, the anāgāmin, the arhat, the pratyekabuddha; this is the buddhas?" The Buddha again answers with a counter-question: 「於汝意云何？是眾生名字實可得不？」 tr. "What do you think? Is the name of this being really findable?" The answer is 「不可得」 tr. "It is unfindable". The Buddha concludes: 「若眾生不可得，云何當說有地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天、須陀洹乃至佛？如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，應當學一切法不可說。」 tr. "If beings are unfindable, how should one say that there are the hells, the hungry ghosts, the animals, humans, gods, the srota-āpanna, and so on up to the Buddha? Thus, Subhūti! when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he should train in the unspeakability of all dharmas." The names of the five destinies and the four fruits are tied to beings; since the names of beings are unfindable, the names tied to them fall empty along with them. The closing sentence of this passage, 「應當學一切法不可說」 tr. "he should train in the unspeakability of all dharmas", is the first positive direction for the gate of practice in this chapter.

11. Should one train in form and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds—one should train in them as neither increasing nor decreasing. From here Subhūti turns to ask about the way of training: 「菩薩摩訶薩學般若波羅蜜時，應學色、受、想、行、識，乃至應學一切種智？」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva trains in prajñāpāramitā, should he train in form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to—should he train in the omniscience of all kinds?" The Buddha's answer does not deny the items to be trained in; it changes only the way of training: 「是菩薩摩訶薩學般若波羅蜜時，應學色不增不減，乃至應學一切種智不增不減。」 tr. "When this bodhisattva-mahāsattva trains in prajñāpāramitā, he should train in form as neither increasing nor decreasing, and so on up to—he should train in the omniscience of all kinds as neither increasing nor decreasing." Form must still be trained in; the omniscience of all kinds must still be trained in; the difference lies only in not adding a fraction to them and not taking a fraction from them while training.

12. How does one train in neither increasing nor decreasing—one trains because of neither arising nor ceasing. He asks further: 「云何色不增不減學？乃至一切種智不增不減學？」 tr. "How does one train in form as neither increasing nor decreasing? And so on up to—how does one train in the omniscience of all kinds as neither increasing nor decreasing?" The Buddha answers: 「不生不滅故學。」 tr. "One trains because of neither arising nor ceasing." That neither increasing nor decreasing is possible is because dharmas from the first neither arise nor cease; upon dharmas that neither arise nor cease, increase and decrease naturally have nothing to work on.

13. How does one train in neither arising nor ceasing—not raising up and not making the deeds of conduct, whether existent or non-existent. He asks again: 「世尊！云何名不生不滅學？」 tr. "World-Honored One! What is named training by neither arising nor ceasing?" The Buddha answers: 「不起不作諸行業若有、若無故。」 tr. "It is because one does not raise up and does not make the deeds of conduct, whether existent or non-existent." Neither arising nor ceasing, when it lands on the practitioner himself, is the not raising up and not making of deeds; and the four Chinese characters 「若有、若無」 tr. "whether existent or non-existent" seal off both sides—deeds that make existence are of course making, and deeds that seek non-existence are making just the same.

14. How does one not raise up and not make—because one contemplates the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas. He asks once more: 「世尊！云何不起不作諸行業若有、若無？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How does one not raise up and not make the deeds of conduct, whether existent or non-existent?" The Buddha answers: 「觀諸法自相空故。」 tr. "It is because one contemplates the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas." By now the sūtra has pursued level by level from 「云何行」 tr. "how does one practise" to 「觀自相空」 tr. "contemplating the emptiness of specific marks"—beneath four questions, the gate of practice at last lands on a place that can be contemplated.

15. How does one contemplate the emptiness of specific marks—an item-by-item listing. Subhūti asks: 「世尊！云何應觀諸法自相空？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How should one contemplate the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas?" The Buddha's answer is a long listing, item by item: 「應觀色，色相空；應觀受、想、行、識，識相空。應觀眼，眼相空，乃至意；色乃至法；眼識界乃至意識界，意識界相空。應觀內空，內空相空；乃至應觀自相空，自相空相空。應觀四禪，四禪相空；乃至滅受想定，滅受想定相空。應觀四念處，四念處相空；乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提相空。」 tr. "One should contemplate form: the mark of form is empty. One should contemplate feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness: the mark of consciousness is empty. One should contemplate the eye: the mark of the eye is empty; and so on up to the mind; form and so on up to dharmas; the element of eye-consciousness and so on up to the element of mind-consciousness: the mark of the element of mind-consciousness is empty. One should contemplate inner emptiness: the mark of inner emptiness is empty; and so on up to—one should contemplate the emptiness of specific marks: the mark of the emptiness of specific marks is empty. One should contemplate the four dhyānas: the mark of the four dhyānas is empty; and so on up to the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception: the mark of the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception is empty. One should contemplate the four foundations of mindfulness: the mark of the four foundations of mindfulness is empty; and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi: the mark of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is empty." The five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, all the way to awakening itself—not one item is left out. Of these, the sentence least to be passed over is 「應觀自相空，自相空相空」 tr. "one should contemplate the emptiness of specific marks: the mark of the emptiness of specific marks is empty"—even the dharma that contemplates is itself among what is contemplated; otherwise the emptiness of specific marks becomes the last ground left to rely on. It closes with 「如是，須菩提！菩薩行般若波羅蜜時，應行諸法自相空」 tr. "Thus, Subhūti! when the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he should practise the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas".

16. If all marks are empty, how should one practise—not practising is named practising. Since the mark of form is empty and so on up to the mark of awakening is empty, Subhūti then asks: 「云何菩薩摩訶薩應行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "How should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā?" The Buddha's answer is only ten Chinese characters: 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā." This is the most famous sentence of the chapter, and also the pivot of the whole chapter. Not practising is not stopping; it is not raising practising marks upon any dharma; only when practising marks do not arise does one accord with the actual condition of the dharma practised.

17. How is not practising practising—the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice are all unfindable. Subhūti asks again for the reason, and the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions: 「般若波羅蜜不可得故，菩薩不可得，行亦不可得，行者、行法、行處亦不可得故，是名菩薩摩訶薩行不行般若波羅蜜，一切諸戲論不可得故。」 tr. "Because prajñāpāramitā is unfindable, the bodhisattva is unfindable, practice too is unfindable, and the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice are also unfindable—this is named the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practising the prajñāpāramitā of not practising, because all idle discourse is unfindable." The bodhisattva who practises, the dharma practised, the one matter of practice, and even the threefold division into the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice—all are unfindable; what remains is only 「一切諸戲論不可得」 tr. "all idle discourse is unfindable". Not practising is practising precisely because the division of agent and object had from the first nothing on which to stand.

18. How does the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent practise—he should train in the dharma of emptiness with nothing to be attained. Here Subhūti asks with great consideration: 「若不行是菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，從初發意菩薩，云何行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "If not practising is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's practising prajñāpāramitā, then how does the bodhisattva from the first arousing of intent practise prajñāpāramitā?"—bodhisattvas in deep positions may well not practise, but a person with a beginner's mind must, after all, have something to do. The Buddha's answer does not lower his standard; it only gives the sequence: 「須菩提！菩薩從初發意已來，應學空無所得法。是菩薩用無所得法故布施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定，以無所得法故修智慧，乃至一切種智亦如是。」 tr. "Subhūti! The bodhisattva, from the first arousing of intent onward, should train in the dharma of emptiness with nothing to be attained. This bodhisattva, by the dharma with nothing to be attained, gives, upholds the precepts, is patient, is vigorous, and practises meditative concentration; by the dharma with nothing to be attained he cultivates wisdom; and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, likewise." The six perfections are practised as before; only each perfection is practised by the dharma with nothing to be attained. The beginner's mind does not first train in something to be attained and exchange it later; from the very start it does its work within nothing to be attained.

19. What is with something to be attained, and what is with nothing to be attained—whatever has duality is with something to be attained. Since 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" has become the key, Subhūti asks for its definition: 「世尊！云何名有所得？云何名無所得？」 tr. "World-Honored One! What is named with something to be attained? What is named with nothing to be attained?" The Buddha told Subhūti: 「諸有二者，是有所得；無有二者，是無所得。」 tr. "Whatever has duality is with something to be attained; what is without duality is with nothing to be attained." The definition is extremely simple: the difference between something to be attained and nothing to be attained lies not in how much is attained, but in whether or not there is 「二」 tr. "duality".

20. What is duality—the eye and form, and so on up to awakening and the Buddha, are a duality. He asks further: 「何等是二有所得？何等是不二無所得？」 tr. "What is the duality that is with something to be attained? What is the non-duality that is with nothing to be attained?" The Buddha lists the items: 「眼、色為二，乃至意、法為二，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提、佛為二，是名為二。」 tr. "The eye and form are a duality, and so on up to the mind and dharmas are a duality, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the Buddha are a duality—this is named duality." From the pairs of the six faculties and the six sense-objects, it goes all the way up to the pair of awakening and the Buddha. Even the highest pair—the awakening that is realised and the Buddha who realises it—is within the count of duality; this sentence pushes the range of 「二」 tr. "duality" to its very end.

21. From within which does one obtain nothing to be attained—from neither; equality is nothing to be attained. Subhūti presses one layer further: 「從有所得中無所得？從無所得中無所得？」 tr. "Is it from within something to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained? Is it from within nothing to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained?" The Buddha blocks both ends: 「不從有所得中無所得，不從無所得中無所得。須菩提！有所得、無所得平等，是名無所得。」 tr. "One does not obtain nothing to be attained from within something to be attained, nor does one obtain nothing to be attained from within nothing to be attained. Subhūti! The equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained—this is named nothing to be attained." And he teaches what to train in: 「菩薩摩訶薩於有所得、無所得平等法中應學！」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva should train within the dharma of the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained!" It concludes: 「菩薩摩訶薩如是學般若波羅蜜，是名無所得者，無有過失。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who trains thus in prajñāpāramitā—this is named a person with nothing to be attained, who is without fault." If nothing to be attained is obtained from somewhere, it once again becomes a thing, once again becomes an extreme; only by being equal with something to be attained does it not fall into being a third place that can be clung to.

22. Practising neither extreme, how does one go from one ground to another ground. Subhūti goes on to ask in terms of the stages of practice: 「若菩薩行般若波羅蜜，不行有所得、不行無所得，云何從一地至一地，得一切種智？」 tr. "If the bodhisattva practising prajñāpāramitā does not practise something to be attained and does not practise nothing to be attained, then how does he go from one ground to another ground and obtain the omniscience of all kinds?" The Buddha answers: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，不住有所得中，從一地至一地。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he does not abide within something to be attained, and he goes from one ground to another ground." And he himself asks the reason: 「有所得中住，不能從一地至一地。」 tr. "If he abides within something to be attained, he cannot go from one ground to another ground." And he explains it himself once more: 「無所得是般若波羅蜜相，無所得是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提相，無所得亦是行般若波羅蜜者相。」 tr. "Nothing to be attained is the mark of prajñāpāramitā; nothing to be attained is the mark of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; nothing to be attained is also the mark of the one who practises prajñāpāramitā." The mark, the fruit, and the person—in all three places nothing to be attained is the mark; so not abiding in something to be attained, far from hindering the stages of practice, is exactly the condition by which the stages of practice advance.

23. If all three are unfindable, how does one distinguish the marks of dharmas—not obtaining form, and so on up to not obtaining awakening. Subhūti raises the three unfindables as a difficulty: 「若般若波羅蜜不可得，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提亦不可得，行般若波羅蜜者亦不可得，云何菩薩摩訶薩分別諸法相，是色，是受、想、行、識，乃至是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "If prajñāpāramitā is unfindable, anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi too is unfindable, and the person who practises prajñāpāramitā too is unfindable, then how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva distinguish the marks of dharmas, saying: this is form, this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to—this is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" The Buddha's answer makes no accommodation; he answers straight with not obtaining: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，不得色，不得受、想、行、識，乃至不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, he does not obtain form, does not obtain feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to—he does not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi."

24. If they are unfindable, how does one fulfil the perfections and so on up to delivering beings—he does not practise for the sake of form. Subhūti pushes the difficulty to its most concrete side: 「云何具足檀波羅蜜乃至具足般若波羅蜜，入菩薩法位中；入已，淨佛國土、成就眾生，得一切種智；得一切種智已，轉法輪、作佛事，度眾生生死？」 tr. "How does he fulfil dānapāramitā and so on up to fulfil prajñāpāramitā, and enter the bodhisattva's Dharma-position; having entered, purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment, and obtain the omniscience of all kinds; having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, turn the wheel of the Dharma, do the work of a Buddha, and deliver beings from birth and death?"—the six perfections, entering the position, pure lands, bringing beings to accomplishment, turning the wheel of the Dharma, delivering from birth and death: the whole string of the bodhisattva's work hangs on this one question. The Buddha's answer changes only what it is done for: 「菩薩摩訶薩不為色故行般若波羅蜜，乃至不為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of form, and so on up to—he does not practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." The work is not abandoned; the place in the mind that does it for something is withdrawn.

25. For the sake of what matter does one practise—one practises prajñā because there is nothing it is done for. Subhūti then asks to the very bottom: 「世尊！菩薩為何事故行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! For the sake of what matter does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?" The Buddha answers: 「無所為故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "He practises prajñāpāramitā because there is nothing it is done for." And he himself gives the reason: 「一切諸法無所為、無所作，般若波羅蜜亦無所為、無所作，阿耨多羅三藐三菩提亦無所為、無所作，菩薩亦無所為、無所作。」 tr. "All dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make; prajñāpāramitā too has nothing it is done for and nothing it makes; anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi too has nothing it is done for and nothing it makes; the bodhisattva too has nothing he does it for and nothing he makes." Dharmas, prajñā, awakening, and the bodhisattva—in all four places there is nothing done for and nothing made, and so the practitioner's mind too has nothing it is done for. Sūtra ① closes with 「菩薩摩訶薩應行般若波羅蜜無所為、無所作」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should practise prajñāpāramitā with nothing done for and nothing made". The whole passage starts from 「云何行」 tr. "how does one practise" and stops at 「無所為故行」 tr. "one practises because there is nothing it is done for"; one question, one pressing, until at last it is pressed to where even ‘why practise’ is withdrawn.

26. The treatise-author opens—Subhūti knows the minds of the assembly and asks. The treatise-author explains, first stating where this question comes from: 「聽者聞種種讚般若功德，得善知一切事，而貴愛是般若波羅蜜，方便欲得。」 tr. "The listeners, hearing the merits of prajñā praised in every way, and that it is able to know all matters well, prize and delight in this prajñāpāramitā and wish to obtain it by skilful means." Since they already prize it and wish to obtain it, where to set one's hand becomes the question closest to them; 「須菩提知眾人意，是故問佛」 tr. "Subhūti knows the minds of the assembly, and so he asks the Buddha"—the three questions are not Subhūti's own doubts; he asks them on behalf of a whole seated assembly of listeners. This sentence sets the tone of the chapter: every question and answer of the whole chapter is asked on behalf of those who wish to learn.

27. First recording another's explanation—the ground of dry wisdom, the acceptance of non-arising, perfuming and cultivating by dhyānapāramitā. Before explaining his own meaning, the treatise-author first records an older account: 「有人言：行者，在乾慧地；生者，得無生忍法；修者，得無生忍法後，以禪波羅蜜熏修般若。」 tr. "Someone says: practising is on the ground of dry wisdom; giving rise to it is obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising; cultivating it is, after obtaining the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, perfuming and cultivating prajñā by dhyānapāramitā." This explanation matches the three wisdoms to three stages, smooth and easy to understand. The treatise-author records it without adding approval or disapproval, and below goes straight on to explain it separately—keeping one account without judging it is the constant method of this treatise.

28. Explaining practising—breaking the five aggregates, penetrating them and making them empty, is precisely the quiescence of nirvāṇa. The treatise-author himself explains the Buddha's first answer: 「五眾是一切世間心所行結縛處，涅槃是寂滅相。」 tr. "The five aggregates are the place where all worldly minds move and are bound; nirvāṇa is the mark of quiescence." The five aggregates are the place where the mind moves, and that is also the place of bondage; by the power of the keen wisdom of prajñā, the bodhisattva 「能破五眾，通達令空，即是涅槃寂滅相」 tr. "is able to break the five aggregates, penetrate them, and make them empty—this is the mark of the quiescence of nirvāṇa". And then comes an extremely important turn: 「從寂滅出，住六情中，還念寂滅相，知世間諸法皆是空、虛誑、不堅實，是名般若。」 tr. "Coming out from quiescence and abiding among the six faculties, he turns back and keeps the mark of quiescence in mind, and knows that the dharmas of the world are all empty, false and deceptive, and not firm and real—this is named prajñā." Coming out of absorption and abiding among the six faculties, he looks back and sees that dharmas are false and deceptive—prajñā is not dwelling in quiescence and never coming out; it is, after coming out, still looking at the world with the eye of quiescence. The sūtra's four phrases, ‘because form is quiescent … because form is not firm and real’, here gain their practising mark.

29. Explaining giving rise—arising like space. The treatise-author explains the second answer: 「行般若，無定相故，不可得說若有、若無，言語道斷故。空如虛空，是故說『如虛空生』。」 tr. "Practising prajñā: because it has no fixed mark, one cannot say that it is existent or that it is non-existent, because the path of speech is cut off. It is empty as space is empty, and so it is said, ‘arises like space’." He then extends it by two meanings of space: 「虛空中無有法生，虛空亦不能有所生。」 tr. "Within space no dharma arises, and space too cannot give rise to anything." Why is this? 「無法、無形、無觸，無作相故」 tr. "Because it is a non-existent dharma, without shape, without touch, and has the mark of making nothing"—space is neither what gives rise nor a place where anything is given rise to; prajñāpāramitā is likewise. Taking space as the simile for arising, what it illustrates is precisely non-arising.

30. Again someone says—space is a permanent dharma and uncontrived, and so cannot give rise. Here a further differing explanation is recorded: 「復有人言：有是虛空，但以常法、無作故不能生，是為定相。」 tr. "Again, someone says: there is this space; it is only because it is a permanent dharma and is uncontrived that it cannot give rise to anything, and this is its fixed mark." This account admits that space really exists, only that because it is permanent and uncontrived it cannot give rise, and it sets up this 「不能生」 tr. "cannot give rise" as the fixed mark of space. The treatise-author likewise records it first without refuting it, leaving it to the next passage to set it off against the meaning of the Mahāyāna.

31. In the Mahāyāna, space names a non-existent dharma. The treatise-author states the meaning of his own school: 「摩訶衍中，虛空名無法，不得說常、不得說無常，不得言有、不得言無，非有非無亦不可得；滅諸戲論，無染無著，亦無文字。」 tr. "In the Mahāyāna, space names a non-existent dharma: one cannot say it is permanent, cannot say it is impermanent, cannot say it is existent, cannot say it is non-existent; neither existent nor non-existent is findable either; all idle discourse is extinguished, undefiled and without clinging, and also without letters." All four are blocked, and then it reaches 「非有非無亦不可得」 tr. "neither existent nor non-existent is findable either"—not even the fourth alternative is left. Prajñā is likewise: it 「能觀世間似如虛空。是名『生般若波羅蜜』」 tr. "is able to contemplate the world as though like space. This is named ‘giving rise to prajñāpāramitā’". Read against the previous explanation, the bounds are clear: that one takes space as a dharma with a fixed mark; this one takes space as a name upon which not even a fixed mark can be set up.

32. Explaining cultivating—contemplating meditative concentration and its objects as all breaking up. The treatise-author explains the third answer: 「菩薩得般若已，入甚深禪定，以般若力故，觀禪定及禪定緣皆破壞。」 tr. "The bodhisattva, having obtained prajñā, enters very deep meditative concentration, and by the power of prajñā contemplates meditative concentration and the objects of meditative concentration as all breaking up." Why must even the concentration one has oneself entered be contemplated and broken? 「般若波羅蜜捨一切法，不著相故。」 tr. "Because prajñāpāramitā gives up all dharmas and does not cling to marks." Cultivating prajñā is not cultivating concentration ever deeper and ever firmer; it is turning back with the power of prajñā to break the concentration one has oneself cultivated—「是名『修般若波羅蜜』」 tr. "this is named ‘cultivating prajñāpāramitā’". Here is where the sūtra's sentence 「修諸法破壞故」 tr. "because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas" lands.

33. Where the question of for how long comes from, and the Buddha's answer. The treatise-author explains where the question about the time comes from: 「聽者作是念：『一切法皆有時節。』是故須菩提問：『般若波羅蜜應幾時行？』」 tr. "The listeners have this thought: ‘All dharmas have their times.’ So Subhūti asks: ‘For how long should prajñāpāramitā be practised?’"—the root of the question lies in the common sense that ‘everything has its time limit’. The Buddha's answer, 「從初發心乃至坐道場應行」 tr. "from the first arousing of the mind up to sitting at the seat of awakening, one should practise it", answers precisely the thought of a time limit with a practice without beginning and without end.

34. Question and answer—why speak only of practising prajñā. The treatise-author sets up a question: 「菩薩從初發心，應行十地、六波羅蜜、三十七品一切善法，何以但說行般若？」 tr. "From the first arousing of the mind, the bodhisattva should practise the ten grounds, the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path—all wholesome dharmas. Why does it speak only of practising prajñā?" The answer has two layers: first, 「須菩提但問般若故，佛答以行般若」 tr. "because Subhūti asked only about prajñā, the Buddha answers with practising prajñā"—what is answered follows what is asked, and need not seek completeness; second, 「是一切法皆與般若波羅蜜和合，以般若大故，不說餘法」 tr. "because all these dharmas come together with prajñāpāramitā, and because prajñā is great, the other dharmas are not spoken of"—it is not that the other dharmas are not practised; they are already contained within prajñā. The one is an answer fitted to the hearer; the other is an answer in principle.

35. Question and answer—why take the seat of awakening as the limit. He sets up a question again: 「般若波羅蜜無量無限，何以故以道場為限？」 tr. "Prajñāpāramitā is immeasurable and without limit; why take the seat of awakening as its limit?" The answer: 「先已答：是般若到佛心中轉名薩婆若。理雖一，名變故，言至道場應行。」 tr. "This has already been answered above: when this prajñā reaches the Buddha's mind, its name changes and it is called sarvajñā. Though the principle is one, because the name changes, it is said that one should practise it up to the seat of awakening." Stopping at the seat of awakening is not that prajñā comes to an end there; it is that there it changes its name. The name has a boundary but the principle has none—this distinction rescues the phrase 「至坐道場」 tr. "up to sitting at the seat of awakening" from being a statement of limitation.

36. The bodhisattva at the seat of awakening—all the dharmas obtained are given up, and the three times are penetrated. The treatise-author goes on: 「菩薩至道場，發意已來所得諸法皆捨；得無礙解脫故，皆通達三世。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva reaches the seat of awakening, he gives up all the dharmas he has obtained since arousing intent; because he obtains unobstructed liberation, he penetrates all the three times." All that has been accumulated along the way is given up entirely at the seat of awakening; given up entirely, then unobstructed; unobstructed, then penetrating the three times. Giving up and obtaining are here not the before and after of two matters, but two sides of one and the same matter.

37. Question and answer—sixty thoughts in a snap of the fingers; how can one constantly keep in mind with a single mind. The treatise-author raises a difficulty: 「彈指頃六十念，念念生滅，云何『一心常念薩婆若，不令餘念得入』？」 tr. "In the space of a snap of the fingers there are sixty thoughts, arising and ceasing thought by thought; how can one ‘with a single mind constantly keep sarvajñā in mind, not letting other thoughts get in’?" Within one snap of the fingers, thoughts have already arisen and ceased sixty times; where would an unbroken single mind come from? The answer divides the mind into two: 「一者、念念生滅心，二者、相續次第生，總名一心。以相續次第生故，雖多，名為一心。」 tr. "The first is the mind that arises and ceases thought by thought; the second is what arises continuing in sequence, and this is named in general a single mind. Because it arises continuing in sequence, though there are many, it is named a single mind." A single mind is not one unmoving mind; it is a string of minds continuing in the same direction. What is blocked becomes clear along with this: 「是時，不令貪、恚等心相續得入。」 tr. "At this time one does not let minds of greed, hatred, and the like get in and continue." He also asks and gives the reason himself: 「貪、恚等心久住則能障般若波羅蜜，念少則不能為害。」 tr. "If minds of greed, hatred, and the like abide long, they can obstruct prajñāpāramitā; if the thoughts are few, they cannot do harm." And he marks for whom this answer is given: 「此為新發意菩薩故說。」 tr. "This is spoken for the sake of a bodhisattva who has newly aroused the mind." At the end he sets it off against the mark of the great bodhisattvas: 「復有大菩薩，雖行餘諸善法，皆與般若和合，能令念念中餘心不入。」 tr. "Again, there are great bodhisattvas who, though they practise the other wholesome dharmas, all come together with prajñā, and are able to keep other minds from getting in thought by thought." The new learner's work lies in not letting them continue; the great bodhisattva, thought by thought, naturally lets nothing in—one and the same sentence of the sūtra is made real in two ways by two kinds of person.

38. The meaning of constantly keeping in mind, and the practising mark of prajñā. The treatise-author goes on to explain why constantly keeping in mind is necessary: 「菩薩多於般若中起種種戲論及諸邪心，是故佛教常念薩婆若，不令餘念得入。」 tr. "The bodhisattva often, within prajñā, gives rise to all kinds of idle discourse and to wrong minds; therefore the Buddha teaches constantly keeping sarvajñā in mind, not letting other thoughts get in." Idle discourse arises precisely upon prajñā, and so the remedy too must be applied upon prajñā. The mark of constantly keeping in mind is stated with great weight: 「常念者，心無餘向，縱使死急事至，不忘薩婆若。」 tr. "Constantly keeping in mind means that the mind has no other direction it tends toward; even if the urgent matter of death arrives, one does not forget sarvajñā." And then one sentence turns out the whole debate that follows: 「般若波羅蜜行相者，所謂心、心數法不行。」 tr. "The practising mark of prajñāpāramitā is what is called mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving."

39. Question—the Abhidharma's difficulty of the four cases in which mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move. The objector brings forward the settled teaching of four cases in which the mind does not move: 「凡夫人入無想定、若生無想天，聖人住有餘涅槃入滅盡定，一切聖人入無餘涅槃，心、心數法皆不行——是則心、心數法不行。」 tr. "When ordinary persons enter the absorption without perception or are born in the heaven without perception, when noble ones abiding in nirvāṇa with remainder enter the absorption of cessation, and when all noble ones enter nirvāṇa without remainder, mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move at all—only this is mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving." Of the four cases, two belong to ordinary persons and two to noble ones, all with clear texts to rest on. The difficulty lies in the last sentence: 「菩薩行般若時，云何心、心數法不行？」 tr. "When the bodhisattva practises prajñā, how can it be said that mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move?" The bodhisattva is right then practising prajñā, and plainly there is a mind at work; how can it be said not to move?

40. Answer—one should not use the Abhidharma to raise difficulties against the Mahāyāna. The treatise-author's answer is extremely brief: 「是事阿毘曇中說，非大乘中義。小乘、大乘種種差別，如先說。是故不應以阿毘曇難摩訶衍。」 tr. "This matter is what is said in the Abhidharma; it is not the meaning within the Great Vehicle. The various differences of the Small Vehicle and the Great Vehicle are as said above. Therefore one should not use the Abhidharma to raise difficulties against the Mahāyāna." He is not saying that the four cases the other side brings forward are false; he is saying that the ‘mind not moving’ of those four cases is a definition within another system of Dharma-gates, and to take it to measure the words here is already to have picked up the wrong ruler. This answer is not evasion; it first sets the bounds—otherwise the debate that follows could not begin.

41. Further—mind and mental-factor dharmas do not arise within the signless samādhi. The treatise-author goes on to give the positive meaning: 「無相三昧中，色等諸相滅故名『無相』；以『無相』故，不應生心、心數法；……」 tr. "Within the signless samādhi, because the marks of form and so on cease, it is named ‘signless’; because it is ‘signless’, mind and mental-factor dharmas should not arise; …" Since there is no mark to take as object, mind and mental-factor dharmas naturally have nothing from which to arise. And in passing he makes it clear: 「此亦非無想定、滅盡定。」 tr. "This too is neither the absorption without perception nor the absorption of cessation."—alike in the mind's not moving, yet the reason is entirely different.

42. Question—the Buddha speaks of the meaning of signless in various ways; one cannot name it not moving merely because it is signless. The objector cites three meanings of signless spoken by the Buddha as evidence: 「或名見諦道——信行、法行為無相人，以疾故；或說無色定，想微細難覺故亦名無相；或以三解脫門中緣涅槃故名無相。」 tr. "Sometimes it names the path of seeing the truths—persons practising in faith and persons practising by the Dharma are signless persons, because they are swift; or he speaks of the formless absorption, which, because its perception is subtle and hard to discern, is also named signless; or, because within the three gates of liberation one takes nirvāṇa as object, it is named signless." Since the one name signless has so many uses, 「是故不得但以無相故名心、心數法不行」 tr. "therefore one cannot, merely because something is signless, name it mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving". At the end he goes a step further: 「乃至緣涅槃無相法，心、心數法不滅，何況緣有相法！」 tr. "Even when taking as object nirvāṇa, this signless dharma, mind and mental-factor dharmas do not cease—how much less when taking as object a dharma with marks!"—even when taking as object a signless object such as nirvāṇa the mind is still there, how much more when taking as object what has marks.

43. Answer—nirvāṇa is without an object; how can you say one takes it as object. The treatise-author accepts in part and refutes in part: 「見諦道中、無色定中說無相可爾。」 tr. "To speak of signless within the path of seeing the truths and within the formless absorption is still acceptable." The first two meanings are admitted for the moment. What is not allowed lies in the third meaning: 「若言『緣涅槃無相法』，是事不然！」 tr. "If you say ‘taking as object the signless dharma of nirvāṇa’, this is not right!" What he rests on is the Buddha's own words of praise: 「佛常種種讚歎涅槃無相、無量、不可思議法，即是『無相無緣法』，汝云何言緣？」 tr. "The Buddha constantly praises nirvāṇa in every way as a signless, immeasurable, inconceivable dharma, that is, ‘the signless dharma without an object’; how can you say one takes it as object?" The foundation of the other side's position is ‘nirvāṇa can be taken as object’, and the treatise-author refutes it right on this foundation—not saying that the mind cannot take an object, but that nirvāṇa is at root not an object that can be taken.

44. Question—grasping the mark of nirvāṇa gives rise to mind and mental-factor dharmas; this is named taking it as object. The objector steps back to rescue his position: 「滅男、女、色等相，故名無相，不言『無涅槃相』！」 tr. "It is the marks of male, female, form, and so on that are extinguished, and so it is named signless; it was not said that ‘nirvāṇa has no mark’!" What the signless extinguishes is the marks of male, female, form, and so on; it never said that nirvāṇa itself has no mark. 「行者取是涅槃相，生心、心數法，是名緣！」 tr. "The practitioner grasps this mark of nirvāṇa and gives rise to mind and mental-factor dharmas—this is named taking it as object!"—what is taken as object is nothing else but precisely the mark of nirvāṇa. This difficulty is very fine: it restricts 「無相」 tr. "signless" to the marks that are extinguished, and so keeps back for nirvāṇa a mark that can be grasped.

45. Answer—the conditioned is false and deceptive: if it is real, it loses the false and deceptive mark; if it is not real, it cannot see nirvāṇa. The treatise-author breaks it with a dilemma. First he sets up the major premise: 「佛說一切有為生法皆是魔網、虛誑、不實。」 tr. "The Buddha says that all conditioned dharmas that arise are Māra's net, false and deceptive, and not real." And then he attacks from both ends: 「若緣涅槃心、心數法是實，則失有為法虛誑相；若不實，不能見涅槃。」 tr. "If the mind and mental-factor dharmas that take nirvāṇa as object are real, the false and deceptive mark of conditioned dharmas is lost; if they are not real, they cannot see nirvāṇa." The mind that takes the object belongs to the conditioned: to say it is real goes against the general meaning that the conditioned is false and deceptive; to say it is not real means that a mind that is not real can never see the real nirvāṇa. Both roads blocked, he concludes: 「是故汝言『涅槃有相可緣』，是事不爾！」 tr. "Therefore what you say—‘nirvāṇa has a mark that can be taken as object’—is not right!"

46. Question—the Buddha himself says that nirvāṇa has three marks. The objector further cites the Buddha's words as grounds: 「佛自說涅槃法有三相，云何言無相？」 tr. "The Buddha himself says that the dharma of nirvāṇa has three marks; how can you say it is signless?" The debate before was all in reasoning; this question brings out a sūtra proof directly—you say signless, yet the Buddha himself says there are three marks.

47. Answer—the three marks are provisional names without reality. The treatise-author answers: 「是三相假名無實。」 tr. "These three marks are provisional names without reality." And he states why they are set up: 「破有為三相故說無生、無滅、無住無異，無為更無別相。」 tr. "It is to break the three marks of the conditioned that no arising, no ceasing, and no abiding and no changing are spoken of; the unconditioned has no further separate mark." The three names, no arising, no ceasing, and no abiding and no changing, are words of refutation set up against the arising, ceasing, and abiding-and-changing of the conditioned, not marks that the unconditioned itself has on its own. The names are set up for refuting; once the refuting is done, the names too are not kept.

48. Further—apart from the mark of the conditioned, the mark of the unconditioned is unfindable. He extends it one layer further: 「生相，先已種種因緣破生，畢竟不可得故，云何有無生？」 tr. "As for the mark of arising, arising has already been broken above by all kinds of causes and conditions; because it is ultimately unfindable, how could there be non-arising?" Since arising is ultimately unfindable, the 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" spoken against arising has nothing to stand against either. So he concludes: 「離有為相，無為相不可得。是故無為但有名字，無有自相。」 tr. "Apart from the mark of the conditioned, the mark of the unconditioned is unfindable. Therefore the unconditioned has only a name and has no specific mark of its own." The name of the unconditioned is set up in reliance on the conditioned; apart from what it relies on, there is nothing under the name.

49. Further—if nirvāṇa has a mark, that is idle discourse. He extends it one layer more, this time from the side of the gate of practice: 「佛法真實寂滅無戲論；若涅槃有相，即是有定相可取，便是戲論，戲論故而生諍訟；……」 tr. "The Buddha's Dharma is truly quiescent and without idle discourse; if nirvāṇa has a mark, then there is a fixed mark that can be grasped, and this is idle discourse; because of idle discourse, disputes arise; …" And then he tests the cause by its fruit: 「若諍訟瞋恚，尚不得生天人中，何況涅槃！」 tr. "If there are disputes and hatred, one cannot even be born among gods and humans, how much less reach nirvāṇa!" Disputes and hatred cannot even keep one among humans and gods; how could they be the gate into nirvāṇa? At the end he cites the Buddha's words as conclusion: 「涅槃，無相、無量、不可思議，滅諸戲論。」 tr. "Nirvāṇa is signless, immeasurable, inconceivable, and extinguishes all idle discourse."

50. This mark of nirvāṇa is precisely prajñā—leaving the two extremes of mind and non-mind. The treatise-author gathers up the preceding passage and joins it back to the main topic: 「此涅槃相，即是般若波羅蜜，是故不應有心、心數法。」 tr. "This mark of nirvāṇa is precisely prajñāpāramitā, and therefore there should be no mind and mental-factor dharmas." And he cites an earlier chapter as proof: 「菩薩行般若，離心、非心相。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva practises prajñā, he is apart from the mark of mind and of non-mind." Then at once he guards against a possible misreading: 「若有非心相，應當難言：『無心相云何行般若？』今離此二邊，故不應難。」 tr. "If there is a mark of non-mind, one should raise the difficulty: ‘Without the mark of mind, how does one practise prajñā?’ Now these two extremes are left behind, and so one should not raise the difficulty." If 「非心」 tr. "non-mind" is a really existent mark, then the difficulty ‘without the mark of mind, how does one practise prajñā’ can stand; but what the sūtra says is to leave both extremes, mind and non-mind, and so this difficulty does not stand.

51. Further—the mind and mental-factor dharmas in the body are false and deceptive; because prajñā is true, they do not move. The last layer of explanation speaks from retribution: 「先世無明顛倒邪見因緣故，得是身。是身中心、心數法雖有善，因緣生故無自性，虛誑、不實；……」 tr. "Because of the causes and conditions of the ignorance, inversion, and wrong views of former lives, one has obtained this body. Though the mind and mental-factor dharmas in this body are sometimes wholesome, because they arise from causes and conditions they have no self-nature, and are false and deceptive, and not real; …" Wholesome minds are no exception: 「是善心果報，受人天福樂，皆是無常故，能生大苦，亦是虛誑、不實，何況不善、無記心！」 tr. "The retribution of this wholesome mind—receiving the blessings and pleasures of humans and gods—because it is all impermanent, can give rise to great suffering, and it too is false and deceptive and not real; how much more so minds that are unwholesome or indeterminate!" From this he sets up a general rule: 「因虛誑故，果亦虛誑。」 tr. "Because the cause is false and deceptive, the fruit too is false and deceptive." The last sentence is judged with great weight: 「般若波羅蜜真故，心、心數法不行。」 tr. "Because prajñāpāramitā is true, mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move." The mind's not moving is not the mind being stopped; it is that a false and deceptive mind has, from the first, no use upon the true and real dharma.

52. Subhūti asks because of this—does cultivating obtain sarvajñā. The treatise-author takes up the sūtra's four questions: 「須菩提聞是『心、心數法不行』，故問佛：『世尊！修般若波羅蜜得薩婆若不？』」 tr. "Subhūti, hearing this ‘mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move’, therefore asks the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! Cultivating prajñāpāramitā, does one obtain sarvajñā?’" The questions of the four alternatives arise from this—since the mind does not move, does the matter of 「修」 tr. "cultivating" still count?

53. The Buddha says 「不」 tr. "No" —if even cultivating does not obtain it, how much less not cultivating. The treatise-author explains the first, second, and third alternatives: 「修名常行積集，皆應是心、心數法力，是故言修。」 tr. "Cultivating is named constantly practising and accumulating, all of which must be by the power of mind and mental-factor dharmas; therefore it is called cultivating." Cultivating, as cultivating, rests from the first on the power of mind and mental-factor dharmas; since the mind does not move, cultivating does not stand either, and so the first alternative is answered no. 「修尚不得，何況不修！」 tr. "If even cultivating does not obtain it, how much less not cultivating!" Since the first alternative does not hold, the second need not even be spoken of. As for the third: 「修不修者，是般若無為法故不修，能觀實相故言修；二俱有過，故言不。」 tr. "As for cultivating and not cultivating: because prajñā is an unconditioned dharma it is not cultivating, and because it is able to contemplate the real mark it is called cultivating; both have faults, and so he says no."—speaking of both sides together brings in the faults of both sides together, and so it too is answered no.

54. Question and answer—what fault has the fourth alternative. The treatise-author sets up a question: 「若第三中有過，第四有何過，復言『不』？」 tr. "If there is a fault in the third alternative, what fault is there in the fourth, that he again says ‘No’?" The third alternative speaks of both sides together, and its fault is easy to see; the fourth is already a double negation—what fault could it have? The answer: 「須菩提以取相著心問，故佛言『不』。」 tr. "Because Subhūti asks with a mind that grasps at marks and clings, the Buddha says ‘No’." The sickness lies not in the alternative but in the questioner's mind. He goes on to state why: 「以受『修不修』故有『非修非不修』，是故佛言『不』。」 tr. "Because ‘cultivating and not cultivating’ is accepted, there is ‘neither cultivating nor not cultivating’; therefore the Buddha says ‘No’." The fourth alternative is set up following upon the third; since the third has a fault, what follows upon it cannot alone escape. At the end he gives the only road without fault: 「若以不取相心說『非修非不修』，則無有過。」 tr. "If one speaks of ‘neither cultivating nor not cultivating’ with a mind that does not grasp at marks, there is no fault." The same sentence has a fault when spoken grasping at marks, and no fault when spoken without grasping at marks—the denial of the four alternatives was never a problem of the wording.

55. The four questions are not assented to; he asks again how one will obtain it. The treatise-author describes Subhūti's state: 「須菩提四種問，佛皆不聽，心惑故，復問世尊：『今云何當得薩婆若？』」 tr. "To all four kinds of question from Subhūti the Buddha did not assent; because his mind is perplexed, he asks the World-Honored One again: ‘Now how will one obtain sarvajñā?’" The four alternatives exhausted and still no road in sight—hence he says the mind is perplexed. This one Chinese character 「惑」 tr. "perplexed" matters—even Subhūti has perplexity here, which shows that the difficulty here does not lie in one's endowments.

56. The Buddha answers: like the mark of suchness; like the limit of reality. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answers given in turn: 「佛答：『如如相。』」 tr. "The Buddha answers: ‘Like the mark of suchness.’" And Subhūti 「如亦不解，是故佛言：『如實際。』」 tr. "still does not understand suchness, and so the Buddha says: ‘Like the limit of reality.’" Explaining suchness by the limit of reality is because the former was not understood, and so a nearer way of saying it is put in its place. The answer is not given in full all at once; it is adjusted level by level according to what is understood and what is not.

57. Question and answer—in the "Suchness" chapter he already spoke well of suchness; how is it that he now has doubt. The treatise-author sets up a question: 「〈如品〉中，須菩提自善說如，今云何有疑？」 tr. "In the ‘Suchness’ chapter, Subhūti himself spoke well of suchness; how is it that he now has doubt?" He spoke well of it before; why the doubt now? The answer: 「是如無一定相，是故不得不問；若如有一定相者，便應已解。」 tr. "This suchness has no single fixed mark, and so he cannot but ask; if suchness has a single fixed mark, he should already have understood it." A dharma with a fixed mark can be understood once and for all; a dharma without a fixed mark must be understood afresh at every place. He goes on to extend it with a simile: 「是如甚深無量故，須菩提有處解、有處不解；譬如大水，有人入深者、入淺者，皆名入水，不得言入淺者不入水。」 tr. "Because this suchness is very deep and immeasurable, there are places where Subhūti understands and places where he does not understand; it is like great waters: some people enter deep and some enter shallow, and all are named entering the water; one cannot say that the one who enters shallow has not entered the water." The one who enters shallow has still entered the water—understanding one portion does not preclude there still being a portion not understood; this simile blocks two misjudgements at once: one may not, because he has doubt, call his earlier understanding false; nor may one, because of his earlier understanding, call his present doubt nothing.

58. Question and answer—why take the limit of reality as a simile for suchness. The treatise-author sets up a question again: 「何以不以如喻實際，而以實際喻如？實際有何易解故譬喻？」 tr. "Why not take suchness as a simile for the limit of reality, but instead take the limit of reality as a simile for suchness? What is there in the limit of reality that is easy to understand, that it is taken as a simile?" In the ordinary way the easy is used as a simile for the hard; of suchness and the limit of reality, which is easy and which is hard? The answer: 「如、實際雖是一物，觀時異；如是諸法體性，實際是行者心取證。」 tr. "Though suchness and the limit of reality are one thing, when contemplated they differ: suchness is the essential nature of dharmas; the limit of reality is the realisation that the practitioner's mind takes up." One thing, yet contemplated with a difference: suchness is spoken of in terms of dharmas; the limit of reality in terms of what the practitioner realises. Being what is realised, it is a matter close to oneself, and so he says: 「佛以須菩提得是實際為證，故以為譬喻。」 tr. "Because Subhūti has obtained this limit of reality as his realisation, the Buddha takes it as a simile." A simile taken from what the listener has himself realised—whether it is easy to understand is relative to this particular person.

59. Question and answer—why the nature of dharmas comes last. He sets up a question a third time: 「常說『法性』次『如』，『實際』次『法性』，今『法性』何以在後？」 tr. "It is constantly said that ‘the nature of dharmas’ comes after ‘suchness’ and ‘the limit of reality’ comes after ‘the nature of dharmas’; why now is ‘the nature of dharmas’ placed after?" The customary order is suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality; now the sūtra has suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas, and so he asks. The answer: 「今欲以我性、眾生性說畢竟空故，轉次在後。」 tr. "Now it is because he wishes to speak of ultimate emptiness by means of the nature of self and the nature of beings, and so it is moved to come after." The nature of dharmas is moved later so that it immediately adjoins the nature of self and the nature of beings—the change of order is tied to where it is meant to lead.

60. Further—in the paths of seeing the truths and of training one contemplates suchness; on the path beyond training, realising it with a concentrated mind is named the nature of dharmas. The treatise-author gives a separate layer of explanation in terms of the stages of the path: 「從見諦道、學道中能觀諸法如。無學道中煩惱盡故，定心作證；定心作證故，於一切總相、別相中通達，名為法性。」 tr. "From within the path of seeing the truths and the path of training one is able to contemplate the suchness of dharmas. Within the path beyond training, because the afflictions are exhausted, one realises it with a concentrated mind; because one realises it with a concentrated mind, one penetrates within all general marks and specific marks, and this is named the nature of dharmas." Suchness is what is contemplated in the stages of training; the nature of dharmas is what is penetrated in the stage beyond training; since there is this layer of before and after, 「諸法本生處名為性，是故以法性喻實際」 tr. "the place from which dharmas originally arise is named nature, and so the nature of dharmas is used as a simile for the limit of reality".

61. The nature of dharmas has a śrāvaka share and a Great Vehicle share. The treatise-author fixes the bounds of Subhūti's doubt: 「法性有聲聞分、有大乘分；須菩提於聲聞分中不疑，大乘分中有疑故問。」 tr. "The nature of dharmas has a śrāvaka share and has a Great Vehicle share; Subhūti has no doubt within the śrāvaka share, and because he has doubt within the Great Vehicle share, he asks." One and the same nature of dharmas has two shares: in the share one has oneself realised there is no doubt; in the share not yet reached there is doubt. This sentence answers to 「有處解、有處不解」 tr. "there are places where he understands and places where he does not understand" above, and gives 「疑」 tr. "doubt" a most fitting place.

62. The Buddha takes as proof a matter ordinary people can understand. The treatise-author explains why the Buddha at the end brings up the nature of self and the nature of beings: 「佛欲以凡人所可解事為證，故言：『如我性、眾生性、壽命性。』」 tr. "The Buddha wishes to use a matter that ordinary people can understand as proof, and so he says: ‘Like the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life.’" Self, beings, and a life are the three things everyone takes to be most real—the Buddha does not take a deep dharma as proof, but takes as proof the very place where people's clinging holds tightest, precisely in order to set his hand there.

63. The counter-question—does the mark of the dharma of self really exist. The treatise-author explains the counter-question in the sūtra: 「須菩提更無所問，佛欲結句故，反問須菩提：『於汝意云何？我法相實有不？』」 tr. "Subhūti has nothing further to ask; because the Buddha wishes to conclude this phrase, he asks Subhūti in return: ‘What do you think? Does the mark of the dharma of self really exist?’" The questioning having reached this point with nothing more to ask, the Buddha closes it with a counter-question. The force of the whole passage lies in this turning back: he says no more himself, but asks the other to say it himself.

64. Subhūti has obtained the path, and so he says it does not. The treatise-author explains how he is able to answer: 「須菩提得道，故言無。」 tr. "Subhūti has obtained the path, and so he says it does not." And then he extends it by the order of stages: 「須陀洹尚不見我，何況阿羅漢！」 tr. "Even the srota-āpanna does not see a self, how much less the arhat!" A person of the first fruit already does not see a self, how much less one who has realised the stage beyond training. What the answer rests on is not inference but realisation.

65. The Buddha says—with the dull knowledge of the Small Vehicle you still do not find a self, how much less the Buddha. The treatise-author records the Buddha's advance: 「汝以小乘鈍智尚不得我，何況佛！」 tr. "With the dull knowledge of the Small Vehicle you still do not find a self, how much less the Buddha!" If even with the knowledge of the Small Vehicle one seeks a self and cannot find it, seeking it with the knowledge of the Buddha finds still less. In a single sentence he carries 「我不可得」 tr. "the self is unfindable" from what one person has realised to what is ultimately realised.

66. Because the self is unspeakable, all dharmas are unspeakable. The treatise-author concludes this passage: 「佛以智慧求我不可得，云何可說？如我不可說有，一切法亦如是。」 tr. "The Buddha seeks a self with wisdom and it is unfindable; how can it be spoken of? As the self cannot be spoken of as existent, all dharmas are likewise." From one dharma it is extended to all dharmas. Then he joins back to the aim of this chapter: 「菩薩能行是不可說法故，當得薩婆若。」 tr. "Because the bodhisattva is able to practise this unspeakable dharma, he will obtain sarvajñā." At the end he fixes the meaning of 「不可說」 tr. "unspeakable": 「不可說者，不可分別若有、若無。」 tr. "Unspeakable means that one cannot distinguish it as existent or as non-existent." Unspeakability is not a ban on speech; it is that neither of the two gates, existence and non-existence, can be settled on.

67. Subhūti asks about the distinctions of the five destinies and the noble paths. The treatise-author records Subhūti's difficulty: 「世尊！諸法若不可分別，云何分別說有地獄等五道、須陀洹等諸聖道？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If dharmas cannot be distinguished, how does one distinguish and say that there are the five destinies such as the hells, and the noble paths such as the srota-āpanna?" The five destinies are the ordinary, the four fruits the noble, and all of them are presently spoken of; since there can be no distinguishing, from where are these accounts set up?

68. The Buddha answers—beings have no fixed dharma, only provisional names. The treatise-author records the Buddha's answer: 「眾生無有定法，但有假名字，云何當分別說有地獄等？」 tr. "Beings have no fixed dharma, only provisional names; how should one distinguish and say that there are the hells and so on?" And he explains it himself: 「眾生及諸聖人，從分別眾生等故有諸道名，眾生實不可得。」 tr. "Beings and the noble ones have the names of the paths from distinguishing beings and so on; beings are really unfindable." The names of the paths come from distinguishing beings; since what is distinguished is unfindable, the names that distinguishing brings out have no reality either.

69. One should train thus in the unspeakable prajñā. The treatise-author records the sūtra's closing sentence: 「如是，須菩提！菩薩應如是學不可說般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Thus, Subhūti! the bodhisattva should train thus in the unspeakable prajñāpāramitā."—where the refuting above lands is still on a single 「學」 tr. "train". Refuting is not having nothing to do; it is changing the way of doing.

70. Question and answer—since one should train in form and other dharmas, why say unspeakable. The treatise-author records Subhūti's further question: 「世尊！菩薩應學色等諸法，今何以言學一切法不可說？」 tr. "World-Honored One! The bodhisattva should train in form and other dharmas; why now is it said that he trains in the unspeakability of all dharmas?" The Buddha answers: 「菩薩雖應學色等法，但應作不增不減故學。」 tr. "Though the bodhisattva should train in form and other dharmas, he should train in them only as neither increasing nor decreasing." The items trained in are not changed; the way of training is changed. On 「不增不減」 tr. "neither increasing nor decreasing" the treatise-author does not explain again, but says directly 「不增不減義，如先說」 tr. "the meaning of neither increasing nor decreasing is as said above"—it was explained before and is not brought out again here.

71. The Buddha himself states the causes and conditions—training in neither arising nor ceasing is training in neither increasing nor decreasing. The treatise-author points out that the sūtra carries its own causes and conditions: 「此中佛自說得不增不減因緣：『若菩薩學不生不滅法，即是學不增不減。』」 tr. "Here the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions of obtaining neither increasing nor decreasing: ‘If the bodhisattva trains in the dharma of neither arising nor ceasing, this is training in neither increasing nor decreasing.’" Neither increasing nor decreasing is possible because its root lies in neither arising nor ceasing; this sentence is the sūtra's own explanation, not something the treatise-author adds from outside.

72. Question and answer—how does one train in neither arising nor ceasing. Subhūti asks: 「云何學不生不滅？」 tr. "How does one train in neither arising nor ceasing?" The Buddha answers: 「不起不作諸行業若有、若無故。」 tr. "Because one does not raise up and does not make the deeds of conduct, whether existent or non-existent." Here the treatise-author explains it word by word: 「有名三有：欲有、色有、無色有。」 tr. "Existence is named the three existences: the existence of desire, the existence of form, and the existence of the formless." The three existences are the extreme of existence. 「無名斷滅邊，離八聖道強欲求滅。」 tr. "Non-existence is named the extreme of annihilation: apart from the eightfold noble path, forcibly wishing to seek cessation." Non-existence is the extreme of annihilation—leaving the eightfold noble path and insisting on seeking a cessation is also making. 「以是二事，凡夫人起諸行業若善、若不善。」 tr. "Because of these two matters, ordinary persons raise up the deeds of conduct, whether wholesome or unwholesome." On the extreme of existence they make the wholesome, on the extreme of non-existence they make the unwholesome; neither goes beyond the one character 「作」 tr. "making". Then he speaks of how the bodhisattva differs: 「是菩薩知諸法實相，所謂不生不滅，是故不作三種業，不起業相應諸法，……」 tr. "This bodhisattva knows the real mark of all dharmas, which is neither arising nor ceasing, and therefore he does not make the three kinds of deeds and does not raise up the dharmas associated with deeds; …" At the end he fixes their names by the two gates of liberation: 「是名『無作解脫門』。不生不滅，是『無相解脫門』。」 tr. "This is named ‘the gate of liberation of non-action’. Neither arising nor ceasing is ‘the gate of liberation of the signless’." Not raising up and not making belongs to the gate of non-action; neither arising nor ceasing belongs to the gate of the signless—within a single sentence of the sūtra, both gates are present.

73. Question and answer—by what skilful means is one able not to make and not to raise up. The treatise-author records 「復問世尊：『何等方便故，能不作不起諸行業？』」 tr. "Again he asks the World-Honored One: ‘By what skilful means is one able not to make and not to raise up the deeds of conduct?’"—what is asked about is the skilful means for setting one's hand to it. The Buddha answers with the emptiness of specific marks, and states clearly that its function is twofold: 「菩薩爾時能作二事：一、能不作不起諸行業，二、能於一切法中行自相空。」 tr. "The bodhisattva at that time is able to do two things: first, he is able not to make and not to raise up the deeds of conduct; second, he is able to practise the emptiness of specific marks within all dharmas." The one matter of contemplating the emptiness of specific marks is both the skilful means for stopping deeds and the right practice of practising prajñā; one dharma with two uses.

74. Question and answer—if there is the emptiness of specific marks, how does one practise. The treatise-author records 「復問世尊：『若色等法自相空，云何菩薩應般若波羅蜜中行？』」 tr. "Again he asks the World-Honored One: ‘If form and other dharmas are the emptiness of specific marks, how should the bodhisattva practise within prajñāpāramitā?’" The Buddha answers: 「不行是名菩薩般若中行。」 tr. "Not practising—this is named the bodhisattva practising within prajñā." The wording of the answer the treatise-author records here differs slightly from the sūtra's 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā", but the meaning is one—in his writing the treatise-author often takes the meaning and abbreviates the words, and there is no need to suspect a separate recension.

75. He points to the causes and conditions stated—because dharmas are empty, prajñā is unfindable; because beings are empty, the one who practises is unfindable. The treatise-author points to the causes and conditions the sūtra carries with it: 「般若波羅蜜體不可得，行者、行法、行處不可得。」 tr. "The substance of prajñāpāramitā is unfindable; the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice are unfindable." And then he assigns them to the two emptinesses: 「法空故，般若波羅蜜不可得，行處亦不可得；眾生空故，行者不可得。」 tr. "Because dharmas are empty, prajñāpāramitā is unfindable and the place of practice too is unfindable; because beings are empty, the one who practises is unfindable." The person who practises belongs to the emptiness of beings; the dharma practised and the place of practice belong to the emptiness of dharmas—each of the two emptinesses has its own charge, with no confusion between them. At the end he concludes: 「一切戲論不可得故，菩薩不行，名為般若波羅蜜行。」 tr. "Because all idle discourse is unfindable, the bodhisattva's not practising is named the practice of prajñāpāramitā."

76. Question—how should the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind practise. The treatise-author records Subhūti's question: 「若不行是般若行者，初發心菩薩云何應行般若？」 tr. "If not practising is the practice of prajñā, how should the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind practise prajñā?" Since not practising is taken as practising, the person of the first arousing of the mind has nowhere to set his hand; of all questions this one comes closest to the beginner.

77. Subhūti's intent—both ends are difficult, and so he asks. The treatise-author speaks out for Subhūti the dilemma within the question: 「若『不行為行』者，初發心菩薩心則迷悶；若『以行為行』者，是則顛倒，是故問。」 tr. "If ‘not practising is practising’, the mind of the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind becomes bewildered; if ‘practising is taken as practising’, this is inversion; and so he asks." If it is not practising, the beginner's mind has nowhere to set its hand; if there is practising, it falls into inversion—neither end will do, and so he asks. This passage is the treatise-author's own contribution: it turns a question that looks ordinary back into a real predicament.

78. The Buddha answers—training in the dharma with nothing to be attained is precisely non-practising. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answer: 「初發心菩薩應學無所得法。」 tr. "The bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind should train in the dharma with nothing to be attained." And at once he lays bare the sameness of the two: 「無所得法即是無行。」 tr. "The dharma with nothing to be attained is precisely non-practising."—it is not a different dharma from the earlier 「不行是行」 tr. "not practising is practising". Then he explains the word 「學」 tr. "train", and here is where the whole passage puts forth its effort: 「學名以方便力漸漸行，……」 tr. "Training is named practising little by little by the power of skilful means; …" There is sequence, there are skilful means, it can be done little by little—this is where the person of the beginner's mind sets his hand. He then makes it concrete with giving as an example: 「所謂布施時，以無所得法故應布施。」 tr. "That is, when giving, one should give by the dharma with nothing to be attained." And he further states its grounds: 「諸法實相畢竟空，畢竟空中無有可得若有、若無；菩薩住如是智慧心中，應若多若少布施；……」 tr. "The real mark of all dharmas is ultimate emptiness, and within ultimate emptiness there is nothing that can be attained, whether existent or non-existent; the bodhisattva, abiding in such a mind of wisdom, should give, whether much or little; …" Much or little is no matter; only, in the mind there is no attaining. At the end he closes with the contemplation of the thing given, the giver, and the receiver as equal: 「布施物、與者、受者平等觀故，所謂皆不可得。乃至薩婆若亦如是。」 tr. "Because he contemplates the thing given, the one who gives, and the one who receives as equal—that is, all are unfindable. And so on up to sarvajñā, likewise."

79. Subhūti's thought—something to be attained is inversion, nothing to be attained is nirvāṇa. The treatise-author explains where the following question comes from: 「須菩提作是念：『有所得故則是世間顛倒，無所得故即是涅槃。』是故問佛：『云何有所得？云何無所得？』」 tr. "Subhūti has this thought: ‘Because of something to be attained there is worldly inversion; because of nothing to be attained there is nirvāṇa.’ So he asks the Buddha: ‘What is with something to be attained? What is with nothing to be attained?’"—this question is not a question about the meaning of words; it is that he has already judged the two to be the boundary between birth and death and nirvāṇa, and so he must ask exactly where that boundary lies.

80. The Buddha answers briefly—the mark of duality is with something to be attained; the eye and form are mutually dependent. The treatise-author records the Buddha's brief answer: 「二相是有所得；無二相是無所得。」 tr. "The mark of duality is with something to be attained; being without the mark of duality is with nothing to be attained." And he himself explains the mark of duality: 「二相者，眼一、色一，兩一和合名為二。」 tr. "The mark of duality: the eye is one, form is one, and the two ones coming together are named two." And then he points out how two comes to be two: 「以眼故知是色，以色故知是眼，眼、色是相待法。」 tr. "Because of the eye one knows that this is form; because of form one knows that this is the eye; the eye and form are mutually dependent dharmas." Two is not two things each standing on its own; it is formed by each depending on the other—this explanation lays the ground for the question and answer that follow.

81. Question and answer—there is still an eye when form is not seen; how is the eye not apart from form. The treatise-author raises a difficulty: 「若不見色時亦有眼，云何眼不離色？」 tr. "If there is also an eye when form is not seen, how can it be said that the eye is not apart from form?" When the eyes are closed the eye is still there, which shows that the eye exists without depending on form. The answer: 「以曾見色故名為眼，今雖不觀色，以本為名。」 tr. "Because it has seen form before, it is named the eye; now, though it does not contemplate form, it is named by its original function." The eye gets its name from its function of having once seen form; though it does not see at this moment, the name is still borrowed from that function. Then he widens it into a general rule: 「一切有為法皆屬因緣，因屬果，果屬緣，無有定自在者。」 tr. "All conditioned dharmas belong to causes and conditions: the cause belongs to the effect, the effect belongs to the conditions, and nothing is fixed and free." And he carries it to the last pair this chapter brings up: 「乃至意、法，菩薩、佛，亦如是。」 tr. "And so on up to the mind and dharmas, the bodhisattva and the Buddha—all are likewise." At the end he closes by setting the ordinary against the noble: 「凡夫無智，各各分別，作善、不善業；智者知是二法皆虛誑、屬因緣，不以是二為二。」 tr. "Ordinary persons have no wisdom; they each distinguish, and make wholesome and unwholesome deeds; the wise know that these two dharmas are both false and deceptive and belong to causes and conditions, and do not take these two as two."—not taking these two as two is precisely the mark of nothing to be attained.

82. The intent of Subhūti's two questions. The treatise-author explains the intent of the sūtra's 「從有所得中無所得？從無所得中無所得？」 tr. "Is it from within something to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained? Is it from within nothing to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained?": 「為緣諸法取相行道故，得是畢竟空無所得？為不作緣不取相不行道故，得是畢竟空無所得？」 tr. "Is it because one takes dharmas as object, grasps at marks, and practises the path that one obtains this ultimate emptiness with nothing to be attained? Or is it because one does not take an object, does not grasp at marks, and does not practise the path that one obtains this ultimate emptiness with nothing to be attained?"—so what this question asks about is the manner of practice: is one to grasp at marks and practise the path and thereafter obtain nothing to be attained, or simply not take objects, not grasp, not practise the path, and so obtain it? Both are roads that practitioners really do walk, and so this question is very concrete.

83. If nothing to be attained is obtained within something to be attained, one practises inversion and seeks the real. The treatise-author refutes the first road: 「若有所得中無所得者，有所得即是顛倒，行顛倒云何得實？」 tr. "If one obtains nothing to be attained within something to be attained—something to be attained is inversion; practising inversion, how can one obtain the real?" Grasping at marks and practising the path is inversion; with inversion as the cause, one cannot obtain the real as the fruit.

84. If nothing to be attained is obtained within nothing to be attained, then what is without anything existent gives rise to what is without anything existent. He refutes the second road: 「若無所得中得無所得者，無所得即是無所有，無所有云何能生無所有？」 tr. "If one obtains nothing to be attained within nothing to be attained—nothing to be attained is being without anything existent; how can what is without anything existent give rise to what is without anything existent?" Not taking objects, not grasping, not practising the path is being without anything existent; what is without anything existent cannot be the cause that gives birth. At the end he concludes: 「佛以二俱過故皆不聽。」 tr. "Because both have faults, the Buddha assents to neither." What the sūtra's twofold refusal blocks is precisely these two roads.

85. Equality is ultimate emptiness—by nothing to be attained one breaks something to be attained; the matter done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well. The treatise-author gives the right road: 「有所得、無所得二事皆能平等觀。平等即是畢竟空、無所得。」 tr. "Something to be attained and nothing to be attained—both matters can be contemplated as equal. Equality is ultimate emptiness, nothing to be attained." And then he speaks of the use of nothing to be attained and where it comes to rest: 「因無所得破有所得，事既辦亦捨無所得。」 tr. "By nothing to be attained one breaks something to be attained; the matter once done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well." Nothing to be attained is the medicine for breaking something to be attained; when the sickness is gone, the medicine too is given up—this sentence is the most important move in the whole chapter; if it is not given up, nothing to be attained itself becomes a new something to be attained. At the end he closes with the sūtra's teaching: 「如是菩薩於有所得、無所得平等般若中應學。」 tr. "Thus the bodhisattva should train within the prajñā of the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained."

86. This is named one who truly has nothing to be attained. The treatise-author records the closing sentence: 「若菩薩能如是學，是名真無所得者，無有過失。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva is able to train thus, this is named one who truly has nothing to be attained, who is without fault." The one character 「真」 tr. "truly" is said precisely against that false nothing-to-be-attained which has not given up nothing to be attained.

87. Going from one ground to another ground: the meaning is likewise. On the sūtra's question of 「從一地至一地」 tr. "going from one ground to another ground" the treatise-author gives no separate explanation, but says only: 「義亦如是。」 tr. "The meaning is likewise."—the principle is the same as above and is not brought out again. The advance through the stages of practice and the training in nothing to be attained are from the first two sides of one matter.

88. Subhūti's question on the three unfindables. The treatise-author records the sūtra's long question in summary: 「世尊！若般若不可得、菩提不可得、菩薩不可得，云何菩薩學般若，分別諸法相——所謂惱相是色，苦樂相是受等？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If prajñā is unfindable, awakening is unfindable, and the bodhisattva is unfindable, how does the bodhisattva train in prajñā and distinguish the marks of dharmas—that is, the mark of vexation is form, the mark of suffering and pleasure is feeling, and so on?" Here the treatise-author has himself added an explanation of names that the sūtra does not have—taking vexation as the mark of form and suffering and pleasure as the mark of feeling, drawing on this treatise's own long-standing explanation to make clear what 「分別諸法相」 tr. "distinguish the marks of dharmas" refers to. He goes on to the question from the side of the work: 「若菩薩行般若波羅蜜，色等法不可得，云何能具足檀波羅蜜等諸善法？云何能入菩薩位中？」 tr. "If, when the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā, form and other dharmas are unfindable, how can he fulfil dānapāramitā and the other wholesome dharmas? How can he enter the bodhisattva's position?" And with the five Chinese characters 「如經中廣說」 tr. "as the sūtra says at length" he passes over the rest—the sūtra is very long here, and the treatise-author states plainly that he does not record it again.

89. The Buddha answers—one does not practise prajñā because of obtaining the marks of dharmas. The treatise-author records the Buddha's answer: 「菩薩不以得色等諸法相故行般若。」 tr. "The bodhisattva does not practise prajñā because of obtaining the marks of form and other dharmas." It is not that he does not practise; it is that he does not take ‘obtaining marks’ as what practice rests on.

90. He asks again—for the sake of what matter does one practise prajñā. The treatise-author records 「復問：『為何等事故行般若？』」 tr. "Again he asks: ‘For the sake of what matter does he practise prajñā?’"—the previous question asked about the dharma practised; this question asks about the matter it is done for. Since everything is unfindable, where does the motive of practice lie? This is the last question of this unit.

91. The Buddha answers—one practises because there is nothing to be attained, practising within the prajñā of non-action. The treatise-author records the Buddha's final answer: 「以無所得故行般若。」 tr. "He practises prajñā because there is nothing to be attained." And he records the reason the Buddha himself asks and gives: 「一切法空、無相、無作、無起，般若波羅蜜、菩薩、菩提亦無相、無作、無起。」 tr. "All dharmas are emptiness, signless, non-action, and non-rising; prajñāpāramitā, the bodhisattva, and awakening are also signless, non-action, and non-rising." And then he gives the right cause and excludes what is not: 「菩薩為一切法實相故行般若，非以顛倒故。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises prajñā for the sake of the real mark of all dharmas, not because of inversion." What practice is done for is the real mark; it is not in order to obtain something, nor does it come from inversion. At the end he records the closing sentence: 「須菩提！菩薩應如是無作般若中行無作、無起故。」 tr. "Subhūti! The bodhisattva should practise thus within the prajñā of non-action, because of non-action and non-rising." The whole unit begins its questioning from 「云何行」 tr. "how does one practise" and stops at 「無作般若中行無作」 tr. "practising non-action within the prajñā of non-action"—the dharma practised is non-action, and the practising that practises it is also non-action; here question and answer become one matter.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā" as meaning there is no need to practise. The sūtra immediately states its own causes and conditions: 「般若波羅蜜不可得故，菩薩不可得，行亦不可得，行者、行法、行處亦不可得故」 tr. "because prajñāpāramitā is unfindable, the bodhisattva is unfindable, practice too is unfindable, and the one who practises, the dharma practised, and the place of practice are also unfindable"—what is unfindable is the practising mark and the division of agent and object, not the doing of practice itself. The evidence is in the next question: as soon as Subhūti hears 「不行」 tr. "not practising" he is concerned for the beginner, and the Buddha's reply is not ‘so indeed there is no need to practise’, but 「應學空無所得法」 tr. "should train in the dharma of emptiness with nothing to be attained", listing item by item giving, upholding the precepts, patience, vigour, meditative concentration, and cultivating wisdom. The treatise-author further explains the word 「學」 tr. "train" as 「以方便力漸漸行」 tr. "practising little by little by the power of skilful means". The six perfections as before, the sequence as before, little by little as before—if 「不行」 tr. "not practising" means there is no need to practise, this whole passage has nowhere to stand.

Do not read 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move" as entering absorption and not raising the mind. This sentence is debated in four rounds in this unit, and the treatise-author's very first answer is: 「是事阿毘曇中說，非大乘中義。」 tr. "This matter is what is said in the Abhidharma; it is not the meaning within the Great Vehicle." The mind's not moving in the absorption without perception, the absorption of cessation, and nirvāṇa without remainder is a definition within another system of Dharma-gates. The mind's not moving here, according to the treatise-author's final explanation, has its reason in 「般若波羅蜜真故」 tr. "because prajñāpāramitā is true"—it is that a false and deceptive mind has no use upon the true and real dharma, not that the mind is pressed down and held. So the same passage of the sūtra says both 「常不捨薩婆若心，不令餘念得入」 tr. "never abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, not letting any other thought get in" and 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move", and the two sentences do not clash: the former speaks of the continuing mind, the latter of the mind that grasps at marks.

Do not read 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" as a state to be held on to. This unit guards against this misreading at two points. The first is in the sūtra: asked 「從有所得中無所得？從無所得中無所得？」 tr. "Is it from within something to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained? Is it from within nothing to be attained that one obtains nothing to be attained?", the Buddha blocks both ends and says only 「有所得、無所得平等，是名無所得」 tr. "the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained—this is named nothing to be attained"—if nothing to be attained can be obtained from somewhere, it once again becomes a thing. The second is in the treatise-author: 「因無所得破有所得，事既辦亦捨無所得。」 tr. "By nothing to be attained one breaks something to be attained; the matter once done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well." Medicine is set out for sickness; if the sickness goes and the medicine stays, that is a new sickness. The sūtra says 「是名真無所得者」 tr. "this is named one who truly has nothing to be attained" expressly because there is a false nothing to be attained—the kind that clasps nothing to be attained and will not let it go.

Do not read the four times the character 「不」 tr. "No" is said as the Buddha refusing to answer. The treatise-author's explanation is very clear: the first alternative fails because cultivating 「皆應是心、心數法力」 tr. "must all be by the power of mind and mental-factor dharmas"; the third fails because 「二俱有過」 tr. "both have faults"; and the fourth fails with the sickness not in the alternative but in the person—「須菩提以取相著心問，故佛言『不』」 tr. "because Subhūti asks with a mind that grasps at marks and clings, the Buddha says ‘No’". At the end he further leaves a living word: 「若以不取相心說『非修非不修』，則無有過。」 tr. "If one speaks of ‘neither cultivating nor not cultivating’ with a mind that does not grasp at marks, there is no fault." The same sentence has a fault when spoken grasping at marks, and no fault when spoken without grasping at marks. In the denial of the four alternatives, what is denied is the posture of the question, not the line between what can be spoken and what cannot.

Do not read 「應觀自相空，自相空相空」 tr. "one should contemplate the emptiness of specific marks: the mark of the emptiness of specific marks is empty" as a repetitive phrase. The first 「自相空」 tr. "emptiness of specific marks" is the dharma contemplated; the second clause places even this dharma that contemplates within what is contemplated. If this sentence is left out, the emptiness of specific marks becomes the last stronghold remaining after all dharmas are empty; with this sentence, the long list the sūtra sets out—the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—truly leaves not one item out. In the same way, the sentence 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提、佛為二」 tr. "anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the Buddha are a duality" must not be lightly passed over either: this pair of what is realised and the one who realises is, within the count of duality, the pair least easily noticed by oneself.

Do not read the order of ‘suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas’ as a displaced slip in the text. The treatise-author sets up this question himself and answers it himself: 「今欲以我性、眾生性說畢竟空故，轉次在後。」 tr. "Now it is because he wishes to speak of ultimate emptiness by means of the nature of self and the nature of beings, and so it is moved to come after." The change of order is so that the nature of dharmas immediately adjoins the nature of self and the nature of beings. There is also a further explanation in terms of the stages of the path—on the path of training one contemplates suchness; on the path beyond training, realising with a concentrated mind and penetrating the general marks and specific marks is named the nature of dharmas. The two explanations stand together, each with its grounds; in reading, one should know that the order here is intended, not a loss in transmission and copying.

Do not read Subhūti's 「疑」 tr. "doubt" as falling back. The treatise-author finds a place for it at two points: in one he says 「是如無一定相，是故不得不問」 tr. "this suchness has no single fixed mark, and so he cannot but ask", with the simile of entering the water deep or shallow—「不得言入淺者不入水」 tr. "one cannot say that the one who enters shallow has not entered the water"; in the other he says 「法性有聲聞分、有大乘分；須菩提於聲聞分中不疑，大乘分中有疑故問」 tr. "the nature of dharmas has a śrāvaka share and has a Great Vehicle share; Subhūti has no doubt within the śrāvaka share, and because he has doubt within the Great Vehicle share, he asks". Understanding in some places and not in others is the ordinary state upon a dharma without a fixed mark. If it is read as Subhūti falling back here, the whole thread of this chapter's level-by-level pursuit turns into a record of faults.

Do not take the 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" recorded by the treatise-author as the treatise-author's own position. This unit records differing explanations at two places: one matches the three wisdoms of practising, giving rise, and cultivating to the ground of dry wisdom, the acceptance of non-arising, and perfuming and cultivating by dhyānapāramitā; the other holds that space, being a permanent dharma and uncontrived, cannot give rise. At both places the treatise-author records without refuting, and then brings out his own meaning—the former he sets against a separate explanation of the three wisdoms as breaking the five aggregates, which is precisely the quiescence of nirvāṇa, space without arising, and contemplating meditative concentration as breaking up; the latter he sets off with 「摩訶衍中，虛空名無法」 tr. "in the Mahāyāna, space names a non-existent dharma". Recording without judging is keeping one account; if what is recorded is taken as the treatise-author's own position, the separate explanation that follows becomes self-contradiction.

Bearing on Practice

Treat the three questions as three checkpoints, not as three stages. The sūtra's answers do not match practising, giving rise, and cultivating to three positions one after another—in the same passage it says 「從初發意乃至坐道場，應行、應生、應修」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening, one should practise, should give rise to, should cultivate"; the three matters are three sides running side by side on one and the same road. So in daily practice one can ask oneself in this way: is the dharma I am contemplating right now being contemplated as it is—quiescent, empty, false and deceptive, not firm and real (practising)? This bit of insight of mine—was it piled up out of thoughts, or does it, like space, arise from nowhere (giving rise)? The concentrations and states I have cultivated—am I willing to let them be turned back upon and broken through by the light of prajñā (cultivating)? Each of the three questions has its own sickness; there is no need to force them into a sequence.

Fix the place of daily life by 「從寂滅出，住六情中，還念寂滅相」 tr. "coming out from quiescence and abiding among the six faculties, he turns back and keeps the mark of quiescence in mind". In the treatise-author's explanation of practising prajñā, the most important turn is here: it is not that entering quiescence is the end of it; it is that after coming out one still abides among the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, and turns back to keep the mark of quiescence in mind. The seam between formal practice and daily life lies on this sentence—to judge whether practice has truly borne fruit, look not at how things are on the seat, but at whether, after getting down from the seat, one still recognises that mark at the gates of the six faculties.

Check how dearly you hold your own attainments in practice by 「捨一切法，不著相」 tr. "gives up all dharmas and does not cling to marks". The treatise-author's explanation of cultivating prajñā speaks of 「觀禪定及禪定緣皆破壞」 tr. "contemplating meditative concentration and the objects of meditative concentration as all breaking up"—even the concentration one has cultivated with such difficulty is among what is contemplated. Whatever in practice one is especially reluctant to give up—a certain quiet, a certain clarity, a certain accord—according to this passage, that is exactly the next object to be broken through by the light of prajñā. Cultivating is not guarding it ever more firmly; it is daring to let it break.

Settle thoughts with 「念少則不能為害」 tr. "if the thoughts are few, they cannot do harm". In answering the difficulty of sixty thoughts in a snap of the fingers, the treatise-author did not demand that not a single thought arise; he said only 「不令貪、恚等心相續得入」 tr. "one does not let minds of greed, hatred, and the like get in and continue", and himself gave the reason: 「貪、恚等心久住則能障般若波羅蜜，念少則不能為害。」 tr. "If minds of greed, hatred, and the like abide long, they can obstruct prajñāpāramitā; if the thoughts are few, they cannot do harm." This gives an extremely lenient yet exact measure: the arising of a thought is not failure; letting it continue and settle in is. When one notices distracting thoughts during practice, what should be done is to cut off their continuation, not to fret that they once arose. The treatise-author also marks that this is 「為新發意菩薩故說」 tr. "spoken for the sake of a bodhisattva who has newly aroused the mind"—for the beginner, this rule is just right.

Test whether constantly keeping in mind is true or false by 「縱使死急事至，不忘薩婆若」 tr. "even if the urgent matter of death arrives, one does not forget sarvajñā". The treatise-author's explanation of constantly keeping in mind takes as its measure not the number of hours but the extreme case—whether it is still there when life itself is at stake. In ordinary days one can test oneself with situations a size smaller: the instant of being affronted, the moment of utter exhaustion, the blow when things suddenly go wrong—where does the mind go first? Whether one constantly keeps it in mind shows there, not on the timetable of practice.

Apply the medicine where there is something to be attained; where the medicine is used up, give up the medicine too. The sequence the treatise-author gives is very clear: 「因無所得破有所得，事既辦亦捨無所得。」 tr. "By nothing to be attained one breaks something to be attained; the matter once done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well." The two sicknesses practitioners commonly fall into lie exactly at the two ends of this sentence: one is refusing to take the medicine—wanting everything to have a footing, a progress, a state that can be spoken of; the other is becoming addicted to the medicine—saying 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" about everything, making it a catchphrase and a new self-image. For the first sickness, examine oneself by 「諸有二者，是有所得」 tr. "whatever has duality is with something to be attained"; for the second, by 「是名真無所得者」 tr. "this is named one who truly has nothing to be attained".

Make every action real through the contemplation of the thing given, the giver, and the receiver as equal. In explaining how the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind trains, the treatise-author takes giving as the example and speaks in a way that can be carried out: 「應若多若少布施」 tr. "should give, whether much or little"—much or little is no matter; 「布施物、與者、受者平等觀故，所謂皆不可得」 tr. "because he contemplates the thing given, the one who gives, and the one who receives as equal—that is, all are unfindable"—the thing given, the one who gives, and the one who receives: in none of the three places is anything set up. And he says 「乃至薩婆若亦如是」 tr. "and so on up to sarvajñā, likewise". So this method is not limited to giving: for any matter done for others, if after it is done the mind still keeps the three parts of ‘I did such-and-such for so-and-so’, that is something to be attained; put all three parts down together, and the matter is done just the same, leaving no trace upon the mind.

Turn the oppositions of daily life with 「不以是二為二」 tr. "do not take these two as two". The treatise-author's explanation of the mutual dependence of the eye and form ends in one sentence: 「凡夫無智，各各分別，作善、不善業；智者知是二法皆虛誑、屬因緣，不以是二為二。」 tr. "Ordinary persons have no wisdom; they each distinguish, and make wholesome and unwholesome deeds; the wise know that these two dharmas are both false and deceptive and belong to causes and conditions, and do not take these two as two." Every unsettling opposition in daily life—self and other, gain and loss, the favourable and the adverse—can be held up to this sentence: do these two ends each really exist on their own, or do they stand by depending on each other? Once dharmas that depend on each other are seen through, the opposition loosens by half. What matters is that the treatise-author does not teach one to merge the two into one; he teaches only not to take them as two.

Do the work without setting up what it is for. The last question of this unit is the most usable: 「菩薩為何事故行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "For the sake of what matter does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?" The answer is 「無所為故」 tr. "because there is nothing it is done for". Not one item of the work is reduced—the sūtra itself lists fulfilling the six perfections, entering the position, pure lands, bringing beings to accomplishment, turning the wheel of the Dharma, delivering from birth and death; what is withdrawn is only the layer of mind that is ‘doing it for the sake of such-and-such’. Making vows, doing the work, giving one's all—all as before; only, whenever the thought arises in the mind ‘this is in order to gain something’, remember that the sūtra did not answer with some purpose, but with 「一切諸法無所為、無所作」 tr. "all dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make".

Further Resonances

This unit, one sūtra section and one treatise section, sets up the framework of the whole chapter. The sūtra starts from the three questions of practising, giving rise, and cultivating, passes through for how long, the mind in sequence, and mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving, and reaches the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating, none of which obtains sarvajñā; then, passing down four levels through suchness, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas, and the nature of self, the nature of beings, the nature of a life, it lands on 「不可得」 tr. "unfindable"; then from the unspeakability of all dharmas it turns into neither increasing nor decreasing, neither arising nor ceasing, not raising up and not making, and contemplating the emptiness of specific marks, pressing out 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā"; and it closes with the equality of something to be attained and nothing to be attained, not abiding in something to be attained while going from one ground to another ground, and practising prajñā because there is nothing it is done for. The treatise-author explains the reasons passage by passage, and on the sentence 「心、心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move" goes back and forth four rounds with the Small Vehicle; on the order of suchness, the limit of reality, and the nature of dharmas there are three rounds of question and answer; on the fault of the fourth alternative, one round of question and answer; and on the mutual dependence of the eye and form, one round of question and answer. The centre of gravity of the whole unit can be gathered into two sentences: not practising is practising—what it breaks is the division of agent and object; the matter done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well—what it breaks is the medicine turning itself into a sickness.

The chapter title stands on two sides, and the editions are not uniform. The base text titles it "The Three Wisdoms", and the full account of the variant readings of the editions, recorded together with the variant names of the chapter title, belongs to this chapter's apparatus and is not taken up here. Only one thing is useful for reading this unit: within the body of this chapter the two Chinese characters 「三慧」 tr. "three wisdoms" do not appear; these two Chinese characters are found only in the chapter title; what the sūtra and the treatise speak of is only the three matters of practising, giving rise, and cultivating.

Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra has a complete, chapter-level commentary on this chapter, and at its very beginning points out this matter: 「經及論無三慧名，直云行、生、修般若耳。」 tr. "The sūtra and the treatise have no name ‘three wisdoms’; they simply speak of practising, giving rise to, and cultivating prajñā." And he reconciles it: 「若以般若為慧，於義得也。」 tr. "If prajñā is taken as wisdom, in meaning it holds." He further distinguishes these three wisdoms from the three wisdoms of hearing, reflection, and cultivation, also taking the sūtra as grounds: 「三慧有二：聞、思、修三，此多就無階級、階級為論耳。行、生、修三慧，多就階級、無階級為論，故經云：從初發心至坐道場，應行、修也。」 tr. "The three wisdoms are of two kinds: hearing, reflection, and cultivation, these three, are mostly discussed in terms of being without stages and with stages. The three wisdoms of practising, giving rise, and cultivating are mostly discussed in terms of stages and being without stages; therefore the sūtra says: from the first arousing of the mind up to sitting at the seat of awakening, one should practise and cultivate." Jizang also records the differing explanations of various masters on matching them to stages, one of which corresponds to the 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" recorded in this treatise: 「論云：有人言：乾慧地為行，得無生為得無生，以後用禪波羅蜜薰修為修慧也。」 tr. "The treatise says: someone says: the ground of dry wisdom is practising; obtaining non-arising is obtaining non-arising; afterwards, perfuming and cultivating by dhyānapāramitā is the wisdom of cultivation." His own division reads: 「品三：一、明三慧三慧；二、明三起；三、明般若。」 tr. "The chapter is threefold: first, making clear the three wisdoms, the three wisdoms; second, making clear the three arisings; third, making clear prajñā." And the first section is further divided into two rounds: 「一者、略明三慧；二、廣明三慧。」 tr. "First, making clear the three wisdoms in brief; second, making clear the three wisdoms at length." The brief one is again divided into three: 「一、明三慧體；二、明修三慧時節；三、明修三慧之方。」 tr. "First, making clear the substance of the three wisdoms; second, making clear the time for cultivating the three wisdoms; third, making clear the method of cultivating the three wisdoms." What this unit corresponds to is the three sections of his brief account and the first half of his extended account. On the Buddha's answer concerning the substance of the three wisdoms, Jizang explains: 「佛答三界，三答初行中四句。言初有兩句，明菩薩深悟五陰，即是涅槃寂滅。次兩句，既深悟五陰寂滅，即知諸有五陰是虗妄。」 tr. "The Buddha answers the three realms; of the three answers, within the first, practising, there are four phrases. Of these, the first two phrases make clear that the bodhisattva deeply awakens to the five aggregates as being precisely the quiescence of nirvāṇa. The next two phrases: having deeply awakened to the quiescence of the five aggregates, he then knows that all the five aggregates of existence are false." And he records a separate explanation: 「又解云：前兩句是第一義，後兩句是世俗二諦，故是行般若也。」 tr. "Another explanation says: the first two phrases are the highest meaning, the last two phrases are the worldly—the two truths; therefore this is practising prajñā." The two explanations stand side by side, recorded without judgement. On 「如虛空生」 tr. "arises like space", Jizang states plainly that he does not take the space of the outside paths and the enumerative treatises as the simile: 「數論及外道，虗空或是常，或是無常法，今不借此為喻。」 tr. "For the enumerative treatises and the outside paths, space is either permanent or an impermanent dharma; here this is not borrowed as the simile." On the section on time, Jizang explains the intent of the Buddha's answer: 「佛答初發意坐道場者，此是無始無終義，故說始終也。」 tr. "As for the Buddha's answer of the first arousing of intent and sitting at the seat of awakening: this is the meaning of being without beginning and without end, and therefore beginning and end are spoken of." And he sets up for himself the question 「何故言行般若」 tr. "why does it speak of practising prajñā" and answers it, and what he cites as grounds is this treatise's text explaining the "Skilful Means" chapter. On the passage 「心心數法不行」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move", Jizang judges where the Small Vehicle's difficulty comes from: 「心心數法不行者，小乘人罵此言也。」 tr. "As for ‘mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move’: people of the Small Vehicle revile these words." And he records the treatise-author's answer: 「此小乘法作此說也。大乘法與小乘異，故明菩薩一切心心不行也。」 tr. "This is how the dharma of the Small Vehicle speaks. The dharma of the Great Vehicle differs from the Small Vehicle, and so it makes clear that for the bodhisattva all mind and mental factors do not move." And then he states his own view: 「今明心數不行，只菩薩行般若，心雖行實無所行。」 tr. "Now it makes clear that mental factors do not move: it is simply that when the bodhisattva practises prajñā, though the mind moves, in reality there is nothing it moves in." On the passage of the four alternatives, Jizang says: 「此破四句得義也。」 tr. "This breaks the meaning of obtaining by the four alternatives." And he states its general meaning: 「然此上明修慧，今修不修四句皆淺，則知行生亦然也。」 tr. "Yet this above made clear the wisdom of cultivation; now, since the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating are all shallow, one knows that practising and giving rise are likewise." On suchness and the limit of reality, Jizang sets up his own question and answer: 「問：須菩提應解實際，云何不解？答：乃解其實際，不解薩婆若如實際也。」 tr. "Question: Subhūti should understand the limit of reality; how is it that he does not understand? Answer: he does understand the limit of reality itself; what he does not understand is sarvajñā being like the limit of reality." On the nature of dharmas coming after, Jizang has a separate explanation, which stands alongside the explanation of this treatise: 「答：是法性例人性，故迴之在後也。」 tr. "Answer: this nature of dharmas is by analogy with the nature of persons, and so it is turned round to come after." And he extends it by the stages of the Small Vehicle path: 「彼云學道為如，無學道證實際，證實際竟後方通達無量法性，故法性在後也。」 tr. "They say that the path of training is suchness and the path beyond training realises the limit of reality; only after realising the limit of reality does one penetrate the immeasurable nature of dharmas; therefore the nature of dharmas comes after." On the passage 「我性可得不」 tr. "can the nature of self be found", Jizang records the answer: 「初果人尚不見我，況羅漢耶？」 tr. "Even a person of the first fruit does not see a self; how much less the arhat?"—of one measure with the treatise-author's sentence 「須陀洹尚不見我，何況阿羅漢」 tr. "even the srota-āpanna does not see a self, how much less the arhat". On the section of the wisdom of practising, Jizang opens it into five: 「初、明無所行是行般若；第二、無得行；第三、無為無作行；第四、不住行；第五、假名行。」 tr. "First, making clear that practising nothing is practising prajñā; second, the practice without attaining; third, the practice without doing-for and without making; fourth, the practice of not abiding; fifth, the practice of provisional names." On the passage of nothing to be attained, Jizang's explanation comes to the same destination as the treatise-author's 「事既辦亦捨無所得」 tr. "the matter once done, one gives up nothing to be attained as well", while its words are not borrowed from it: 「若見得無得二，還是有得，如前二法是有所得也。今若不見得無得，始是無所得也。」 tr. "If one sees attaining and non-attaining as two, that is still attaining, just as the two dharmas above are with something to be attained. Now, if one does not see attaining and non-attaining, only then is it nothing to be attained." And he sets up a question and answer that goes one layer further: 「今還問：為從平等得平等？為從不平等以得平等？答：若有此問，還同前答，汝見等不等二，終是不等也。」 tr. "Now it is asked again: is it from equality that one obtains equality? Or is it from inequality that one obtains equality? Answer: if there is this question, it is the same as the answer before: you see equal and unequal as two, and in the end this is unequal." At the end, with the sentence 「白佛：為何事故行般若下，第三、無為無作行般若也」 tr. "from ‘said to the Buddha: for the sake of what matter does one practise prajñā’ onward: third, practising prajñā without doing-for and without making", he turns to the last passage of this unit; what follows it enters the next unit of this chapter and is not within the scope of this unit.

Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises quotes this chapter directly in many places; six of them belong to this unit, all marked with a fixed citation form of the kind 「大品經三慧品云」 tr. "the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says". The first quotes this unit's sentence on the practising mark: 「三慧品亦云：若心心數法不行，故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ also says: if it is because mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move, one therefore practises prajñāpāramitā." The second quotes the sentence on time: 「三慧品亦云：從初發心行彼若。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ also says: from the first arousing of the mind, practise biruo." The third quotes the sentence on the wisdom of giving rise: 「大品經三慧品云：虗空生故般若生等。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: because space arises, prajñā arises, and so on." The fourth quotes the sentence on duality and non-duality, the two places mirroring each other, one reading 「大品三慧品云：諸有二者，名為有所得；無有二者，名為無所得。何等為二？所謂眼、色為二。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger says: whatever has duality is named with something to be attained; what is without duality is named with nothing to be attained. What is duality? That is, the eye and form are a duality.", the other reading 「大品經三慧品云：諸有二者有所得，無有二者無所得也。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: whatever has duality is with something to be attained; what is without duality is with nothing to be attained." There is also one place that quotes it in the form of question and answer: 「大品經？三慧品自標：問：云何名為有所得、無所得？佛答云：諸有二者，名有所得；無有二者，名無所得。」 tr. "The Larger Sūtra? The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ marks for itself: Question: what is named with something to be attained and with nothing to be attained? The Buddha answers: whatever has duality is named with something to be attained; what is without duality is named with nothing to be attained." The wording of these quotations differs somewhat from the base text—such as the form 「彼若」 tr. "biruo", the character of 「虗空」 tr. "space", and the difference between 「故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "therefore one practises prajñāpāramitā" and the base text's 「為行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "this is practising prajñāpāramitā"—presumably quoted in brief to take the sense, not transcribed word for word; how the text his book relied on stands relative to the base text is not something this unit can settle, and it is recorded as it is, without judgement.

As for the distinctions of the three vehicles, what the five eyes do not see, conjured persons delivering beings, the simile of the Buddha Suśānta, and the marks of the three knowledges—omniscience, the knowledge of the kinds of paths, and the omniscience of all kinds—and the difference in cutting off the afflictions and their habitual residues: these unfold in the Middle and Last Parts of this chapter, and are not taken up here.

The Three Wisdoms, Middle Part: Since There Is Nothing Done For and Nothing Made, Why the Three Vehicles Are Still Distinguished; Contemplating with the Five Eyes and Not Obtaining Form and So On up to Awakening, Why This Is Not the Buddha Ruining What He Himself Obtained; Why the Distinction of the Three Groups Is Speaking of Obtaining in Worldly Terms; Not Abiding in the Highest Meaning and Not Abiding in Inversion Either, Why This Does Not Amount to Not Obtaining; Why a Person Conjured by the Buddha Can Practise the Six Perfections and Turn the Wheel of the Dharma; Why the Buddha and a Conjured Person Are without Difference; Why the Merit of Making Offerings to a Conjured Buddha Equals That of Making Offerings to the Buddha; Why Calling Out Namo Buddha Once Brings Merit That Is Not Exhausted; Why Showing Dharmas by the Marks of Names Is Not Called Ruining the Dharma-Marks; If Conditioned Dharmas Are Only Names and Marks, Why One Must Still Undergo All the Toil and Suffering; Why the Three Knowledges Are Assigned to the Two Vehicles, the Bodhisattvas, and the Buddhas; Why One Who Fulfils All the Paths Should Not Realise the Limit of Reality; Why All Four Alternatives of the Places of Abiding Are Answered No; Since There Is No Difference in the Severance of the Afflictions, Why It Is Further Said That the Habitual Residues Are Severed or Not Severed; Since within the Highest Meaning There Is No Path of Speech, Why the Later Limit Is Still Spoken Of; Why the Six Glosses on the Name of Prajñāpāramitā Come in This Order; Why Benefit and Non-Benefit Are Both Given Up; Why Nothing to Be Attained Is Precisely Attaining

What Is Being Asked

The First Part opened the chapter by setting up the three questions of ‘practising prajñā, giving rise to prajñā, cultivating prajñā’. The Buddha answered the practising by form being quiescent, form being empty, form being false and deceptive, form not being firm and real; he answered the giving rise by arising like space; he answered the cultivating by cultivating the breaking up of dharmas; he went on to answer the time with 「從初發意乃至坐道場」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening", and the method with 「常不捨薩婆若心，不令餘念得入」 tr. "never abandoning the mind of sarvajñā, not letting any other thought get in"; and further, with the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating, none of which obtains sarvajñā, while 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness" is what is obtained, he turned the substance of the three wisdoms over from the graded gate of practice to the principle of nothing to be attained. The Middle Part comes on from this; what is asked is no longer ‘how does one practise’ but ‘since it is so, where do those distinctions come from’.

The ten-odd questions of the Middle Part of the chapter are really one road of questioning pressed straight down. The first question at the start is the most direct: since dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, on what ground can the three vehicles of the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the Buddha still be distinguished? The Buddha's answer is only one sentence—distinguishing is not within having nothing done for and nothing made; it is within having something done for and something made. This sentence sets up the criterion for the whole unit: whenever one sees a distinction, first ask on which side it stands. Subhūti at once turns this criterion back on the Buddha himself: the Buddha, contemplating with the five eyes, does not even obtain form, and so on up to does not obtain awakening—what then are the three groups of the rightly assured, the wrongly assured, and the unassured that the Buddha speaks of? The Buddha answers more thoroughly still—when I obtained awakening, from the very beginning I did not obtain the three groups of beings; that it is said there is obtaining is a worldly dharma, not the highest meaning. Subhūti then presses all three alternatives through once: is it obtained by abiding in the highest meaning? Is it obtained by abiding in inversion? If one abides in neither, is it then that it is not obtained? After three questions and three answers the Buddha no longer answers by negation, but brings out a simile instead: the person conjured by the Buddha.

The simile of the conjured person is the pivot of this unit. The conjured person does not abide in the mark of the conditioned and does not abide in the mark of the unconditioned, and yet comes and goes, also sits and also stands; he can practise the six perfections, and so on up to obtaining awakening and turning the wheel of the Dharma; he can conjure immeasurable beings, and they are in three groups—every function is plainly there, and yet asked whether he really exists, the answer is 「不也」 tr. "No". From this the Buddha makes plain what he himself practises: the Buddha knows that dharmas are like a conjuration, and just as a conjured person delivers beings, there are no real beings to be delivered. Subhūti follows this and asks again: since it is like a conjuration, what difference is there between the Buddha and a conjured person? The Buddha answers that there is no difference, because both alike can do something. This answer withdraws the two Chinese characters 「差別」 tr. "difference" from substance to function; and as to why the merit of making offerings to a conjured Buddha equals the merit of making offerings to the Buddha, the answer is still the same sentence—both are fields of merit by reason of the real mark of all dharmas. At the end the Buddha pushes the meaning of the field of merit to its extreme: leave aside this conjured Buddha—only keeping the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind, only scattering a single flower into space while keeping the Buddha in mind, only calling out namo Buddha once, and up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted.

The latter half turns to names and marks and to the three knowledges. Since the real mark should not be ruined, why does the Buddha further distinguish and speak of form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, of inner and outer, wholesome and evil, with outflows and without outflows? The answer: by the marks of names he shows dharmas, wishing to make beings understand; the Buddha does not ruin the dharma-marks of dharmas. Subhūti presses one layer further: since all dharmas are nameless and signless, how can one show by names and marks? The Buddha answers that following worldly dharmas there are names and marks and yet there is really no place of clinging, and brings out a counter-proof—if name clung to name and mark clung to mark, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, the signless too should cling to the signless, and so on up to the unconditioned nature should cling to the unconditioned nature. With this meaning established, Subhūti asks the question of the whole unit that touches the person most closely: if all conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind and undergo all kinds of toil and suffering? The Buddha's answer does not evade it; first he restates the question exactly as it was, then resolves it with the one sentence 「是名相、名相相空」 tr. "these names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty"—names and marks are empty, and therefore practising the path is not in vain. Names and marks settled, the three knowledges are then divided: sarvajñā belongs to the two vehicles, the knowledge of the kinds of paths belongs to the bodhisattvas, the omniscience of all kinds belongs to the buddhas; the bodhisattva should know the paths of the three vehicles fully, should use these paths to deliver beings, and yet does not make the realisation of the limit of reality. As to why he does not realise it, the Buddha does not answer by principle but instead asks in return by way of Subhūti's own exhaustion of the outflows—did you, abiding within the path, obtain liberation? Abiding in what is not the path? Abiding in both the path and what is not the path? Abiding in neither the path nor what is not the path?—until Subhūti himself says 「我無所住，不受諸法，漏盡心得解脫」 tr. "I have nowhere I abide; not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted, my mind obtained liberation", and only then does the Buddha say: the bodhisattva too is like this.

The last three sections gather up the whole unit. First, the discernment of the severance of the fetters: in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference, and yet the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all severed while those of the two vehicles are not all severed; within the unconditioned dharma difference is unfindable, and yet the habitual residue is not an affliction, and so saying that the habitual residues are severed or not severed does not go against the unconditioned's being without difference. Second, the discernment of stages: the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha are all distinguished by the unconditioned dharma, and yet this distinguishing is worldly speech; within the highest meaning there is no path of speech; within the emptiness of specific marks even the prior limit is unfindable, how much less the later limit. Third, the discernment of the name: why prajñāpāramitā is named prajñāpāramitā—the Buddha gives six glosses in a row, from the foremost crossing, the four kinds of persons obtaining the crossing, breaking up all dharmas down to atoms, suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality all entering it, no joining and no dispersing and its one mark being the signless, on to being able to give rise to all dharmas while enemies cannot sever or ruin it; and he further teaches that for the meaning of deep prajñā one should practise the meaning of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self, and the meaning of the eleven knowledges. And as soon as this character 「義」 tr. "meaning, benefit" comes out, Subhūti at once makes it a difficulty: within deep prajñā benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable; how can one practise for the sake of benefit? The Buddha gives up both—the mark of suchness of the three poisons has no benefit and no non-benefit; form and so on up to awakening are neither benefit nor non-benefit; though the worthies and sages all take the unconditioned as their benefit, they take it neither as increase nor as decrease, as the suchness of space can neither benefit nor harm beings. The last question: unconditioned prajñā is not by two dharmas and not by a non-dual dharma—how shall one obtain the omniscience of all kinds? The answer: 「無所得即是得，以是得無所得」 tr. "Nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained"—only here is the obtaining of 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness", set up when the First Part opened the chapter, at last said in full.

Passage by Passage

1. Dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make—why one should not distinguish that there are three vehicles. Subhūti takes up what the First Part made clear and raises a difficulty: since dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, the distinction of the śrāvaka vehicle, the pratyekabuddha vehicle, and the Buddha vehicle should not stand. This question does not doubt what the Buddha says; it takes the meaning the Buddha has just set up to measure the teaching the Buddha has set up—since the First Part has said that none of the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating obtains sarvajñā, and that what obtains is only like the mark of suchness, then the names of all grades lose their footing. Here the reader must first see one thing clearly: the difficulty Subhūti raises is set up along with the Dharma, not against the Dharma; whenever Subhūti raises a difficulty in the sūtra, for the most part he pushes the meaning of what came before to its very end and lets the Buddha gather it in himself.

2. Within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing; the ordinary person clings to the five aggregates of clinging and thinks of having and thinks of obtaining; the Buddha, contemplating with the five eyes, does not even obtain form and so on up to awakening. The Buddha's answer is in three layers. The first layer seals the question and sets up the criterion: 「諸法無所為、無所作，無有分別；有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "Dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, and there is no distinguishing; within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing"—distinguishing is not on the side of the unconditioned but on the side of the conditioned; the names of the three vehicles belong to the side of the conditioned, and so their standing does not hinder the unconditioned side's being without distinction. The second layer brings out why it is so: the ordinary, foolish person who has not heard the noble Dharma clings to the five aggregates of clinging, clings to dānapāramitā, and so on up to clings to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; what is the mark of this clinging? 「是人念有是色、得是色」 tr. "This person thinks that there is this form and that he obtains this form"—it is twofold: one fold is thinking that it exists, the other fold is thinking that he obtains it. Even the bodhisattva who has aroused the mind does not escape it, and so the sūtra text goes on to say 「是菩薩作是念」 tr. "This bodhisattva has this thought", wishing to obtain awakening and wishing to deliver beings from birth and death. The third layer takes the Buddha himself as proof: I contemplate with the five eyes and do not even obtain form, and so on up to do not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The five eyes are the most ultimate seeing the Buddha possesses; the most ultimate seeing does not even see a dharma that is obtained, while those who have not obtained claim on the contrary that there is a dharma to be obtained—and so the sūtra text uses the heaviest verdict of the whole unit: this is a mad and foolish person, without eyes. The teaching crux of this passage lies in the four Chinese characters 「念有」 tr. "thinking of having" and 「念得」 tr. "thinking of obtaining": every sickness of clinging to dharmas, stripped to the bottom, is only these two thoughts.

3. If the five eyes do not see any who can be delivered, why then does he obtain awakening and also distinguish three groups. Subhūti follows up very closely: since the Buddha has said that contemplating with the five eyes he does not see among beings in birth and death any who can be delivered, then, first, how now does the World-Honored One obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; second, how does he further distinguish that beings are in the three groups of the rightly assured, the wrongly assured, and the unassured? This question turns the meaning of the passage above back round to ask about the Buddha himself. Note that the three groups Subhūti brings up are not a heading of his own making; they are a teaching the Buddha set up elsewhere; to use the Buddha's teaching to press the Buddha's meaning is precisely the constant way of the questions and answers of this unit.

4. When I obtained awakening, from the very beginning I did not obtain the three groups; in order to remove false clinging, by way of worldly dharmas it is said that there is obtaining, and it is not the highest meaning. The Buddha's answer has an extremely important word of time—「初不得」 tr. "from the very beginning did not obtain". It is not that having obtained he then says he does not obtain; from the very start he does not obtain. Next he answers why the three groups are set up: 「以眾生無法有法想，我以除其妄著，世俗法故說有得，非第一義」 tr. "Because beings give rise to the perception of an existent dharma with regard to a non-existent dharma, in order to remove their false clinging I say, by way of worldly dharmas, that there is something to be attained; it is not the highest meaning". Here is set up the two-layer saying used again and again through the whole unit: beings give rise to the perception of an existent dharma with regard to a non-existent dharma; the Buddha follows their perception and says there is obtaining in order to remove their clinging; and this saying belongs to the worldly, not to the highest meaning. The reader should remember this structure—the Buddha speaks of existence in order to remove existence; it is not that the Buddha himself sees existence.

5. Is it not by abiding in the highest meaning that awakening is obtained? Having got this answer, Subhūti asks further: then is it by abiding within the highest meaning that awakening is obtained? The Buddha answers 「不也」 tr. "No". This question seems a matter of course—since it is not the worldly, it should belong to the highest meaning; and yet the Buddha does not allow it. Why does he not allow it? Within the highest meaning there is no one who obtains and no dharma that is obtained; to say ‘obtaining by abiding in the highest meaning’ is still to set up a place of abiding and to set up something obtained. What the single answer 「不也」 tr. "No" breaks is this character 「住」 tr. "abide".

6. Is awakening obtained by abiding in inversion? Subhūti turns over to the other side: then is it obtained by abiding within inversion? The Buddha still answers 「不也」 tr. "No". This question is to make the Buddha seal off both sides. Inversion is false, and within the false there is nothing to be attained—this goes without saying; the reason Subhūti still asks it aloud is to let the next question stand.

7. Abiding in neither, is it then that the World-Honored One does not obtain awakening? Both roads sealed, Subhūti then brings out his real intent: if it is not obtained by abiding in the highest meaning, and not obtained by abiding in inversion either, then is it that the World-Honored One has not obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? This question is the first question of this unit that presses right to the bottom. Whenever in reading the sūtra one reaches a sentence of this 「將無」 tr. "is it then that …?" kind, one should know that the questioner is not doubting; he is setting out the full force of the dilemma, so that the answerer cannot but change to another way of speaking—and the Buddha's next answer does indeed change its way of speaking.

8. The Buddha really obtains awakening, and yet abides nowhere, whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned. The Buddha answers 「不也」 tr. "No", and at once speaks directly: 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住若有為相、若無為相」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere—whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned". This answer is not within the two sides, nor is it outside the two sides—it does not say abiding in the highest meaning, does not say abiding in inversion, but says abiding nowhere. The mark of the conditioned faces the side of inversion; the mark of the unconditioned faces the side of the highest meaning; he abides in neither mark, and yet the obtaining is really obtaining. 「實得」 tr. "really obtained" and 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere" set side by side in one sentence is the kernel of the doctrine of this unit; the simile of the conjured person below and, at the end, 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining" are all the unfolding of this one sentence.

9. The simile of the person conjured by the Buddha—not abiding in the two marks and yet coming and going, sitting and standing; practising the six perfections and so on up to turning the wheel of the Dharma; conjuring beings who are in three groups. The Buddha does not stop at the verdict but at once brings out a simile. A conjured person is a person conjured by the Buddha's supernormal power. His marks are two: first, he does not abide in the mark of the conditioned and does not abide in the mark of the unconditioned; second, 「亦有來有去、亦坐亦立」 tr. "he too comes and goes, also sits and also stands"—not abiding, and yet having function. Next is listed at length what he practises: the six perfections of giving, morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and prajñā; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, and the five supernormal powers; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path; the three samādhi of emptiness, the signless, and non-action; inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions; the ten powers of the Buddha, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, great kindness and great compassion; obtaining awakening, turning the wheel of the Dharma, and so on up to conjuring immeasurable beings who are in three groups. This list is not a display; it sets up ‘the fullness of function’ as equal to the Buddha's, so that only then can one ask whether it really exists. All the headings listed are general headings of this treatise: the six perfections are the six kinds of practice of reaching the further shore that the bodhisattva practises; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless are the concentrations of the form realm and the formless realm; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path are the backbone of the thirty-seven limbs of the path; the three samādhi are the three gates of contemplating emptiness, contemplating the signless, and contemplating that there is nothing made and nothing wished for; inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas is the general gathering of all the emptinesses; the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions are the sequence of cultivating concentration; the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to great kindness and great compassion are the merits of the Buddha. At the end he asks in return: 「是化人有行檀波羅蜜，乃至有三聚眾生不？」 tr. "Does this conjured person have any practising of dānapāramitā, and so on up to any beings in three groups?"

10. Subhūti answers No. An answer of two Chinese characters, and the whole simile stands. What the conjured person practises is plainly there, and yet really nothing is practised; the beings he conjures are plainly there, and yet really there are no beings—this is the ready-made specimen of the 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere" of the passage above. Here the reader should see clearly the momentum of question and answer: the Buddha first lists function to the very fullest, then asks whether it really exists, and the answerer cannot but say it does not; the fullness of function and the non-existence of substance stand at the same time, and this is precisely where ‘really obtaining and yet abiding nowhere’ can be understood.

11. The Buddha too is like this, knowing that dharmas are like a conjuration; the bodhisattva practises prajñā as a person conjured by the Buddha practises. The Buddha gathers the simile into two sentences: first, 「佛亦如是，知諸法如化，如化人度化眾生，無有實眾生可度」 tr. "The Buddha too is like this: he knows that dharmas are like a conjuration, and it is like a conjured person delivering beings—there are no real beings to be delivered"; second, 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，如佛所化人行」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā just as a person conjured by the Buddha practises". The first sentence explains the Buddha's obtaining and delivering; the latter sets up the bodhisattva's way of practice. What matters is that the six Chinese characters 「如佛所化人行」 tr. "as a person conjured by the Buddha practises" do not tell people not to practise; they tell people to practise thus—practising and not abiding, doing and not grasping.

12. What difference there is between the Buddha and a conjured person; the answer: there is no difference, because each can do something. Subhūti follows the simile and asks: if all dharmas are like a conjuration, what difference is there between the Buddha and a conjured person? The Buddha answers 「無有差別」 tr. "there is no difference", and the reason is only one sentence: 「佛能有所作，化人亦能有所作」 tr. "The Buddha can do something, and a conjured person too can do something". This answer must be looked at closely: the sameness and difference the Buddha judges takes neither form and substance nor root and trace; it takes only the one meaning 「能有所作」 tr. "can do something". Seen from the side of function, the two are without difference; and below, Subhūti presses one step further precisely on the side of function.

13. If there is no Buddha, can the conjured person alone do something; the answer: he can do something. What Subhūti presses is this: does the conjured person's function stand in dependence on the Buddha? If the Buddha is not there, can the conjured person on his own still do something? The Buddha answers 「能有所作」 tr. "He can do something". This answer cuts off a road of retreat—if the answer is that he cannot, then the conjured person's function is in the end the Buddha's function, and the simile does not hold; answering that he can, the standing of function does not wait on substance, and the simile can stand firm.

14. How, with no Buddha, the conjured person can do something; the simile of the Buddha Suśānta; the conjured person really has no arising and no ceasing; one should believe and know that dharmas are like a conjuration. Subhūti pursues the matter, and the Buddha brings up a real event as proof: in the past there was a Buddha named Suśānta, who, wishing to deliver bodhisattvas, conjured a Buddha and then himself passed into extinction; this conjured Buddha abode for half a kalpa doing the work of a Buddha, and having given the prediction to those who were to practise the bodhisattva practice, passed into extinction; and 「一切世間眾生知佛實滅度」 tr. "all the beings of the world thought that the Buddha had really passed into extinction". This event has three key points: first, the true Buddha had already passed into extinction and the conjured Buddha abode in the world for half a kalpa, doing the work of a Buddha and giving the prediction—a real instance of a conjured person being able to do something without a Buddha; second, the passing into extinction that the people of the world knew of was the conjured Buddha's passing into extinction, and yet what they believed was not false—the function of the conjuration is wholly accomplished in worldly truth; third, the Buddha at once points it out: 「化人實無生無滅」 tr. "The conjured person really has no arising and no ceasing". Seen together, the three matters let the final sentence 「菩薩行般若波羅蜜，當信知諸法如化」 tr. "the bodhisattva who practises prajñāpāramitā should believe and know that dharmas are like a conjuration" land firmly: it does not teach people to think of nothingness; it teaches people to know, upon wholly accomplished function, that it has no arising and no ceasing.

15. If the Buddha and a conjured person are without difference, how is giving made pure. Here Subhūti raises a difficulty from another angle, and the difficulty touches human feeling most closely: for one who makes offerings to the Buddha, up to nirvāṇa without remainder the merit is not exhausted; if the Buddha and a conjured Buddha are without difference, then for one who makes offerings to a conjured Buddha, up to nirvāṇa without remainder, should the merit likewise not be exhausted? The reason this question matters is that it pushes the principle set out before onto the matter of the field of merit—if in principle there is no difference, would not the rule of giving and its reward be thrown into disorder in matters? Whenever in reading the sūtra one sees a place where principle and matter seem to conflict, that is exactly the place where the sūtra text is about to bring out the right meaning.

16. The Buddha is a field of merit by reason of the real mark of all dharmas; the conjured Buddha too is a field of merit by reason of the real mark of all dharmas. The Buddha's answer does not divide by form and image, nor by supernormal power, but points straight to why a field of merit is a field of merit: 「佛以諸法實相故，與一切眾生天及人作福田；化佛亦以諸法實相故，與一切眾生天及人作福田」 tr. "The Buddha, by reason of the real mark of all dharmas, is a field of merit for all beings, gods and humans; the conjured Buddha too, by reason of the real mark of all dharmas, is a field of merit for all beings, gods and humans". The two sentences are the same text with only one character changed; this is so that the reader will see for himself that what they rely on is the same—the establishing of a field of merit lies in the real mark, not in whether the one who can receive offerings is true or conjured. This one answer at the same time resolves the difficulty of the passage above: giving and its reward are not thrown into disorder, because what is faced was never form and substance.

17. Leave aside this conjured Buddha: keeping the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind, scattering a single flower into space while keeping the Buddha in mind, calling out namo Buddha once—up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted; the Buddha and the conjured Buddha are without difference, and the dharma-marks have no difference; one should enter the real mark of all dharmas, and the real mark should not be ruined. The Buddha further lessens the condition step by step and further shows the merit step by step, in three turns in all: leave aside this conjured Buddha and the merit planted at the conjured Buddha's place—only keeping the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind, up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted; leave aside this keeping of the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind—only scattering a single flower into space while keeping the Buddha in mind, up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted; leave aside this keeping of the Buddha in mind with a reverent mind and keeping of the Buddha in mind while scattering a flower—if there is a person who calls out namo Buddha once, up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted. The momentum of the three turns is that what is taken as object grows ever less while what is repaid does not grow less—from the offering to a conjured Buddha, lessened to a single thought of reverence, lessened to the scattering of a single flower, lessened to the sound of a single calling out. Why can it be so? The Buddha himself concludes it: 「佛福田中種其福無量」 tr. "the merit planted in the field of merit of the Buddha is immeasurable" and 「當知佛與化佛無有差別，諸法法相無異故」 tr. "know that the Buddha and a conjured Buddha are without difference, because the dharma-marks of dharmas have no difference". At the end he turns out the handle of the next passage: the bodhisattva should practise prajñāpāramitā thus and enter within the real mark of all dharmas; 「是諸法實相不應壞，所謂般若波羅蜜相，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提相」 tr. "This real mark of all dharmas should not be ruined; it is precisely the mark of prajñāpāramitā, and so on up to the mark of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Here the reader should pay attention to the joint in the sūtra text—as soon as the three Chinese characters 「不應壞」 tr. "should not be ruined" come out, Subhūti's next difficulty rises from these three characters.

18. The real mark should not be ruined—why then does the Buddha ruin the marks of dharmas and distinguish and speak of form and so on up to the conditioned and the unconditioned. Subhūti seizes on 「不應壞」 tr. "should not be ruined" and raises the difficulty: since the Buddha says the real mark should not be ruined, why does he again ruin the marks of dharmas and say: this is form; this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; these are inner dharmas and outer dharmas, wholesome and unwholesome dharmas, with outflows and without outflows, worldly and world-transcending, with contention and without contention, conditioned and unconditioned, and so forth? The last sentence presses straight on: 「將無壞諸法相？」 tr. "Is it not that the marks of dharmas are ruined?" The mechanism of this difficulty is that a character 「說」 tr. "speak" is taken as the character 「壞」 tr. "ruin"—is distinguishing and speaking the same as breaking and ruining? The Buddha's answer in the next passage draws the distinction precisely here.

19. By the marks of names he shows dharmas, wishing to make beings understand; the Buddha does not ruin the dharma-marks of dharmas. The Buddha answers 「不也」 tr. "No", and at once draws the distinction: what speaks is 「以名字相故示諸法」 tr. "it is by the marks of names that dharmas are shown", what it is for is 「欲令眾生解」 tr. "wishing to make beings understand", and what it does not do is 「壞諸法法相」 tr. "ruin the dharma-marks of dharmas". Seen together, the three phrases settle the nature of distinguishing and speaking the Dharma: the marks of names are the instrument of showing, not the substance of the dharma; what showing aims at is making understand, not making grasp. Whenever one meets a doubtful point of the kind ‘since the Buddha speaks of emptiness, why does he also speak of existence’, these three phrases are the general rule.

20. All dharmas are nameless and signless—how can one show beings by names and marks, wishing to make them understand. Subhūti presses one layer further: if it is by the marks of names that dharmas are spoken of to make beings understand, and yet all dharmas are nameless and signless, then where do the names and marks used to show people themselves stand? This question is asked very deeply—it does not ask whether the Dharma can be spoken; it asks whether the instrument that can speak has anything to rely on.

21. Following worldly dharmas there are names and marks, and yet there is really no place of clinging; the ordinary person speaks of suffering, clinging to the name and pursuing the mark, while the buddhas and their disciples neither cling nor pursue; if name clung to name, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, and so on up to the unconditioned nature should cling to the unconditioned nature; dharmas do not abide within names and marks, yet one abides only within names and marks and should not cling. The Buddha's answer is in four sections, the most closely woven passage of the whole unit. The first section sets out the thesis: 「隨世俗法有名相，實無著處」 tr. "Following worldly dharmas there are names and marks, and yet there is really no place of clinging"—names and marks have their worldly use, and yet there is no place to cling to; use and clinging are judged to be two matters. The second section brings out a test from human affairs: 「如凡夫說苦，著名、隨相」 tr. "It is as when the ordinary person speaks of suffering, he clings to the name and pursues the mark", while 「諸佛及弟子不著名、不隨相」 tr. "the buddhas and their disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark"—the same word, suffering: what ordinary persons and sages say is not different, and yet what they cling to is different, so one can see that the sickness lies not in the name but in clinging. The third section brings out a counter-proof: 「若名著名、相著相，空亦應著空，無相亦應著無相，無作亦應著無作，實際應著實際，法性應著法性，無為性應著無為性」 tr. "If name clung to name and mark clung to mark, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, the signless too should cling to the signless, non-action too should cling to non-action, the limit of reality should cling to the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas should cling to the nature of dharmas, the unconditioned nature should cling to the unconditioned nature"—the force of this section lies here: if one admits that names and marks themselves have a sticking nature, then all the Dharma-gates and headings that are set up become clinging without exception, and even these highest names—emptiness, the signless, non-action, the limit of reality, the nature of dharmas, the unconditioned nature—cannot escape; this breaks clinging by pushing what is set up to the point where it cannot go through. The six headings brought up are all general headings of this sūtra: emptiness, the signless, and non-action are the names of the three gates of liberation; the limit of reality is the ultimate limit of dharmas; the nature of dharmas is the nature of dharmas; the unconditioned nature is the nature that neither arises nor ceases. The fourth section gathers up the conclusion: 「是一切法但有名相，是法不住名相中」 tr. "All these dharmas have only names and marks, and these dharmas do not abide within names and marks", and therefore 「菩薩摩訶薩但名相中住，應行般若波羅蜜，是名相中亦不應著」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, abiding only within names and marks, should practise prajñāpāramitā, and within these names and marks too he should not cling". The last sentence matters most—it does not tell people to leave names and marks; it tells people to abide in names and marks and not cling to names and marks; if one leaves them, there is nothing by which to practise and nothing by which to speak; if one clings, one loses what one practises and what one speaks.

22. If conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind and undergo all kinds of toil and suffering. The difficulty raised on the back of the above is the question of this unit that touches the person most closely. Since all conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, then for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and undergo all kinds of toil and suffering? The sūtra text at once makes the two Chinese characters 「勤苦」 tr. "toil and suffering" concrete: when the bodhisattva practises the path, he gives, upholds the precepts, practises patience, is diligent in vigour, enters meditative concentration, cultivates wisdom; practises the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path; practises the practice of emptiness, the signless practice, the practice of non-action, the ten powers of the Buddha, and so on up to fulfilling great kindness and compassion. This long list does not repeat the earlier text; it is to give weight to the question 「為誰」 tr. "for whose sake"—the more solid what is listed, the harder the question is to evade. What is called 「為誰」 tr. "for whose sake" asks about the object for whom it is done: if beings are only names and marks, then those delivered are unreal; if what is practised is only names and marks, then the one who practises is unreal too.

23. Names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty; therefore he practises the bodhisattva path, obtains the omniscience of all kinds, turns the wheel of the Dharma, and delivers beings by the Dharma of the three vehicles; names and marks too are without arising, without ceasing, and without abiding-and-changing. The Buddha's way of answering is worth looking at closely: first he restates the question exactly as it was—「如須菩提所說，若一切有為法但名相者，菩薩摩訶薩為誰故行菩薩道？」 tr. "It is just as Subhūti says: if all conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, then for whose sake does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise the bodhisattva path?"—not evading, not changing the words. Next he gives the turning word: 「若有為法但名相等，是名相、名相相空。」 tr. "If conditioned dharmas are only names and marks and the like, these names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty." This is the pivot of the answer: not only are names and marks empty, the mark of names and marks is empty too. If one said only that names and marks are empty, what is emptied would still have a ‘mark of emptiness’ to be grasped, and the answer would not be complete; saying 「名相相空」 tr. "the mark of names and marks is empty" dismantles even the last footing. Once it is dismantled completely, he then brings out directly why one is able to practise: 「以是故，菩薩摩訶薩行菩薩道得一切種智；得一切種智已，轉法輪；轉法輪已，以三乘法度脫眾生。」 tr. "For this reason the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the bodhisattva path and obtains the omniscience of all kinds; having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, he turns the wheel of the Dharma; having turned the wheel of the Dharma, he delivers beings by the Dharma of the three vehicles." The way of reading is important—the three Chinese characters 「以是故」 tr. "for this reason" show that the principle of being able to practise comes precisely from emptiness; it is not practising by force even though it is empty. The last sentence further sets out its marks: 「是名相，亦無生、無滅、無住異」 tr. "These names and marks too are without arising, without ceasing, and without abiding-and-changing", gathering it up by the absence of all three marks of arising, ceasing, and abiding-and-changing. Here it corresponds head to tail with passage 2's 「有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing": the names of distinction stand on the conditioned side and their nature is from the first empty, and so they stand without hindrance, and one practises not in vain.

24. Whether the World-Honored One speaks of the omniscience of all kinds; the Buddha answers: I speak of the omniscience of all kinds. Here the sūtra text starts a new section. Subhūti takes up the words 「得一切種智」 tr. "obtains the omniscience of all kinds" of the text above and asks: does the World-Honored One speak of the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha answers: I speak of the omniscience of all kinds. This one question and one answer look like superfluous words, but in fact they are the form for setting up a topic—first make certain that the name under discussion is indeed one the Buddha set up, and only then can one ask about its divisions. Short questions and short answers of this kind in the sūtra are mostly the joint for turning into a new section; they should not be passed over.

25. What difference there is among the three kinds of knowledge: omniscience, the knowledge of the kinds of paths, and the omniscience of all kinds. Subhūti then puts the real question: the Buddha speaks of omniscience, speaks of the knowledge of the kinds of paths, speaks of the omniscience of all kinds—what difference is there among these three kinds of knowledge? This chapter is named the three wisdoms, and the discernment of the three knowledges comes to ground exactly here. The reader should first remember: what is asked is 「差別」 tr. "difference", and so the answer below must divide them by the persons to whom they belong.

26. Sarvajñā is the knowledge of the two vehicles, the knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattvas, the omniscience of all kinds is the knowledge of the buddhas. The Buddha's answer is extremely brief and its divisions extremely clear: 「薩婆若是一切聲聞、辟支佛智，道種智是菩薩摩訶薩智，一切種智是諸佛智。」 tr. "Sarvajñā is the knowledge of all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; the knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas; the omniscience of all kinds is the knowledge of the buddhas." The three knowledges are attached to three kinds of persons, not to three kinds of objects. Sarvajñā is precisely the Sanskrit word for omniscience; here it is assigned to the two vehicles, speaking of the general mark of what it knows; in the next two passages Subhūti pursues the reason for each one, and so here it is only set up and not yet explained.

27. By what causes and conditions sarvajñā is the knowledge of the two vehicles; the answer: all names, that is, inner and outer dharmas, the two vehicles can know, and yet they cannot use all paths and the omniscience of all kinds. Subhūti asks the reason, and the Buddha answers: 「一切名所謂內外法，是聲聞、辟支佛能知，不能用一切道、一切種智。」 tr. "All names—that is, inner dharmas and outer dharmas—are what the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas can know, and yet they cannot use all paths and the omniscience of all kinds." This answer divides into two halves, being able to know and being able to use: what is known is 「一切名」 tr. "all names", and all names do not go beyond what inner dharmas and outer dharmas gather in; what they cannot do is 「用」 tr. "use"—they cannot use all paths, cannot use the omniscience of all kinds. The limit of the two vehicles is judged to lie not in the narrowness of what they know but in the incompleteness of what they use. Here the reader can obtain a general rule: when the sūtras and treatises judge the higher and lower of the vehicles, they mostly judge by what one can use, not by what one can know.

28. By what causes and conditions the knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattvas; the answer: he should know all paths fully, should also use these paths to deliver beings, and also does not make the realisation of the limit of reality. The Buddha answers in three phrases, each phrase a portion of the bodhisattva. First, 「一切道，菩薩摩訶薩應知：若聲聞道、辟支佛道、菩薩道，應具足知」 tr. "All paths the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should know—whether the śrāvaka path, the pratyekabuddha path, or the bodhisattva path, he should know them all fully"—the paths of the three vehicles are all within what is known, not knowing only his own path. Second, 「亦應用是道度眾生」 tr. "he should also use these paths to deliver beings"—knowing and able to use, which exactly supplies what the two vehicles of the passage above cannot do. Third, 「亦不作實際證」 tr. "and he also does not make the realisation of the limit of reality"—using the path and not taking its fruit. The three phrases together complete the mark of the knowledge of the kinds of paths: knowing fully, able to use, not realising. The third phrase is the hardest, and so below Subhūti asks several questions in a row on this one phrase.

29. Should one fulfil all the paths and yet not realise the limit of reality by these paths? The answer: while he has not yet purified a buddha-land and not yet brought beings to accomplishment, he should not realise it. What Subhūti doubts is this: since it is said that one should fulfil all the paths, and it is also said that one should not by these paths realise the limit of reality, do the before and after not conflict? The Buddha's answer does not divide by principle but by time: 「是菩薩未淨佛土、未成就眾生，是時不應實際作證。」 tr. "While this bodhisattva has not yet purified a buddha-land and has not yet brought beings to accomplishment, at this time he should not realise the limit of reality." This answer sets down an extremely important measure—not realising is not never realising; it is not realising at this time; the reason for not realising is that the buddha-land is not yet purified and beings are not yet brought to accomplishment. The bodhisattva's not taking realisation is kept back for the sake of matters not yet done, not out of timidity towards realisation.

30. The question of the places of abiding in four alternatives: abiding in the path, abiding in what is not the path, abiding in both the path and what is not the path, abiding in neither the path nor what is not the path—the Buddha answers No to all. Subhūti then seeks, alternative by alternative, the place of abiding: should the bodhisattva, abiding within the path, realise the limit of reality? The answer: No. Abiding within what is not the path? No. Abiding in both the path and what is not the path? No. Abiding in neither the path nor what is not the path? No. The four alternatives are the four gates of existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, and neither existence nor non-existence; here they are set up by the path and what is not the path. The four questions and four answers are all extremely short; in reading one must not pass over them lightly because they are short—once the four alternatives are exhausted, every place of abiding that could be set up is used up; the next question is pressed out precisely by these four answers of 「不也」 tr. "No".

31. Where should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva abide to realise the limit of reality. The four gates all closed, Subhūti then asks: then where should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva abide in order to realise the limit of reality? This question has the same momentum as passage 7's ‘is it then that the World-Honored One has not obtained awakening?’—sealing off every possibility completely to press out an answer that is not within the four alternatives. And the Buddha's way of answering is again the same as the previous time: he does not say it directly, but first asks in return.

32. The Buddha asks the four alternatives in return by way of Subhūti's own exhaustion of the outflows; Subhūti's final answer: I have nowhere I abide, not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted my mind obtained liberation. The Buddha does not answer his question but questions the man in return: 「於汝意云何？汝住道中，受諸法故，漏盡得解脫不？」 tr. "What do you think? Did you, abiding within the path, by reason of receiving dharmas, with the outflows exhausted obtain liberation?" Subhūti answers No. Abiding in what is not the path? No. Abiding in both the path and what is not the path? No. Abiding in neither the path nor what is not the path? No. After the four questions and four answers, Subhūti himself says it in full: 「我無所住，不受諸法，漏盡心得解脫。」 tr. "I have nowhere I abide; not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted, my mind obtained liberation." The teaching method of this passage is well worth savouring—what the Buddha asks about is what Subhūti himself has realised; the answer lies in the one asked, not in the Buddha's mouth; the four alternatives pressed through, he himself speaks out 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere". From this the reader can learn a method: wherever one is entangled and unclear in principle, going back to ask once about what one has oneself realised and verified will often yield it at once. Note also that Subhūti's answer has one more phrase, 「不受諸法」 tr. "not receiving any dharma"—abiding and receiving are linked; because he abides nowhere he does not receive, and because he does not receive the outflows are exhausted.

33. The bodhisattva too is like this: abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality. The Buddha at once takes his own answer as the answer: 「菩薩摩訶薩亦如是，無所住，應實際作證。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva too is like this: abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality." The ‘should not realise’ of the previous passage and the ‘should realise’ of this passage do not conflict—what should not be is realising while abiding; what should be is realising without abiding. The knot of the whole passage lies only in the three Chinese characters 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere", which is exactly the same phrase as the Buddha's self-description in passage 8, 「無所住若有為相、若無為相」 tr. "abiding nowhere, whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned".

34. The mark of the omniscience of all kinds—because of one mark it is named the omniscience of all kinds, namely that all dharmas have the mark of quiescence; what is shown and spoken by the conduct and kinds, the appearances, and the names of dharmas, the Buddha knows as it really is. Subhūti asks about the mark of the omniscience of all kinds, and the Buddha's answer is twofold. First, 「一相故名一切種智，所謂一切法寂滅相」 tr. "Because of one mark it is named the omniscience of all kinds, namely that all dharmas have the mark of quiescence"—speaking of its oneness, all dharmas return alike to quiescence, and so the knowledge too is of one mark. Second, 「復次，諸法行類、相貌、名字顯示說，佛如實知」 tr. "Again, what is shown and spoken by the conduct and kinds, the appearances, and the names of dharmas, the Buddha knows as it really is"—speaking of its manyness, whatever of the conduct and kinds, the appearances, and the names of dharmas can be shown and spoken, the Buddha knows it all as it really is. The one mark and the many knowings come out together; this is exactly the meaning of the three Chinese characters 「一切種」 tr. "all kinds": all is its manyness, kinds is its differences, and the very reason it can know its differences everywhere is that they return alike to one mark. The reader must not take one side only: take the one mark alone and one loses the kinds; take the kinds and differences alone and one loses the one.

35. Whether the severance of the fetters by the three knowledges has difference, has exhaustion, has remainder; the answer: in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference, and yet the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all severed while those of the two vehicles are not all severed. Subhūti turns to ask about the matter of severing delusion: omniscience, the knowledge of the kinds of paths, the omniscience of all kinds—in the severance of the fetters by the three knowledges is there difference, is there exhaustion or remainder? The Buddha's answer divides into two halves, and these two halves are where the whole doctrine of this passage lies: 「煩惱斷無差別」 tr. "In the severance of the afflictions there is no difference"—speaking of the afflictions severed, severing is severing, with no higher and lower; 「諸佛煩惱習一切悉斷，聲聞、辟支佛煩惱習不悉斷」 tr. "the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all entirely severed, while the śrāvakas' and pratyekabuddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are not all entirely severed"—speaking of the habitual residues of the afflictions, there is the distinction of all severed and not all severed. The division of the afflictions and the habitual residues into two matters is the key to this passage.

36. Is it not by obtaining the unconditioned dharma that these persons sever the afflictions? The answer: No. Can difference be obtained within the unconditioned dharma? The answer: No. Subhūti presses again from the side of the dharma relied on: is it not by relying on the unconditioned dharma that these persons obtain the severance of the afflictions? The Buddha answers No. Then can difference be obtained within the unconditioned dharma? The Buddha answers No. The two questions and two answers seal off the road of retreat: severing the afflictions is not without reliance on the unconditioned, and yet within the unconditioned there is no difference to be obtained—and so the saying ‘the habitual residues are severed or not severed’ has nowhere to be placed. This is exactly why the next question arises.

37. If within the unconditioned difference is unfindable, why is it said that this person's habitual residues are severed and that person's are not severed; the answer: the habitual residue is not an affliction; the two vehicles have in body and speech what resembles the mark of the three poisons, and an ordinary person who does these incurs sin; the habitual residues of the three poisons the buddhas do not have. Subhūti's difficulty is tightest here. The Buddha's answer takes only four Chinese characters as its guiding rope: 「習非煩惱」 tr. "The habitual residue is not an affliction". The habitual residue does not belong to what the afflictions gather in, and so to speak of the severing and not severing of habitual residues does not violate the rule that within the unconditioned dharma there is no difference. Next he brings out its marks: 「是聲聞、辟支佛身口有似婬欲、瞋恚、愚癡相，凡夫愚人為之得罪。是三毒習，諸佛無有。」 tr. "These śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have, in body and speech, what resembles the mark of lust, hatred, and delusion; an ordinary, foolish person who does these incurs sin. These habitual residues of the three poisons the buddhas do not have." Here three matters must be kept distinct: first, what the two vehicles show is a 「似」 tr. "resembling" mark, not real affliction; second, the same mark of body and speech, when an ordinary person does it, incurs sin, because the ordinary person's is issued from real affliction; third, the buddhas do not have even this resembling mark. So what is called the habitual residue is the mark of the remaining force not yet exhausted after the afflictions are already severed; it is tied to the surface of body and speech, not to the substance of the unconditioned—this is why saying that the habitual residues are severed or not severed does not hinder the unconditioned's being without difference.

38. The path has no dharma and nirvāṇa has no dharma—why distinguish and speak of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha; the answer: all are distinguished by the unconditioned dharma. Subhūti turns to yet another face: if the path has no dharma and nirvāṇa too has no dharma, why then distinguish and say this is a srota-āpanna, this is a sakṛdāgāmin, this is an anāgāmin, this is an arhat, this is a pratyekabuddha, this is a bodhisattva, this is a Buddha? Of the seven positions brought up, the first four are the four fruits of the śrāvaka, next is the pratyekabuddha, next the bodhisattva, next the Buddha—the full list of the grades of the three vehicles. The Buddha answers: 「是皆以無為法而有分別」 tr. "These are all distinguished by the unconditioned dharma"—what distinguishing relies on is still the unconditioned dharma. On the surface this answer conflicts with the passage above, ‘can difference be obtained within the unconditioned dharma? The answer: No’, and so Subhūti must ask again; the momentum of the sūtra text is waiting for exactly this question to bring out the right meaning.

39. Is it really by reason of the unconditioned dharma that the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha are distinguished? The answer: because of worldly speech there is difference, and it is not the highest meaning; within the highest meaning there is no path of speech; it is by reason of severing the fetters that the later limit is spoken of. The Buddha's direct answer is here: 「世間言說故有差別，非第一義，第一義中無有分別說。」 tr. "Because of worldly speech there is difference; it is not the highest meaning, and within the highest meaning there is no speaking of distinctions." It has the same syntax as passage 4's 「世俗法故說有得，非第一義」 tr. "by way of worldly dharmas it is said that there is something to be attained; it is not the highest meaning"—every distinction belongs to the function of speech, not to the substance of the highest meaning. Next he brings out why it is so: 「第一義中無言說道，斷結故說後際。」 tr. "Within the highest meaning there is no path of speech; it is by reason of severing the fetters that the later limit is spoken of." Because there is no path of speech, within the highest meaning no names such as 「須陀洹」 tr. "srota-āpanna" can be set up at all; and the reason one still speaks of there being a later limit is that it is spoken with regard to severing the fetters. The later limit is the limit after the fetters are exhausted; this name is set up with regard to the matter of severing the fetters, and it still belongs within worldly speech.

40. Within the emptiness of specific marks the prior limit is unfindable, how much less can one say there is a later limit; the Buddha affirms his words; for the sake of those who do not know, the prior and later limits are spoken of; the bodhisattva should practise prajñā by the dharma of the emptiness of specific marks, and then he clings to nothing. Subhūti seizes on the two Chinese characters 「後際」 tr. "later limit" and pushes on: within the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas even the prior limit is unfindable—how much less can one say there is a later limit! The Buddha affirms it completely and adds weight to the words: 「如是！如是！諸法自相空中，無有前際，何況有後際！無有是處！」 tr. "Just so! Just so! Within the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas there is no prior limit—how much less is there a later limit! There is no such principle!" Next he brings out the reason for speaking of them: 「以眾生不知諸法自相空故，為說是前際、是後際」 tr. "Because beings do not know the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas, for their sake it is said: this is the prior limit, this is the later limit"—the same device as passage 4's 「以眾生無法有法想，我以除其妄著」 tr. "because beings give rise to the perception of an existent dharma with regard to a non-existent dharma, in order to remove their false clinging". At the end he turns out the gate of practice: 「菩薩摩訶薩應以自相空法行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should practise prajñāpāramitā by the dharma of the emptiness of specific marks", and its proof in effect is 「則無所著：若內法、若外法，若有為法、若無為法，若聲聞法、若辟支佛法、若佛法」 tr. "then he clings to nothing—whether inner dharmas or outer dharmas, conditioned dharmas or unconditioned dharmas, śrāvaka dharmas, pratyekabuddha dharmas, or the dharmas of the Buddha". The three groups and seven headings listed go from coarse to fine—inner and outer are a pair of places, conditioned and unconditioned are a pair of natures, śrāvaka dharmas, pratyekabuddha dharmas, and the dharmas of the Buddha are the three of fruits; even the dharmas of the Buddha are among what is not clung to—this is where the emptiness of specific marks goes through to the end.

41. By what meaning prajñāpāramitā is named prajñāpāramitā; the first gloss answers: it obtains the foremost crossing, and all dharmas reach the further shore. Subhūti asks for the explanation of the name: prajñāpāramitā is constantly spoken of—by what meaning is it named prajñāpāramitā? The Buddha answers with six glosses, and this is the first: 「得第一度，一切法到彼岸，以是義故名般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "It obtains the foremost crossing and makes all dharmas reach the further shore; by this meaning it is named prajñāpāramitā." Pāramitā means reaching the further shore; among the six perfections prajñā is called the foremost crossing, and so the name is set up from its being the highest of crossings. Here the reader can first note a way of reading: whenever in the sūtra several glosses are given in a row to explain one name, their order is mostly from one's own practice on to others, from the object on to knowledge, from negation on to affirmation; it is not a restatement of the same meaning.

42. The second gloss: the buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and arhats use this prajñā to cross over to the further shore. The second gloss sets up the name from the persons who can cross: 「諸佛、菩薩、辟支佛、阿羅漢用是般若波羅蜜得度彼岸，……」 tr. "The buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and arhats use this prajñāpāramitā to cross over to the further shore, …" The four kinds of persons brought up gather in all three vehicles and the Buddha; it says that prajñā is the path the three vehicles all go by. The difference of this gloss from the first: the previous gloss speaks of the highest of dharmas, this gloss speaks of what persons go by in common. Seen together with the previous gloss, prajñā's being the foremost crossing is not a dharma the Buddha alone has.

43. The third gloss: distinguishing and reckoning, it breaks up all dharmas, down to atoms, and within them nothing firm and real is obtained. The third gloss sets up the name from its function: 「分別、籌量破壞一切法，乃至微塵，是中不得堅實，……」 tr. "Distinguishing and reckoning, it breaks up all dharmas, down to atoms, and within them nothing firm and real is obtained, …" Distinguishing and reckoning means analysing; breaking up means breaking the clinging to firmness and reality, not ruining its dharmas. Analysed down to atoms, firmness and reality are sought and are unfindable—this is the mark of the contemplative practice of prajñā. Note the four Chinese characters 「不得堅實」 tr. "nothing firm and real is obtained"—what is broken is the view of firmness and reality, not the matter of form-dharmas.

44. The fourth gloss: the suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality in all dharmas all enter prajñā. The fourth gloss sets up the name from what it gathers in: 「諸法如、法性、實際皆入般若波羅蜜中，……」 tr. "The suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality in all dharmas all enter within prajñāpāramitā, …" Suchness is the mark of dharmas being thus and not different; the nature of dharmas is the nature of dharmas; the limit of reality is the ultimate limit—these three names are the three terms this sūtra commonly uses to point to the highest meaning. All three enter within prajñā; that is, prajñā is not a separate dharma outside the three. The previous gloss broke down to atoms and did not obtain firmness and reality; this gloss gathers in the ultimate principle of dharmas and returns it to prajñā—one breaking, one gathering, and so the meaning is not one-sided.

45. The fifth gloss: there is no dharma that can be joined or dispersed and so on up to conditioned or unconditioned; without form, without shape, without resistance, of one mark—that is, the signless. The fifth gloss sets up the name with the phrase 「無有法」 tr. "there is no dharma", with six pairs in a row: joined or dispersed, with form or without form, visible or invisible, with resistance or without resistance, with outflows or without outflows, conditioned or unconditioned—within prajñā there is no dharma that answers to either side of any of these six pairs. Next he brings out why it is so: 「是般若波羅蜜無色、無形、無對，一相所謂無相。」 tr. "This prajñāpāramitā is without form, without shape, without resistance; it is of one mark—that is, the signless." The six pairs are all marks on which distinguished dharmas rely, and prajñā is without form, without shape, without resistance, and so the six pairs have nowhere to apply. The last phrase, 「一相所謂無相」 tr. "of one mark—that is, the signless", has entirely the same syntax as passage 34's 「一相故名一切種智，所謂一切法寂滅相」 tr. "because of one mark it is named the omniscience of all kinds, namely that all dharmas have the mark of quiescence", and the two can be read together: the one mark of knowledge lies in quiescence, the one mark of prajñā lies in the signless.

46. The sixth gloss: it can give rise to all dharmas, all the eloquence of delighting in speech, all illumination; Māra and enemies cannot sever or ruin it, because they are all unfindable within prajñā. The sixth gloss turns to set up the name from the positive side: 「是般若波羅蜜能生一切法、一切樂說辯、一切照明。」 tr. "This prajñāpāramitā can give rise to all dharmas, to all the eloquence of delighting in speech, and to all illumination." The eloquence of delighting in speech is the unobstructed eloquence of delighting in speaking; illumination is the brightness that illuminates and makes manifest. The previous glosses spoke all along of non-existence, and this gloss speaks all along of existence—this is precisely where one does not fall to the extreme of annihilation. Next he speaks of its being indestructible: 「魔若魔天、求聲聞、辟支佛人及餘異道梵志、怨讎惡人不能斷壞菩薩行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Māra and the gods of Māra, those who seek the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, and the other brahmin ascetics of the outsiders' paths, hostile enemies and evil people—none of them can sever or ruin the prajñāpāramitā the bodhisattva practises." The five kinds brought up, from gods to humans, from the inside path to the outside paths, gather in all who could make difficulty. And as to why they cannot ruin it, the Buddha does not say that the power of prajñā is strong; he only says 「是人輩，般若波羅蜜中皆不可得故」 tr. "because these persons are all unfindable within prajñāpāramitā"—those who could ruin it do not even exist within prajñā, how much less their ruining. This is the consistent way of answering throughout this unit: winning not by power but by unfindability. At the end he concludes: 「菩薩摩訶薩應如是行般若波羅蜜義。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva should thus practise the meaning of prajñāpāramitā." As soon as this one character 「義」 tr. "meaning, benefit" comes out, what follows takes this very word as its topic.

47. One who wishes to practise the meaning of deep prajñā should practise the meaning of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self, and should also practise the meaning of the eleven knowledges. The Buddha further brings out the gate of practice: the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who wishes to practise the meaning of deep prajñāpāramitā should practise the meaning of impermanence, the meaning of suffering, the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of non-self, and should also practise the meaning of the knowledge of suffering, the meaning of the knowledge of origin, the meaning of the knowledge of cessation, the meaning of the knowledge of the path, the meaning of dharma-knowledge, the meaning of subsequent knowledge, the meaning of worldly knowledge, the meaning of the knowledge of others' minds, the meaning of the knowledge of exhaustion, the meaning of the knowledge of non-arising, and the meaning of the knowledge of things as they really are. The first four are the four aspects of contemplating dharmas; of the latter eleven, the four knowledges of suffering, origin, cessation, and the path are knowledges that take the four truths as object; dharma-knowledge and subsequent knowledge are knowledges divided by the realm taken as object; worldly knowledge is knowledge that takes the worldly as object; the knowledge of others' minds is the knowledge that knows others' minds; the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising are the two knowledges accomplished by those beyond training; the knowledge of things as they really are is the knowledge that knows things fully as they really are. This passage matters because it does not speak of 「深般若義」 tr. "the meaning of deep prajñā" as some remote and mysterious realm, but as these ready-made, practicable meanings—the depth of prajñā does not leave the four truths and the four aspects, and the reader should not seek another high place here.

48. Within deep prajñā benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable—how then should one practise prajñā for the sake of benefit. Subhūti at once picks up the character 「義」 tr. "meaning, benefit" and raises a difficulty: within this deep prajñāpāramitā, benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable; how then can the bodhisattva practise prajñā for the sake of the benefit of deep prajñā? This difficulty has the same momentum as passage 22's ‘if conditioned dharmas are only names and marks, for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind’—both take the meaning of emptiness the Buddha has set up and turn back to question the practice he has set up. That the sūtra text asks twice with the same momentum shows that this doubt is a pass every learner of prajñā must go through.

49. One should think that greed, hatred, and delusion are non-benefit and all wrong views are without benefit, and such a matter should not be practised; and yet the mark of suchness of the three poisons and the mark of suchness of wrong views have no benefit and no non-benefit. The Buddha's answer again divides into two halves, and the two halves look opposite. The first half is a taking-up and giving-up at the gate of practice: the bodhisattva should have this thought—greed is non-benefit, hatred and delusion are non-benefit, all wrong views are without benefit, 「如是義不應行」 tr. "such a matter should not be practised"—in matters there is plainly what should be given up. The latter half is a giving up of both in principle: 「三毒如相，無有義、無有非義；一切邪見如相，無有義、無有非義」 tr. "The mark of suchness of the three poisons has no benefit and no non-benefit; the mark of suchness of all wrong views has no benefit and no non-benefit"—speaking of their mark of suchness, benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable. Only with both halves standing together is it the Buddha's intent: one may not abandon the giving-up of the first half because of the emptiness of the latter half, nor may one grasp the latter half as existent because of the giving-up of the first half. Here the reader should set down a measure: what is given up lies in matters; what is empty lies in suchness.

50. Form and so on up to awakening are neither benefit nor non-benefit; when the Buddha obtained awakening there was no dharma to be obtained, whether benefit or non-benefit; whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, the dharma-mark of dharmas constantly abides. The Buddha extends it further: the bodhisattva should have this thought, 「色非義、非非義，乃至識非義、非非義，檀波羅蜜乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提非義、非非義」 tr. "Form is neither benefit nor non-benefit, and so on up to consciousness is neither benefit nor non-benefit; dānapāramitā and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi are neither benefit nor non-benefit"—from the five aggregates extending to the six perfections and so on up to awakening, all dharmas are both given up. Next he brings out the proof: 「佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，無有法可得——若義、若非義」 tr. "When the Buddha obtained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, there was no dharma to be obtained—whether benefit or non-benefit"; this takes the Buddha's own realisation as proof, the same method of proof as passage 2's 「我以五眼觀，尚不得色乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "I contemplate with the five eyes, and I do not even obtain form, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Next he brings out its constancy: 「有佛、無佛，諸法法相常住，無有是義、無有非義」 tr. "Whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, the dharma-mark of dharmas constantly abides, and has no such benefit and no non-benefit"—the constant abiding of the dharma-mark does not depend on the Buddha's appearing in the world; this is the weightiest sentence, lifting the meaning of giving up both from what the Buddha sees to what dharmas are of themselves. At the end he concludes with the gate of practice: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，應離義、非義。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises prajñāpāramitā should be apart from benefit and non-benefit."

51. Why prajñāpāramitā is neither benefit nor non-benefit; the answer: all conditioned dharmas have the mark of making nothing. Subhūti asks why it is so, and the Buddha answers with only one sentence: 「一切有為法無作相，以是故，般若波羅蜜非義、非非義。」 tr. "All conditioned dharmas have the mark of making nothing; for this reason prajñāpāramitā is neither benefit nor non-benefit." This answer must be read along the head and tail of this unit: passage 2 says 「無所為、無所作，無有分別」 tr. "nothing they are done for and nothing they make, and there is no distinguishing", and here it says 「一切有為法無作相」 tr. "all conditioned dharmas have the mark of making nothing"—benefit and non-benefit are one layer of distinguishing; distinguishing is set up in dependence on making; since the mark of making does not exist, distinguishing has nothing to depend on, and so both are given up. With this the whole unit's answer becomes one with the criterion of the opening passage.

52. The worthies and sages all take the unconditioned as their benefit—how can it be said that prajñā has neither benefit nor non-benefit; the answer: they take it neither as increase nor as decrease, as the suchness of space can neither benefit nor harm beings. Subhūti further brings up a commonly accepted meaning as a difficulty: 「一切賢聖，若佛、若佛弟子，皆以無為為義」 tr. "All the worthies and sages, whether the Buddha or the Buddha's disciples, all take the unconditioned as their benefit"—this is the common teaching; why then does the Buddha say that prajñā has no benefit and no non-benefit? The Buddha's answer does not break what he cites, but only supplies what it has not exhausted: 「雖一切賢聖，若佛、若佛弟子，皆以無為為義，亦不以增、亦不以損。」 tr. "Although all the worthies and sages, whether the Buddha or the Buddha's disciples, all take the unconditioned as their benefit, they take it neither as increase nor as decrease." Taking the unconditioned as benefit is real, and yet this benefit does not add one portion to beings nor take one portion from beings. Next he brings out a simile: 「譬如虛空如，不能益眾生、不能損眾生」 tr. "It is as the suchness of space can neither benefit beings nor diminish beings", and at the end gathers it into the Dharma: 「菩薩摩訶薩般若波羅蜜無有增、無有損。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's prajñāpāramitā has no increase and no decrease." The reader should see clearly that what this simile compares is increase and decrease, not existence and non-existence—one may not turn out an annihilationist reading from 「如虛空」 tr. "like space".

53. Is it not by training in unconditioned prajñā that one obtains the omniscience of all kinds? The answer: training in this unconditioned prajñā, one shall obtain the omniscience of all kinds, because it is not by two dharmas. Subhūti asks: is it not by training in unconditioned prajñāpāramitā that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva obtains the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha affirms it completely and further sets down a phrase: 「如是！如是！須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩學是無為般若波羅蜜，當得一切種智，不以二法故。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! Subhūti! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who trains in this unconditioned prajñāpāramitā shall obtain the omniscience of all kinds, because it is not by two dharmas." The four Chinese characters 「不以二法」 tr. "not by two dharmas" are the eye of the topic of the final section. Training, one shall obtain, and the reason one can obtain does not come from two dharmas—only when the one who obtains and what is obtained are not divided into two can it be said to be accomplished.

54. Can a non-dual dharma obtain a non-dual dharma? The answer: No. Can two dharmas obtain a non-dual dharma? The answer: No. Subhūti at once asks about 「不以二法」 tr. "not by two dharmas" face by face. First he asks whether a non-dual dharma can obtain a non-dual dharma, and the Buddha answers No; then he asks whether two dharmas can obtain a non-dual dharma, and the Buddha answers No. The two questions and two answers seal off the road of obtaining completely: seeking the non-dual by the dual, the one who obtains and what is obtained are plainly there, and so it is not obtained; seeking the non-dual by the non-dual still sets up the one who obtains and what is obtained as two, and it is not obtained either. The momentum of these two questions is the same as passage 30's question of the places of abiding in four alternatives—going through every gate that can be set up and closing each one.

55. If neither by two dharmas nor by a non-dual dharma, how shall one obtain the omniscience of all kinds; the answer: nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained. Subhūti then brings out the final question: if the bodhisattva-mahāsattva does it neither by two dharmas nor by a non-dual dharma, how then shall he obtain the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha answers with six Chinese characters and one more phrase: 「無所得即是得，以是得無所得。」 tr. "Nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained." The first phrase breaks the 「得」 tr. "attaining" as something with something to be attained—what is called attaining is precisely nothing to be attained; the latter phrase establishes that the 「得」 tr. "attaining" is not empty—precisely by this attaining of nothing to be attained, one attains nothing to be attained. The whole unit, from passage 2's setting up of the criterion 「有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing", through the self-description 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere", the simile of the conjured person, the answer 「是名相、名相相空」 tr. "these names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty", and the self-realisation 「我無所住，不受諸法，漏盡心得解脫」 tr. "I have nowhere I abide; not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted, my mind obtained liberation", comes to its end in this one sentence. The First Part opened the chapter with 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness" as its answer to 「云何當得薩婆若」 tr. "how shall one obtain sarvajñā"; the Middle Part answers with 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining" to 「云何當得一切種智」 tr. "how shall one obtain the omniscience of all kinds"—the two answers are of one intent, and the latter is more complete.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「諸法無所為、無所作」 tr. "dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make" as meaning that all differences are false and should be broken. The Buddha's answer does not break the three vehicles; it gives the three vehicles their place—「有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing". Distinguishing stands on the conditioned side and its nature is from the first empty, and so it stands without hindrance; at the end the sūtra text says plainly 「菩薩摩訶薩行菩薩道得一切種智；得一切種智已，轉法輪；轉法輪已，以三乘法度脫眾生」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the bodhisattva path and obtains the omniscience of all kinds; having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, he turns the wheel of the Dharma; having turned the wheel of the Dharma, he delivers beings by the Dharma of the three vehicles". If one reads it as saying that the three vehicles should not be set up, then the three groups, the four fruits, and the three knowledges that the Buddha himself speaks of have nowhere to be settled, which runs exactly against the 「世俗法故說有得」 tr. "by way of worldly dharmas it is said that there is something to be attained" set up again and again in this unit.

Do not read 「我以五眼觀，尚不得色乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "I contemplate with the five eyes, and I do not even obtain form, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" as the Buddha saying of himself that he has realised nothing. In the same passage the Buddha says plainly 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住若有為相、若無為相」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere—whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned", and at the end gathers it up with 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining". What the five eyes do not obtain is the form and the awakening of the ordinary person's thought 「有是色、得是色」 tr. "there is this form, and he obtains this form"; what is not obtained is that mark which is thought to exist and thought to be obtainable, not what the Buddha has realised. The two sentences must be seen together; take one sentence alone and it becomes an annihilationist view.

Do not read 「佛與化人無有差別」 tr. "the Buddha and a conjured person are without difference" as the Buddha and a conjured person being the same in all respects. The sameness the Buddha judges lies only in one meaning—「佛能有所作，化人亦能有所作」 tr. "the Buddha can do something, and a conjured person too can do something"; and the equality of their fields of merit also relies only on one meaning—「以諸法實相故」 tr. "by reason of the real mark of all dharmas". The sūtra text does not say that the conjured person has all the merits of the Buddha; what is the same lies in function and in what is relied on, not in the rest. If one extends it to there being no difference at all, then the event of the Buddha Suśānta—the conjured Buddha abiding for half a kalpa doing the work of a Buddha while the true Buddha first passed into extinction—has no way to stand.

Do not read 「一稱南無佛，乃至畢苦，其福不盡」 tr. "calling out namo Buddha once, up to the ending of suffering the merit is not exhausted" as the Buddha granting an easy merit. These three turns of words have their text above—「佛以諸法實相故，與一切眾生天及人作福田」 tr. "the Buddha, by reason of the real mark of all dharmas, is a field of merit for all beings, gods and humans"; that the merit is not exhausted depends on the field of merit faced being the real mark, not on how much effort the one who calls exerts. If one leaves the real mark and takes only the ease of a single calling out, then the one called on is still a Buddha with obtaining, as the ordinary person thinks of him—exactly the 「念有是色、得是色」 tr. "thinking that there is this form and that he obtains this form" that passage 2 of this unit breaks.

Do not read the difficulty 「佛何以故壞諸法相」 tr. "why does the Buddha ruin the marks of dharmas" as the Buddha's speaking of the Dharma having a fault. The Buddha answers very plainly: 「以名字相故示諸法，欲令眾生解；佛不壞諸法法相。」 tr. "It is by the marks of names that dharmas are shown, wishing to make beings understand; the Buddha does not ruin the dharma-marks of dharmas." Speaking and ruining are two matters: the marks of names are the instrument of showing, the dharma-marks are the substance shown. Whenever one sees the sūtra on one side saying that dharmas are nameless and signless and on the other side speaking of names and marks at length, go through it with these three phrases; there is no need to seek another reconciliation.

Do not read 「但名相中住，應行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "abiding only within names and marks, one should practise prajñāpāramitā" as telling people to leave names and marks and then practise. The words of the sūtra text are 「住」 tr. "abide" and 「不應著」 tr. "should not cling", not 「離」 tr. "leave". If one leaves names and marks, then the names of the six perfections, the paths of the three vehicles, and even the name of prajñā all have nowhere to apply, and the bodhisattva has no means to practise and no means to speak. The whole establishing of meaning in this passage lies in judging 「用」 tr. "use" and 「著」 tr. "clinging" to be two matters—the ordinary person speaks of suffering and clings to the name and pursues the mark, the buddhas and their disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark; speaking of the same suffering, ordinary persons and sages part ways, and one can see that the fault is not in the name.

Do not read 「不應以是道實際作證」 tr. "should not by these paths realise the limit of reality" as the bodhisattva fearing realisation or being unable to realise. The reason the Buddha gives is one of time—「是菩薩未淨佛土、未成就眾生，是時不應實際作證」 tr. "while this bodhisattva has not yet purified a buddha-land and has not yet brought beings to accomplishment, at this time he should not realise the limit of reality"; and his direct teaching further says 「菩薩摩訶薩亦如是，無所住，應實際作證」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva too is like this: abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality". So what is barred is realising while abiding; what is allowed is realising without abiding; the reason for not realising at this time is that it is kept back because the matters of the buddha-land and of beings are not yet done, not that realisation is impossible.

Do not read 「煩惱斷無差別」 tr. "in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference" and 「諸佛煩惱習一切悉斷，聲聞、辟支佛煩惱習不悉斷」 tr. "the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all entirely severed, while the śrāvakas' and pratyekabuddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are not all entirely severed" as contradicting each other. The Buddha has himself brought out the dividing word—「習非煩惱」 tr. "the habitual residue is not an affliction". The habitual residue does not enter what the afflictions gather in; its mark lies in the two vehicles' body and speech, 「似婬欲、瞋恚、愚癡相」 tr. "what resembles the mark of lust, hatred, and delusion", and it is not issued from real affliction; therefore when an ordinary person does the same thing he incurs sin, while the two vehicles do not incur sin. The absence of difference in severing is said of the afflictions; the all severed or not all severed of the habitual residues is said of the remaining force; the two do not collide.

Do not read 「第一義中無言說道」 tr. "within the highest meaning there is no path of speech" as meaning that, since the highest meaning cannot be spoken, all teaching may be discarded. The sūtra text follows at once with 「斷結故說後際」 tr. "it is by reason of severing the fetters that the later limit is spoken of", and the whole unit further explains the name of prajñā with six glosses and explains the meaning of deep prajñā with the eleven knowledges. That there is no path of speech means that within the highest meaning there is no name of distinction that can be placed; and the Buddha never ceased, on account of there being no path of speech, to speak to beings of the prior limit and the later limit, of the three vehicles and the four fruits. The sentence of the earlier text, 「隨世俗法有名相，實無著處」 tr. "following worldly dharmas there are names and marks, and yet there is really no place of clinging", is exactly the general rule here.

Do not read 「義與非義皆不可得」 tr. "benefit and non-benefit are both unfindable" as meaning that there is no distinction of good and evil and no choice of acting or refraining. The Buddha's answer has two halves: one half is 「貪欲非義，如是義不應行；瞋恚、愚癡非義，如是義不應行；一切邪見無義，如是義不應行」 tr. "greed is non-benefit; such a matter should not be practised; hatred and delusion are non-benefit; such a matter should not be practised; all wrong views are without benefit; such a matter should not be practised"—this is a clear taking-up and giving-up in matters; the other half is 「三毒如相，無有義、無有非義」 tr. "the mark of suchness of the three poisons has no benefit and no non-benefit"—this is the giving up of both at the mark of suchness. Taking the latter half and abandoning the first half becomes the denial of cause and effect; taking the first half and abandoning the latter half, what is given up still becomes what is clung to. Holding both halves together—only this is the leaving spoken of in 「應離義、非義」 tr. "should be apart from benefit and non-benefit".

Do not read 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining" as obtaining of itself without needing to cultivate and train. The sentence before it is 「菩薩摩訶薩學是無為般若波羅蜜，當得一切種智」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who trains in this unconditioned prajñāpāramitā shall obtain the omniscience of all kinds"—training is there, and obtaining is there too; what is broken is only the two ways of grasping, 「以二法」 tr. "by two dharmas" and 「以不二法」 tr. "by a non-dual dharma". The gate of practice of the whole unit is plain: one should practise prajñā by the dharma of the emptiness of specific marks, should abide within names and marks and not cling, should practise the meaning of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self and of the eleven knowledges, should be apart from benefit and non-benefit. If one reads it as there being nothing to practise, then all these 「應」 tr. "should" words become empty words.

Bearing on Practice

The first use is to take 「念有是色、得是色」 tr. "thinking that there is this form and that he obtains this form" as the finest of rulers. This unit's judgement of the ordinary person's clinging does not say what evil he has done; it only says he has two thoughts in his mind—thinking it exists, thinking he obtains it. One who applies effort can, on all dharmas, including the six perfections he himself cultivates, the concentrations he obtains, and the emptiness he understands, question himself by these two thoughts: at this moment am I thinking that it exists? Am I thinking that I obtain it? The sūtra says that even the bodhisattva who has the thought 「我當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，我當度眾生生死」 tr. "I shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; I shall deliver beings from birth and death" is among those rebuked, so one can see that this ruler is not set for beginners but precisely for the place where effort has taken hold.

The second use is to check one's own marks of practice by the simile of the conjured person. The sūtra lists what the conjured person practises to the very fullest—the six perfections, the meditative concentrations, the limbs of the path, the three samādhi, the emptinesses, the Buddha's merits, and so on up to turning the wheel of the Dharma and conjuring beings—and asks whether he really exists, and the answer is: No. In daily use, the practitioner—working, speaking the Dharma, upholding the precepts, sitting in meditation—can hold this simile up to himself: the function is plainly there, and there is no need to place within it a really existent doer and a thing done. What matters is that the Buddha did not teach the conjured person not to practise; he taught 「如佛所化人行」 tr. "as a person conjured by the Buddha practises"; so what this simile cures is the mind that grasps at reality, not function itself.

The third use is to employ 「用」 tr. "use" and 「著」 tr. "clinging" separately. The sūtra says 「菩薩摩訶薩但名相中住，應行般若波羅蜜，是名相中亦不應著」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, abiding only within names and marks, should practise prajñāpāramitā, and within these names and marks too he should not cling", and contrasts the ordinary person speaking of suffering with the buddhas and their disciples speaking of suffering—the same name, one clinging and one not clinging. In daily use, in all matters that involve names and words, such as making vows, setting a daily practice, keeping count, judging stages, one can carry out this twofold division: use the name to accomplish the matter, and do not give rise to a real entity upon the name. If one discards names for fear of clinging, the matter cannot be done; if through using names one grasps at reality, then the name becomes one's bond.

The fourth use is to take 「未淨佛土、未成就眾生」 tr. "not yet purified a buddha-land, not yet brought beings to accomplishment" as grounds for not taking ready-made ease. The reason the bodhisattva does not realise the limit of reality the sūtra states very concretely: what is to be done is not yet done. When one who applies effort meets a place where he could rest right there—a state appears, a fetter is suppressed for a while, a dharma yields its taste—he can question himself with this phrase: is what I vowed done? And at the same time he must remember the other sentence, 「菩薩摩訶薩亦如是，無所住，應實際作證」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva too is like this: abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality"—what is barred is resting while abiding, not that realisation should not be sought.

The fifth use is to be lenient with others and not lenient with oneself by 「習非煩惱」 tr. "the habitual residue is not an affliction". The sūtra says the two vehicles have in body and speech what resembles the mark of lust, hatred, and delusion, while an ordinary person who does these incurs sin. Seeing a rough mark in a fellow practitioner and knowing that it is not necessarily real affliction—by this one can be lenient with others; but in examining oneself one may not excuse oneself by this—the difference between the ordinary person and the two vehicles lies precisely in whether what is issued is real or not, and whether what issues from oneself is real or resembling, only oneself knows. One must also remember the last sentence, 「是三毒習，諸佛無有」 tr. "these habitual residues of the three poisons the buddhas do not have"—the habitual residues can be exhausted; there is an end to them.

The sixth use is to take the six glosses on the name as six places to set one's hand. The name of prajñā the Buddha himself explains with six meanings: the foremost crossing; the crossing the four kinds of persons go by in common; breaking up all dharmas down to atoms and not obtaining firmness and reality; suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality all entering it; no joining and no dispersing, one mark, the signless; able to give rise to all dharmas while enemies cannot sever or ruin it. These six meanings are not mere glosses of words: the third meaning is the gate of contemplative practice—analysing to the extreme and not taking firmness and reality; the fifth meaning is the gate of stopping clinging—setting up neither side in any of the six pairs; the sixth meaning is the gate of settling the mind—when meeting difficulty, not asking how great or small its power is, but only asking whether it is findable or unfindable within prajñā. The three gates are to be taken up according to occasion, and all have ready-made text to rely on.

The seventh use is to string sitting on the cushion and rising from it together with the three Chinese characters 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere". The three key phrases of this unit all return to these three characters: the Buddha's self-description, 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住若有為相、若無為相」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere—whether in the mark of the conditioned or in the mark of the unconditioned"; Subhūti's self-realisation, 「我無所住，不受諸法，漏盡心得解脫」 tr. "I have nowhere I abide; not receiving any dharma, with the outflows exhausted, my mind obtained liberation"; the Buddha's conclusion of the bodhisattva's dharma, 「無所住，應實際作證」 tr. "abiding nowhere, he should realise the limit of reality". The three places belong respectively to three kinds of persons—the Buddha, the two vehicles, the bodhisattva—and all bring out this phrase, so one can know it is not the dharma of a single stage. The practitioner, in every circumstance, can ask just one question: have I abided and clung here? Abiding is receiving, and receiving is not obtaining the exhaustion of the outflows—Subhūti's answer has already made clear the sequence in this.

Further Resonances

The line along which the Middle Part carries on from the First Part pushes the meaning of the three wisdoms from the gate of practice of ‘how does one practise, how does one give rise to, how does one cultivate’ on to the principle of ‘why what is practised and what is obtained do not become something to be attained’. What the First Part set up is substance, time, and method: because form is quiescent, form is empty, form is false and deceptive, form is not firm and real, one should practise prajñā; because it arises like space, one should give rise to prajñā; because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas, one should cultivate prajñā; from the first arousing of intent up to sitting at the seat of awakening, never abandoning the mind of sarvajñā and not letting any other thought get in; and at the end it gathers up with the four alternatives of cultivating and not cultivating, none of which obtains sarvajñā, while what is obtained is only 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness". The Middle Part raises its difficulty from 「諸法無所為、無所作，不應分別有三乘」 tr. "dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, and one should not distinguish that there are three vehicles"; the Buddha sets up the criterion with 「有所為、有所作中有分別」 tr. "within what has something it is done for and something it makes there is distinguishing", explains the setting up of the three groups with 「世俗法故說有得，非第一義」 tr. "by way of worldly dharmas it is said that there is something to be attained; it is not the highest meaning", describes his own realisation with 「我實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，無所住」 tr. "I really did obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and yet I abide nowhere", and goes on with the simile of the person conjured by the Buddha to make plain that function and substance do not hinder each other—the conjured person practises the six perfections and so on up to turning the wheel of the Dharma, conjures beings who are in three groups, and yet really there is nothing whatsoever; therefore the Buddha and a conjured person are without difference, making offerings to a conjured Buddha and making offerings to the Buddha are alike fields of merit by reason of the real mark of all dharmas, and so on up to calling out namo Buddha once and the merit is not exhausted. Next it turns to the section on names and marks: by the marks of names dharmas are shown and the dharma-marks are not ruined; following the worldly there are names and marks and yet there is really no place of clinging; if name clung to name, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, and so on up to the unconditioned nature should cling to the unconditioned nature; therefore one abides only within names and marks and should not cling; and the difficulty ‘for whose sake does the bodhisattva arouse the mind and undergo all kinds of toil and suffering’ is answered with 「是名相、名相相空」 tr. "these names and marks, and the mark of names and marks, are empty", and so practising the path is not in vain. Next it turns to the section on the three knowledges: sarvajñā belongs to the two vehicles, the knowledge of the kinds of paths to the bodhisattvas, the omniscience of all kinds to the buddhas; the bodhisattva knows the paths of the three vehicles fully, uses these paths to deliver beings, and does not make the realisation of the limit of reality; the four alternatives of the places of abiding are all answered No, and at the end, asking in return by way of Subhūti's own exhaustion of the outflows, the Buddha presses out 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere"; and the mark of the omniscience of all kinds is the one mark of quiescence together with the knowing everywhere of conduct and kinds, appearances, and names. The final three sections gather it up: in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference, and yet among the habitual residues there are those all severed and those not all severed; the habitual residue is not an affliction, and so it does not violate the unconditioned's being without difference; the four fruits and so on up to the Buddha are all distinguished by the unconditioned dharma, and yet this distinguishing belongs to worldly speech; within the highest meaning there is no path of speech, and within the emptiness of specific marks the prior limit and the later limit are both unfindable; the six glosses on the name of prajñāpāramitā; the meaning of deep prajñā, that one should practise the meaning of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self and of the eleven knowledges; and benefit and non-benefit both given up—because all conditioned dharmas have the mark of making nothing, and though the worthies and sages take the unconditioned as their benefit, they take it neither as increase nor as decrease. The final question: not by two dharmas and not by a non-dual dharma, how shall one obtain the omniscience of all kinds? The answer: 「無所得即是得，以是得無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained", which corresponds head to tail with the First Part's answer 「如如相」 tr. "like the mark of suchness", and is more complete. The Last Part then turns to the treatise-author's explanation, explaining this sūtra text passage by passage, beginning from 「若一切法無作、無起相，云何分別有三乘」 tr. "if all dharmas are of the mark of non-action and non-rising, how are three vehicles distinguished".

Of the ancient masters' explanations, two are worth recording for this unit. Jizang, in his Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, divides this chapter into three; his text says: 「品三：一、明三慧三慧；二、明三起；三、明般若。」 tr. "The chapter is in three: first, making clear the three wisdoms, the three wisdoms; second, making clear the three arisings; third, making clear prajñā."—this unit falls exactly on the latter half of his second division and the beginning of the third, and so his commentary divides it here into several sections. On the difficulty at the opening of this unit, Jizang marks his division and explains: 「白佛：云何分三？前者問意，既無為無作，何分別有三乘耶？」 tr. "‘Addressing the Buddha: how are the three divided?’ The intent of the question before is: since there is nothing done for and nothing made, how are there three vehicles distinguished?", and he judges the structure of the Buddha's answer: 「佛答中，初印成其問，明無為無作中無有分別三乘，有所為有所作中自分別耳。」 tr. "In the Buddha's answer, first he seals and confirms the question, making clear that within nothing done for and nothing made there is no distinguishing of three vehicles, and that within what has something done for and something made they are distinguished of themselves."—judging the first half of the Buddha's answer by the four Chinese characters 「印成其問」 tr. "seals and confirms the question" agrees exactly with what passage 2 of this unit says, ‘seals the question and sets up the criterion’. On the passage of the five eyes not seeing, Jizang first brings out where the difficulty comes from: 「我以五眼不得菩提者，此更釋凡夫生疑所以也。」 tr. "‘I with the five eyes do not obtain awakening’: this further explains why ordinary persons give rise to doubt." Next he sets up a question of his own and answers it, and his answer is in two explanations: 「今明五眼不見者，不見凡夫所見菩提」 tr. "Now it makes clear that the five eyes' not seeing is not seeing the awakening that ordinary persons see", and further 「又今見菩提而見無所見，故云不見也。」 tr. "Again, now one sees awakening and yet in seeing sees nothing, and therefore it is called not seeing."—the first explanation speaks of the object not seen, the latter speaks of the mark of the seeing; the two explanations stand side by side, not judged. On the section of the conjured person, Jizang judges it the fourth division: 「譬如他人下，第四、不住行般若也。舉化來者，釋佛無所住故得通，即明菩薩無所住故行般若也。」 tr. "From ‘It is as another person’ onward is the fourth: practising prajñā without abiding. The conjuration is brought up to explain that because the Buddha abides nowhere he obtains penetration, and this makes clear that because the bodhisattva abides nowhere he practises prajñā."—taking 「無所住」 tr. "abiding nowhere" as the thesis of this section is the same as what passages 8 and 33 of this unit hold to. His explanation of Suśānta is gathered by the four alternatives of root and trace: 「須扇多是無本有迹句，四句易明也。」 tr. "Suśānta is the alternative of having no root and having a trace; the four alternatives are easy to understand."—this judgement of root and trace is Jizang's own explanation; the sūtra text of this treatise says only that the conjured Buddha abode for half a kalpa doing the work of a Buddha and does not set up this name; recorded side by side without judgement. On the section of names and marks, Jizang judges it the fifth division: 「是諸法實相不應懷者，第五、假名行也。此如可然品隨俗語無過，佛菩薩雖知諸法無所有，隨俗假名說也。」 tr. "‘This real mark of all dharmas should not be ruined’ is the fifth: practice by provisional name. This is like the chapter on the combustible: following worldly speech is without fault; although the buddhas and bodhisattvas know that dharmas are without anything existent, they speak by provisional names, following the worldly."; his explanation of the counter-proof says: 「若著假名者，空亦應著空也。空不著空，名豈著名耶？」 tr. "If one clung to provisional names, emptiness too should cling to emptiness. Emptiness does not cling to emptiness; how then should name cling to name?"—using 「空不著空」 tr. "emptiness does not cling to emptiness" to show in reverse 「名豈著名」 tr. "how should name cling to name" is the same line of reasoning as what passage 21 of this unit explains, and the wording is more sparing. On the section of the three knowledges, Jizang marks his division: 「爾時須菩提下，第三、明三智。為二：初、明智優劣；次、明斷不明。」 tr. "From ‘At that time Subhūti’ onward is the third: making clear the three knowledges. It is in two: first, making clear the superiority and inferiority of the knowledges; next, making clear severance and not making clear."; his explanation of what the two vehicles know says: 「一切種智謂知內外者，外即六塵、內即六根，二乘知此十二入苦空無常無我也。」 tr. "‘The omniscience of all kinds’ as knowing inner and outer: the outer is the six sense-objects and the inner is the six faculties; the two vehicles know these twelve sense-fields as suffering, empty, impermanent, and without self."—explaining the sūtra text's 「內外法」 tr. "inner and outer dharmas" by the six faculties, the six sense-objects, and the twelve sense-fields is Jizang himself taking the headings of the Abhidharma to make it concrete; the sūtra text of this treatise says only 「一切名所謂內外法」 tr. "all names, that is, inner and outer dharmas" and does not bring out the names of the six faculties and the six sense-objects; recorded side by side without judgement. His explanation of the knowledge of the kinds of paths says: 「道種智是菩薩智者，菩薩以四道度眾生，謂人天乘為福樂及三乘道」 tr. "‘The knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattvas’: the bodhisattva delivers beings by four paths, namely the vehicle of humans and gods, which is for happiness and merit, and the paths of the three vehicles"—combining the vehicle of humans and gods with the three vehicles to make four paths is likewise a heading Jizang set up himself. On the section of severance, Jizang first explains why the sūtra text answers only about the severance of the two vehicles: 「第二、明斷。但明若二乘斷不明菩薩斷者，小乘中不明菩薩有斷，今依小乘中作問，故佛但答二乘斷也。」 tr. "Second, making clear severance. That it makes clear only the severance of the two vehicles and does not make clear the bodhisattva's severance is because within the Small Vehicle it is not made clear that the bodhisattva has severance; now the question is put according to the Small Vehicle, and therefore the Buddha answers only about the severance of the two vehicles."; next he judges the two layers of the unconditioned and the sages: 「此中先明無為差別，據所悟無為無異，無為即實相也。後明無為中有諸聖不同，據能悟之智也。」 tr. "Here it first makes clear the difference within the unconditioned: according to the unconditioned that is awakened to, there is no difference, and the unconditioned is precisely the real mark. Afterwards it makes clear that within the unconditioned there are the differences of the sages: according to the knowledge that can awaken."—dividing it by what is awakened to and what can awaken takes a different route from passages 36 and 37 of this unit, which divide it by the afflictions and the habitual residues, while the difficulty resolved is the same; recorded side by side without judgement. His explanation of the later limit says: 「道斷結說後際者，聖斷結盡故得無餘，無餘即後際也。」 tr. "‘The path severs the fetters, and the later limit is spoken of’: because the sage's severance of the fetters is exhausted, he obtains the without-remainder, and the without-remainder is precisely the later limit." On the section of the explanation of the name, Jizang's general division is into four: 「第三釋般若。文為四：第一明般若能彼岸故名般若波羅蜜，第二明般若功能生善滅惡無，第三明般若能成諸觀義，第四明不耶義非義兩捨明般若。」 tr. "Third, explaining prajñā. The text is in four: first, making clear that because prajñā can reach the further shore it is named prajñāpāramitā; second, making clear the power of prajñā to give rise to good and extinguish evil and non-existence; third, making clear the meaning of prajñā being able to accomplish all contemplations; fourth, making clear prajñā by the giving up of both benefit and non-benefit.", and he sets up a question of his own to make clear why this division asks about prajñā again: 「問：上已明三慧三智，今何故更問波若？答：上離波若為三慧，今合三慧為波若。又上但明波若，今釋波羅蜜，故一品具釋般若波羅蜜也。」 tr. "Question: above, the three wisdoms and the three knowledges have already been made clear; why now ask about prajñā again? Answer: above, prajñā was separated to make the three wisdoms; now the three wisdoms are joined to make prajñā. Again, above only prajñā was made clear; now pāramitā is explained, and so the one chapter explains prajñāpāramitā in full."—explaining the reason for its reappearance by separating and joining. His explanation of the foremost crossing says: 「第一度者，聲聞下度、緣覺中度、菩薩第一度也。」 tr. "The foremost crossing: the śrāvaka's is the lower crossing, the pratyekabuddha's the middle crossing, and the bodhisattva's the foremost crossing."—dividing the three vehicles into three crossings, higher, middle, and lower; the sūtra text of this treatise says only 「得第一度」 tr. "obtains the foremost crossing" and does not bring out the names of three crossings; this is Jizang's own judgement. On the section of unconditioned prajñā, Jizang says: 「無為般若者，般若非有為非無為、為無為具足」 tr. "Unconditioned prajñā: prajñā is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, and is complete as conditioned and unconditioned", and he divides prajñā into two: 「說智及智處皆名般若，實相是無為般若，觀照文字是有為般若也。」 tr. "Both knowledge and the place of knowledge are called prajñā: the real mark is unconditioned prajñā; contemplative illumination and letters are conditioned prajñā."—the headings of the three prajñā of the real mark, of contemplative illumination, and of letters are not in the sūtra text of this treatise here; they belong to the house teaching Jizang inherited; recorded without judgement.

Junzheng's book cites the sūtra text of this unit in eight places in all, each marked with a fixed citation form of the kind 「大品經三慧品云」 tr. "the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says", 「大品三慧品云」 tr. "the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger says", 「三慧品亦云」 tr. "the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ also says"; the format is consistent, and one can see that the text he relied on shares a source with the base text of this treatise, with slight differences in characters. His citation of the concluding words on the conjured person says: 「又品云：如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，如佛所化人行也。」 tr. "Further, the chapter says: ‘Thus, Subhūti! the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā just as a person conjured by the Buddha practises.’"—wholly the same as the sūtra text of this unit, except that at the end there is one more character, 「也」 tr. "(final particle)". His citation of the section on names and marks says: 「故大品經？三慧品云：凡夫著名取相，聞苦著苦相，乃至聞空、無相、無作著空、無相、無作。諸佛弟子不著名，不隨相。」 tr. "Therefore the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘The ordinary person clings to names and grasps at marks; hearing of suffering, he clings to the mark of suffering, and so on up to hearing of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, he clings to emptiness, the signless, and non-action. The buddhas' disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark.’"—the latter half, 「諸佛弟子不著名，不隨相」 tr. "the buddhas' disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark", compared with the sūtra text's 「諸佛及弟子不著名、不隨相」 tr. "the buddhas and their disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark", lacks only one character, 「及」 tr. "and"; the first half is Junzheng's summary citation of its meaning, not word for word. His citations of the section on the five eyes are in two places; one says 「問：大品經？三慧品云：佛五眼所不見，云何道佛來應之？」 tr. "Question: the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘What the Buddha's five eyes do not see’—how can one say the Buddha comes to respond to it?", and he explains its meaning himself: 「佛五眼所不見者，破眾生相」 tr. "‘What the Buddha's five eyes do not see’ breaks the mark of beings"; the other says 「又大品經？三慧品云：佛言：吾以五眼尚不見眾生，豈況菩提可得？」 tr. "Further, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘The Buddha said: I with the five eyes do not even see beings; how much less can awakening be obtained?’"—the latter has 「吾以五眼尚不見眾生」 tr. "I with the five eyes do not even see beings", while the sūtra text of this unit has 「我以五眼觀，尚不得色乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "I contemplate with the five eyes, and I do not even obtain form, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; the words 「不見眾生」 tr. "do not see beings" actually come from the sūtra's preceding sentence, 「若佛以五眼觀不見眾生生死中可度者」 tr. "if the Buddha, contemplating with the five eyes, does not see among beings in birth and death any who can be delivered"; Junzheng has combined the two sentences and cited them in summary. His citation of the three knowledges says: 「故大品經？三慧品云：一切智即是聲聞、辟支佛智。」 tr. "Therefore the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘Omniscience is precisely the knowledge of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.’"—the sūtra text has 「薩婆若是一切聲聞、辟支佛智」 tr. "sarvajñā is the knowledge of all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas"; Junzheng puts 「一切智」 tr. "omniscience" in place of 「薩婆若」 tr. "sarvajñā"—the two names are from the first the Sanskrit and the Chinese of one meaning—and the word order is also shifted. His citation of the sentence on the signless says: 「大品？三慧品云：彼若波羅蜜，無色無形，無對一相，所謂無相也。」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger says: ‘biruo pāramitā is without form, without shape, without resistance, of one mark—that is, the signless.’"—it agrees with the sūtra text's 「是般若波羅蜜無色、無形、無對，一相所謂無相」 tr. "this prajñāpāramitā is without form, without shape, without resistance; it is of one mark—that is, the signless", except that 「般」 tr. "the syllable pra- of prajñā" is written 「彼」 tr. "the syllable pi", which belongs to the variant forms of copying. His citation of the sentence on the four kinds of persons obtaining the crossing says: 「又三慧品云：諸佛、菩薩、辟支佛、阿羅漢，通是般若波羅蜜，得變彼堓。」 tr. "Further, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ says: ‘The buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and arhats, going through this prajñāpāramitā, obtain the changing of the further bank.’"—the names and order of the four kinds of persons are wholly the same as the sūtra text, but 「用是」 tr. "use this" is written 「通是」 tr. "go through this", and 「得度彼岸」 tr. "cross over to the further shore" is written 「得變彼堓」 tr. "obtain the changing of the further bank"—three characters all differ; where this comes from is not judged, and the text and its source are recorded side by side. His citation of the merit of keeping the Buddha in mind says: 「故大品經三慧品云：一、花嚴虗空中念佛，乃至畢竟，故其福不盡。」 tr. "Therefore the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says: ‘One flower adorning space while keeping the Buddha in mind, up to the ultimate, therefore his merit is not exhausted.’"—the sūtra text has 「但以一華散虛空中念佛，乃至畢苦，其福不盡」 tr. "only scattering a single flower into space while keeping the Buddha in mind, up to the ending of suffering, his merit is not exhausted"; the two places in Junzheng's citation, 「一、花嚴虗空中」 tr. "one flower adorning space" and 「乃至畢竟」 tr. "up to the ultimate", do not agree with the base text; where this comes from is likewise not judged, and the text and its source are recorded side by side.

The continuation title at the head of the fascicle of this unit is transmitted differently in the various editions; they are recorded side by side below without forcing a judgement. The base text has the title 「大智度論釋三慧品第七十之餘」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, commentary on the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, the Seventieth, continued", with the fascicle number in an interlinear note; the Song edition has 「大智度論卷八十四釋第七十品下三慧品之餘」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle eighty-four, commentary on the seventieth chapter, last part, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, continued", the Palace edition has 「大智度論卷第八十四釋第七十品下三慧品」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle the eighty-fourth, commentary on the seventieth chapter, last part, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’", and the Yuan edition and the Ming edition alike have 「大智度論卷八十四釋三慧品第七十下」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle eighty-four, commentary on the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, the Seventieth, last part"; the Shōgozō manuscript uses its own chapter numbering and has 「大智度經論卷第八十四釋第六十九品下」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, fascicle the eighty-fourth, commentary on the sixty-ninth chapter, last part", always one less than the base text, consistent with its having 「釋第六十九品上」 tr. "commentary on the sixty-ninth chapter, first part" at the chapter title of this chapter; the Ishiyama-dera manuscript has 「摩訶般若波羅蜜第六十九卷八十四」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā, the sixty-ninth, fascicle eighty-four", likewise one less, and joining the sūtra's name into the fascicle title. Besides this, within this unit there are two further collation notes that touch on the meaning and should be recorded: first, in the sūtra text 「佛何以故壞諸法相」 tr. "why does the Buddha ruin the marks of dharmas", the character 「壞」 tr. "ruin" is written 「壤」 tr. "soil" in the base text and 「壞」 tr. "ruin" in the Palace edition, and the reader-facing text now has 「壞」 tr. "ruin"; second, in 「如凡夫說苦，著名、隨相」 tr. "it is as when the ordinary person speaks of suffering, he clings to the name and pursues the mark", the character 「苦」 tr. "suffering" is written 「若」 tr. "if" in the base text, 「苦」 tr. "suffering" in the three editions of the Song, Yuan, and Ming, and 「名」 tr. "name" in the Palace edition, and the reader-facing text now has 「苦」 tr. "suffering"—neither of these two places is a case of a single character added or dropped; the choice between readings bears on the sense of the text, and so they are brought out and recorded separately; the collation notes they rest on are given in detail in the Apparatus layer. The other differences of single characters added or dropped among the editions are given in detail in the Apparatus layer.

The Three Wisdoms, Last Part: The Doubt about Distinguishing the Three Vehicles, the Equal Merit of the Conjured Buddha and the True Buddha, Names and Marks and the Middle Way, the Difference of the Three Knowledges, the Difference in Cutting Off and in Habitual Residues, the Meaning and the Power of Prajñā, the Knowledge of Things as They Really Are, Benefit and Non-benefit, and Nothing to Be Attained

What Is Being Asked

The First Part and the Middle Part have already set in place the questions of the whole chapter: how prajñā should be practised, how given rise to, how cultivated; the Buddha answers that it is because form is quiescent, because it arises like space, because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas; further, he presses with the four alternatives—cultivating, does one obtain sarvajñā or not; not cultivating, does one obtain it or not; cultivating and not cultivating, does one obtain it or not; neither cultivating nor not cultivating, does one obtain it or not—and answers ‘No’ to all alike, returning to 「菩薩摩訶薩得薩婆若，如如相」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva obtains sarvajñā like the mark of suchness"; like the mark of suchness is like the limit of reality, like the nature of dharmas, and so it is pushed all the way to the place of nothing to be attained. In the Middle Part the sūtra turns out still more pressing difficulties: since all dharmas have nothing they are done for and nothing they make, from where are the distinctions of the three vehicles set up? Since beings are unfindable, on what are the names of the three groups spoken? Why are the merits of the conjured Buddha and the true Buddha equal? If names and marks have no real matter, is not the teaching of the Dharma false? The difference of the three knowledges, the difference in cutting off and in habitual residues, why prajñā is named prajñā, the double giving up of benefit and non-benefit—the sūtra asks all the way to the bottom. The Last Part is the treatise-author's explanation of this whole stretch of sūtra; it belongs entirely to the treatise section, with no sūtra passage set out within it.

What the Last Part has to answer is a threefold question. The first layer is ‘how can there be distinction within what is non-existent’: since dharmas are without making and without rising, why are the three vehicles, the three groups, the three knowledges, and the three kinds of cutting off distinguished? The treatise-author's answer runs through on one thread—distinctions are all set up as worldly names and marks, established in order to break the inversions, and they do not ruin the highest meaning; the one sentence 「皆以世俗法故說，非最第一義」 tr. "all this is spoken according to worldly dharmas; it is not the very highest meaning" has already fixed its tone. The second layer is ‘not abiding, how can one obtain’: since the Buddha abides neither in the conditioned nor in the unconditioned, how does he obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi? The treatise-author takes as simile the conjured Buddha who comes and goes expounding the Dharma, takes as proof Subhūti's own 「我無所住而得漏盡」 tr. "with nowhere to abide I obtained the exhaustion of the outflows", and pushes 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining" into the knot in which the whole chapter ends. The third layer is ‘within emptiness, how can there be superior and inferior’: the merits of the true Buddha and the conjured Buddha are equal, and yet the cutting off of the two vehicles and of the Buddha is with remainder and without remainder; the knowledge of things as they really are is obtained only by the Buddha, and yet the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas also have the knowledge of things as they really are—superior and inferior are plainly there, and yet the real mark is without difference; the treatise-author divides their bounds with two similes, the sharpness and bluntness of a knife and the first and later lamps. Beneath the three layers of question and answer there is further hidden a single thread running through: wherever there is distinction, one may not cling to it, and yet not clinging does not obstruct the use of distinction—this is precisely why the three wisdoms set up in the First Part are wisdom.

Passage by Passage

1. The opening stroke of the explanation—the doubt about distinguishing the three vehicles. The treatise-author carries on from the preceding sūtra and opens the explanation. Subhūti asks the World-Honored One again: 「若一切法無作、無起相，云何分別有三乘？」 tr. "If all dharmas are of the mark of non-action and non-rising, why are the three vehicles distinguished?" This question comes directly on from the meaning at the end of the sūtra in the Middle Part: non-action and non-rising are the utmost talk of the gate of emptiness, the three vehicles are the real matter of the gate of transforming beings; the two press on each other, and the doubt arises right from here. The Buddha 「可其意，更說因緣」 tr. "approved his intent and went on to state the causes and conditions"—first approving the question as fitting, then setting it out for him. The reason he approves it is that this doubt is not a false doubt; it is a pass through which everyone who hears of emptiness must go.

2. Where the doubt comes from lies in clinging—with the five eyes they are still not found; a mad person without eyes wishes to find them. The treatise-author explains the causes and conditions the Buddha states: the ordinary person who has not yet obtained the path clings to the five aggregates, and also clings to 「是空、無作、無起法故生疑」 tr. "this dharma of emptiness, non-action, and non-rising, and therefore gives rise to doubt"; but Subhūti has already obtained the path, clinging neither to the five aggregates nor to emptiness, non-action, and non-rising—why does he too give rise to doubt? This one question lays bare the root of the doubt: doubt does not arise from emptiness, it arises from clinging—clinging to existence surely brings doubt, and clinging to emptiness brings doubt too. The Buddha then himself states the causes and conditions: 「我以五眼尚不得色等諸法，狂人無眼而欲得！」 tr. "I, with the five eyes, do not even find form and the other dharmas; a mad person without eyes, and yet he wishes to find them!" Even one complete in the five eyes does not see any dharma that can be found, how much less one who has no eyes and wishes to find them by force. The phrase ‘a mad person without eyes’ is extremely weighty: it does not reproach his seeking, it reproaches him for setting up the notion of something findable in the place where nothing can be found.

3. The three groups of beings—assured of rightness, assured of wrongness, unassured. Subhūti presses one layer further: 「若無法、無眾生，云何說有三聚眾生？」 tr. "If there are no dharmas and no beings, why is it said that there are three groups of beings?" The Buddha answers: 「我觀眾生一聚不可得，云何有三？」 tr. "I contemplate beings and one group is unfindable; how could there be three?" Since not even one group is findable, the setting up of the three groups is purely a response to the sickness: 「但為欲破顛倒故，分別有三：……」 tr. "It is only for the sake of wishing to break the inversions that three are distinguished: …" Below, three marks are set out—those who can break the inversions are named assured of rightness; those who definitely cannot break them are assured of wrongness; those who, obtaining the causes and conditions, can break them, and not obtaining them cannot, are named unassured. The judgement of the three groups takes ‘whether or not one can break the inversions’ as its standard, not one's station; so the judgement lies in whether the mind can or cannot, not in whether the name is or is not. The last sentence gathers it up cleanly: 「皆以世俗法故說，非最第一義。」 tr. "All this is spoken according to worldly dharmas; it is not the very highest meaning." The household register of every name of distinction lies in the worldly—this is the general rule for all the distinctions of the whole fascicle.

4. The question raised: the Buddha really abides in the highest meaning, so why does he answer ‘no’? The treatise-author sets up a question: the Buddha really obtained the path abiding within the highest meaning; why does he answer Subhūti 「不」 tr. "no"? This question comes on from the question and answer about the place of abiding in Sūtra ② of the Middle Part—Subhūti asks 「非住第一義得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶」 tr. "is it not by abiding in the highest meaning that one obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?", and the Buddha says 「不也」 tr. "No"; he asks 「住顛倒得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶」 tr. "is it by abiding in the inversions that one obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?", and the Buddha again says 「不也」 tr. "No". If the highest meaning is where the Buddha abides, why is even abiding not allowed? The question is asked with the utmost solidity, and only in the answer below does its measure show.

5. For the sake of those newly aroused in intent who cling—neither of the two places may be abided in. Answer: 「須菩提為新發意著者故問，是故佛言「不」。」 tr. "Subhūti asked for the sake of those who have newly aroused the mind and cling, and therefore the Buddha said ‘No’." Since the question was put for the sake of those who cling, the answer is set up for the breaking of clinging. Below, its principle is given: 「顛倒有法中尚不可住，何況第一義無所有中住！」 tr. "Even within the inverted existent dharmas one may not abide; how much less abide within the highest meaning, which is without anything existent!" Existent dharmas are false and deceptive and may not be abided in; the dharma without anything existent has no place to abide in—it is not that he is unwilling to abide, it is that there is no abiding to abide in. This passage is the settled foundation of the single meaning of ‘not abiding’ throughout the whole fascicle.

6. Abiding in neither of the two places, can it be that he did not obtain right awakening—he really obtained, and yet with nowhere to abide. From this Subhūti raises a doubt: 「若二處不住，將無世尊不得正覺耶？」 tr. "If one abides in neither of these two places, can it be that the World-Honored One did not obtain right awakening?" The doubt follows the principle: since there is nowhere abided in, what is obtained should also be nothing. The Buddha answers: 「實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提道，但無所住。」 tr. "I really did obtain the path of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; only, it is with nowhere to abide." Obtaining and abiding are divided into two matters—this is the vital point of the answer. He further explains the reason himself: 「有為性虛誑不實，無為性空無所有，故不可住。」 tr. "The nature of the conditioned is false and deceptive, not real; the nature of the unconditioned is empty, without anything existent; therefore neither may be abided in." Each of the two natures, by its own mark, may not be abided in—one false and deceptive, one empty and non-existent; it is not that the Buddha does not abide, it is that dharmas from the first have no mark of abiding.

7. The simile of the conjured Buddha—not abiding, and yet able to come and go expounding the Dharma. The treatise-author marks out why the Buddha states a simile here: 「此中佛欲明了是事故，說化佛譬喻：……」 tr. "Here the Buddha wishes to make this matter clear, and so states the simile of the conjured Buddha: …" The simile says: 「如化佛不住有為性、不住無為性，而能來去說法。」 tr. "Just as a conjured Buddha does not abide in the conditioned nature and does not abide in the unconditioned nature, and yet is able to come and go expounding the Dharma." The skill of the simile lies in the two not obstructing each other: the conjured Buddha has no real substance to abide in, and yet his coming and going and expounding the Dharma are plainly there; the Buddha has neither of the two natures to abide in, and yet his obtaining the path and expounding the Dharma are plainly there. For all who doubt that ‘without abiding there is no use’, this simile is precisely the remedy.

8. The question raised: how can a conjured person practise the six perfections? Question: 「化人來去說法可爾，云何能行檀波羅蜜等？」 tr. "That a conjured person comes and goes expounding the Dharma may pass; how can he practise dānapāramitā and the rest?" Coming and going and expounding the Dharma can still be said to be what appears of marks; giving and upholding the precepts need a mind that can give up and a thing that is given up—so he asks. This question pushes the simile to its utmost, precisely in order to find out the bounds of the simile.

9. It is not said that a conjured person can really practise—the eyes see what seems to be something practised. Answer: 「不言化人能實行，眾生眼見似有所行。」 tr. "It is not said that the conjured person can really practise; the eyes of beings see what seems to be something practised." One sentence draws the boundary clearly: the simile takes its single meaning of ‘not abiding and yet having use’, and does not take ‘really practising the six perfections’; the use of a simile stops at the point being compared, and to go beyond this becomes idle discourse. The treatise-author further proves it from the sūtra itself: 「是化事，如經中說，乃至「須扇多」。」 tr. "This matter of conjuring is as spoken of in the sūtra, and so on up to ‘Suśānta’." He cites the sūtra and stops at its heading, without spreading it out again—this is this treatise's constant way of citing the sūtra.

10. Making offerings to the conjured Buddha and to the true Buddha, the merit is not different. Subhūti 「意已信伏」 tr. "in his mind already believed and submitted", yet 「今猶少疑」 tr. "now still had a little doubt", and so asks: one who makes offerings to the true Buddha, even up to nirvāṇa without remainder, has merit that is still not exhausted; is it so too for the conjured Buddha? The Buddha answers: 「供養化佛、真佛，其福不異。」 tr. "Making offerings to the conjured Buddha and to the true Buddha, the merit is not different." The reason it is not different is 「佛得諸法實相故，供養，福無盡；化佛亦不離實相故」 tr. "because the Buddha has obtained the real mark of all dharmas, one who makes offerings has merit without end; because the conjured Buddha too is not apart from the real mark"—what merit relies on lies in the real mark, not in form and substance; so at the end he adds a turning phrase: 「若供養者心能不異，其福亦等。」 tr. "If the mind of the one making offerings can be without difference, the merit too is equal." If the mind differs the merit differs; if the mind does not differ the merit is equal—the field of merit is without distinction while the mind has distinction; this phrase lays the ground for the ‘because the mind is equal the merit is equal’ below.

11. The question raised: the conjured Buddha has no ten powers, so how is he equal to the true Buddha? Question: 「化佛無十力等諸功德，云何與真佛等？」 tr. "The conjured Buddha does not have the ten powers and all such merits; how can he be equal to the true Buddha?" Merits are the Buddha's real virtue; the conjured Buddha lacks them and yet his merit is said to be equal—the principle is not yet settled. What this question takes up is ‘virtue’, what the Buddha's answer takes up is ‘the real mark’; once the two layers are set apart, the meaning shows.

12. The ten powers and the rest all enter the real mark of all dharmas. Answer: 「十力等諸功德皆入諸法實相」 tr. "the ten powers and all such merits all enter into the real mark of all dharmas"—merits are not outside the real mark; below, it is shown from the reverse: 「若十力等離諸法實相，則非佛法，墮顛倒邪見。」 tr. "If the ten powers and the rest were apart from the real mark of all dharmas, they would not be the Buddha's Dharma, and would fall into inverted wrong views." This phrase is extremely strict: to speak of merits apart from the real mark is for merits to become wrong views. So although the conjured Buddha lacks the marks of the ten powers, he is not apart from the real mark, and the merit of offerings is therefore equal.

13. The question raised: why is the conjured Buddha not spoken of in drawing blood from the Buddha's body? Question: since within the true Buddha and the conjured Buddha alike there is definitely the real mark of all dharmas, why does the sūtra say 「惡心出佛身血得逆罪」 tr. "drawing blood from the Buddha's body with an evil mind incurs a heinous sin" and not speak of the conjured Buddha? This question turns over from the side of merit to the side of sin: since the merit is equal, the sin too should be equal. The sharpness of this way of asking lies precisely in turning a person's own principle back to question him.

14. The sūtra does not distinguish true and conjured—drawing blood with an evil mind incurs a heinous sin. Answer: 「經中但說「惡心出佛身血」，不辯真、化。」 tr. "The sūtra says only ‘drawing blood from the Buddha's body with an evil mind’, and does not distinguish the true from the conjured." Since the sūtra has not divided them, one may not divide them on the sūtra's behalf. Below, sin is likened to merit: 「若供養化佛得具足福者，惡心毀謗亦應得逆罪。」 tr. "If making offerings to a conjured Buddha can obtain complete merit, then slandering him with an evil mind should also incur a heinous sin." Further, he settles it on the matter itself: 「惡人定謂化佛是真而惡心出血，血則為出，便得逆罪。」 tr. "The evil person firmly holds that the conjured Buddha is the true one and with an evil mind draws his blood; the blood is then drawn, and he incurs the heinous sin." The standard of judgement lies in both matters being accomplished together, ‘the mind firmly holds that he is the true one’ and ‘the blood is then drawn’—mind and matter answering to each other, the sin is accomplished.

15. The question raised: why does the Vinaya say that killing a conjured person is not a violation? Question: if it is so, why is it said in the Vinaya 「殺化人不犯殺戒」 tr. "killing a conjured person does not violate the precept against killing"? The text of the Vinaya and the meaning of the treatise run against each other; this question presses out the difference of their fields.

16. The precepts laid down in the Vinaya do not discuss the real mark—the precepts are laid down in accordance with provisional names. Answer: 「毘尼中皆為世間事、攝眾僧故結戒，不論實相。」 tr. "In the Vinaya the precepts are all laid down for the sake of worldly matters and for holding the Saṅgha together; the real mark is not discussed." What the precepts are for lies in holding the Saṅgha together and protecting the Dharma, not in judging the real mark. So 「毘尼中有人、有眾生，逐假名而結戒，為護佛法故，不觀後世罪多少」 tr. "in the Vinaya there are persons and there are beings; the precepts are laid down in accordance with provisional names, for the sake of protecting the Buddha's Dharma, and the greater or lesser sin of later lives is not considered". One sentence lays bare the division of offices between the Vinaya and the treatise: the Vinaya is grounded in provisional names and in censure, the treatise is grounded in the real mark and the deed of mind—it is not that the Vinaya is wrong, it is that what they are grounded in is different.

17. Cases where the precept is heavy and the sin light, and the sin heavy and the precept light. The treatise-author brings up two cases to prove the meaning above: 「有後世罪重、戒中便輕，如道人鞭打殺牛羊等，罪重而戒輕。」 tr. "There are cases where the sin of later lives is heavy while under the precepts it is light: as when one who has gone forth flogs or kills cattle and sheep and the like, the sin is heavy and the precept light." The reverse case is 「讚歎女人，戒中重、後世罪輕」 tr. "praising women is heavy under the precepts, while the sin of later lives is light". The two cases, one rising and one falling, show exactly that the judgement of the Vinaya and the judgement of the retribution for sin in later lives do not from the first run on the same track. What is most worth savouring in this passage: one who keeps the precepts may not judge the weight of a sin by the weight of the precept, nor may he make light of the precept because of the weight of the sin.

18. Killing conjured cattle and sheep—one only incurs a sin of the mind for oneself. On the matter of killing a conjuration, he divides and judges: 「殺化牛羊，則眾人不嫌、不譏、不論，但自得心罪」 tr. "when conjured cattle and sheep are killed, the people do not loathe it, do not censure it, do not discuss it; one only incurs a sin of the mind for oneself"; if one kills real cattle and sheep and conjured cattle and sheep, 「心不異者，得罪等」 tr. "if the mind is not different, the sin incurred is equal". The first half speaks in terms of the world's censure, and so the precept is light; the second half speaks in terms of the deed of mind, and so the sins are equal. And the intent of establishing the precepts is 「為眾人譏嫌故為重」 tr. "it is judged heavy because of the people's censure"—the scales on which the Vinaya weighs heavy and light are the people's censure; this phrase says the worldly nature of the precepts through to the end.

19. The deed of mind is greatest—the cases of the samādhi of kindness and of cutting off the roots of goodness. The treatise-author cites the sūtra as proof: 「意業最大，非身、口業。」 tr. "The deed of mind is greatest, not the deeds of body and speech." Below, two matters prove it from both sides: 「如人大行布施不及行慈三昧；行慈三昧，眾生無所得，而自得無量福」 tr. "as when a person practises giving on a great scale, it does not equal practising the samādhi of kindness; practising the samādhi of kindness, beings obtain nothing, and yet he himself obtains immeasurable merit"—the samādhi of kindness gives beings not one thing and yet its merit is immeasurable, which shows that merit lies in the mind; 「邪見斷善根人，不惱眾生而入阿鼻地獄」 tr. "the person of wrong views who cuts off his roots of goodness does not trouble beings, and yet he enters the Avīci hell"—one who cuts off his roots of goodness has never inflicted harm on a single person and yet falls into the unremitting hell, which shows that sin too lies in the mind. With one merit and one sin settling it from both directions, he then concludes the passage above: 「是故供養化佛、真佛，以心等故，其福不異。」 tr. "Therefore, in making offerings to a conjured Buddha or to the true Buddha, because the mind is equal, the merit is not different."

20. Setting aside the conjured Buddha—keeping the Buddha in mind with a mind of kindness before an image of stone or clay. The treatise-author cites the Buddha's words and lowers it one layer further: 「置是化佛光相具足，有人見石泥像等，慈心念佛，是人乃至畢苦其福不盡。」 tr. "Set aside this conjured Buddha complete in light and marks; if someone sees an image of stone or clay and the like, and keeps the Buddha in mind with a mind of kindness, this person's merit is not exhausted, even up to the ending of suffering." The conjured Buddha still has light and marks complete, while an image of stone or clay is wholly different in form and substance; yet the one matter of keeping the Buddha in mind with a mind of kindness does not change, and the merit is not exhausted. The word ‘set aside’ is a word of yielding step by step: it does not contend with you over light and marks; it looks only at your mind.

21. Setting aside the clay image as well—flowers scattered in space, calling once namo Buddha. The Buddha further says: 「復置泥像，若有恭敬心，雖不見佛像，念佛故，以華散空中，其福亦得畢苦。」 tr. "Set aside further the image of clay; if one has a respectful mind, then although one does not see an image of the Buddha, because one keeps the Buddha in mind one scatters flowers in space, and the merit too reaches the ending of suffering." A further step back: not even an image is seen, there is only a respectful mind scattering flowers into space. 「復置散華，但一稱南無佛，是人亦得畢苦其福不盡。」 tr. "Set aside further the scattering of flowers; if one only calls out once namo Buddha, this person too reaches the ending of suffering, and his merit is not exhausted." The third step back comes down to a single calling of the name—the more simple the object, the more the merit remains inexhaustible as before. The threefold word ‘set aside’ strips what merit relies on, all the way from the marks down to the mind.

22. The question raised: why is the merit not exhausted merely by calling the name with an empty mouth? Question: 「云何但空稱佛名字，便得畢苦其福不盡？」 tr. "Why is it that merely calling on the Buddha's name with an empty mouth reaches the ending of suffering, with merit not exhausted?" This question is raised on behalf of ordinary feeling: calling the name is too easy, the reward of merit too great, and the principle seems not to match. The more urgent the question, the more plainly the answer shows the meaning of the field of merit.

23. Because the field of merit is immeasurable—giving with a soft mind, the merit too is without end. Answer: 「是人曾聞佛功德，能度人老、病、死。」 tr. "This person has formerly heard of the Buddha's merits, that he can deliver people from old age, sickness, and death." Why calling the name has power lies in there having been, within his mind, the hearing of the Buddha's merits—the name is not an empty name; beneath the name there is the virtue of delivering from old age, sickness, and death. So 「若多若少供養及稱名字，得無量福，亦至畢苦不盡」 tr. "whether the offering and the calling of the name be much or little, he obtains immeasurable merit, and it is not exhausted right up to the ending of suffering". The concluding words set up its general rule: 「是故福田無量故，雖濡心布施，其福亦無盡。」 tr. "Therefore, because the field of merit is immeasurable, even though one gives with a soft mind, the merit too is without end." The measure of merit is fixed by the field, not entirely by how thick or thin the power of the mind is; though the mind be soft and weak, since the field is immeasurable, the merit too is without end. Only when this phrase is read together with the ‘because the mind is equal the merit is equal’ above does one see that the two meanings of mind and field complete each other and do not take from each other.

24. The general conclusion: true and conjured are without difference. 「如是種種因緣譬喻故，真佛、化佛無異；於佛福田供養者，其福無量，以一切法實相無別無異故。」 tr. "Because of such causes and conditions and similes of every kind, the true Buddha and the conjured Buddha are without difference; one who makes offerings upon the field of merit that is the Buddha has merit that is immeasurable, because the real mark of all dharmas is without distinction and without difference." The conclusion of the section returns to its root in the real mark's being without distinction and without difference—all the discussions that came before, of the ten powers, the heinous sin, the Vinaya, the deed of mind, and the field of merit, serve as footing for this one sentence.

25. The Buddha distinguishes and speaks of dharmas—can it be that this ruins the marks of dharmas? The sūtra turns into the second layer of difficulty. Subhūti asks: 「若諸法實相無壞故二佛無異，今佛分別說諸法——是色，是受、想、行、識，乃至是有為、是無為法，將無壞諸法相耶？」 tr. "If, because the real mark of all dharmas is not ruined, the two Buddhas are without difference, now the Buddha distinguishes and speaks of dharmas—this is form, this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to this is the conditioned, this is the unconditioned dharma—can it be that this ruins the marks of dharmas?" The sharpness of this difficulty lies in using the principle the Buddha himself speaks to challenge the matter the Buddha himself speaks: since the real mark is not ruined, distinguishing seems to ruin it.

26. He only uses speech to make beings understand; the mind has nothing it clings to. The Buddha answers: 「佛雖種種分別說諸法，但以言說欲令眾生得解，心無所著。」 tr. "Although the Buddha distinguishes and speaks of dharmas in every way, he only uses speech wishing to make beings understand, and in his mind there is nothing clung to." The rightness or wrongness of distinguishing lies not in distinguishing itself, but in whether the speaker's mind clings or does not cling. This answer sets up the general pattern by which the whole fascicle judges language: language may be used; grasping and clinging may not.

27. Two Buddhas speaking together would need no names—the simile of the burning house as a lure. The treatise-author extends it: 「若二佛共語，不應說諸法名字。」 tr. "If two Buddhas were speaking together, they would not need to speak the names of dharmas." Names are set up for those who do not reach; between Buddha and Buddha they are of no use. 「以眾生無及佛者，欲牽引令解故，說「是善、是惡」。」 tr. "Because among beings there is none who reaches the Buddha, it is wishing to draw them on and make them understand that he says ‘this is wholesome, this is evil’." Further, he cites the burning house of the Lotus Sūtra as simile, 「以三乘引出諸子」 tr. "using the three vehicles to lead the children out". The intent of the simile lies in the word ‘lead’: the names of the three vehicles are like the three carts, the means of getting out of the burning house; once out, the carts are of no use. So he concludes: 「但以名相說諸法，不壞第一義。」 tr. "He only uses names and marks to speak of dharmas, and does not ruin the highest meaning."

28. Speaking by names and marks, is it not false—the sages speak in accordance with worldly convention. Subhūti presses again: 「雖以名相為眾生說，無有實事，將無虛妄耶？」 tr. "Although he speaks for beings by means of names and marks, there is no real matter; can it be that it is not false?" To speak without reality seems to be deception. The Buddha answers: 「聖人隨世俗言說，於中無有名相著處。」 tr. "The sages speak in accordance with worldly convention, and within it there is no place where names and marks are clung to." The falseness is accomplished in clinging, not in speaking; speaking in accordance with convention, with not one place within it that can be clung to, speaking is then not deception.

29. Ordinary persons cling to names and grasp at marks—one who clings is not named the noble truth of suffering. The treatise-author cites the causes and conditions the Buddha himself states to make it plain: 「如凡夫說苦，著名、取相；諸佛及弟子口說苦而心不著；若著，不名苦聖諦。」 tr. "As when ordinary persons speak of suffering, they cling to the name and grasp at the mark; the buddhas and their disciples speak of suffering with the mouth and the mind does not cling; if they clung, it would not be named the noble truth of suffering." Speaking the same one word ‘suffering’, the difference between the ordinary and the noble lies only in clinging and not clinging; and with that single move of ‘clinging’, the truth of suffering loses its being a noble truth. This phrase is extremely keen: the nobility of the noble truth lies not in the dharma spoken, but in the mind that speaks.

30. Within empty names and marks, how could one cling to empty names and marks? The treatise-author follows out its principle: 「苦諦即是名相等，無有定實；凡夫著者亦是名相，無有定實，云何空名相中著空名相？」 tr. "The truth of suffering is names and marks and the like, and has no fixed reality; what ordinary persons cling to is also names and marks, and has no fixed reality—how could one, within empty names and marks, cling to empty names and marks?" What is clung to and what clings are both names and marks, both without fixed reality; for two empties to cling to each other is a principle that cannot be established. Below, he exhausts it by pressing from the reverse: 「若空名相中著名相者，空亦應著空，無相亦應著無相，無作亦應著無作，乃至無為性亦應著無為性。」 tr. "If within empty names and marks one could cling to names and marks, then emptiness too should cling to emptiness, the signless too should cling to the signless, non-action too should cling to non-action, and so on up to the unconditioned nature too should cling to the unconditioned nature." Pushing on layer by layer, it shows that clinging cannot be established.

31. Names and marks too do not abide within names and marks—abiding in this prajñā of names and marks. Concluding the above, he gives the place of practice: 「是法皆如凡夫苦諦相，但有名相；名相亦不住名相中。」 tr. "These dharmas are all like the mark of the truth of suffering of ordinary persons: they have only names and marks; and names and marks too do not abide within names and marks." Since names and marks do not even abide in themselves, where is there any ground to cling to? So the bodhisattva's place of practice is here: 「菩薩入是名相等諸法門中，住是名相般若中，應觀一切法無有實。」 tr. "The bodhisattva enters into these gates of dharmas, names and marks and the like, abides within this prajñā of names and marks, and should contemplate that all dharmas are without reality." The six Chinese characters rendered here as ‘abiding, and contemplating that it is without reality’ are the gate of practice of this passage—it is not doing away with names and marks and then entering prajñā; it is, right at names and marks, contemplating that they are without reality.

32. If all dharmas have only names and marks, for what does the bodhisattva arouse the mind? Subhūti raises a difficulty again: 「若一切法但有名相，菩薩為何等故發心？」 tr. "If all dharmas have only names and marks, for what does the bodhisattva arouse the mind?" This difficulty is the most pressing and real: since names and marks are empty, the arousing of the mind is empty too; where would the great vow stand? The treatise-author notes 「如經中說」 tr. "as is said in the sūtra", showing that the text of the question is all there in the sūtra, and does not spread it out again.

33. Within names and marks, names and marks are also empty—therefore one can arouse the mind and deliver beings. The Buddha answers: 「若一切法但有名相者，名相中名相亦空，是法皆畢竟空，入如、法性、實際中；是故菩薩能發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，乃至能以三乘度眾生。」 tr. "If all dharmas have only names and marks, then the names and marks within names and marks are also empty; these dharmas are all ultimate emptiness, and enter into suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality; therefore the bodhisattva is able to arouse anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and so on up to being able to deliver beings by means of the three vehicles." This answer overturns the questioner's assumption: it is not ‘although empty, one can still arouse the mind’, it is ‘precisely because of ultimate emptiness one can arouse the mind’—because it is empty it can turn, and because it can turn there is the matter of arousing the mind and delivering beings.

34. Fixed reality is without arising and ceasing, and pure emptiness is also without arising and ceasing—neither can deliver. The treatise-author settles it between two difficulties. The first: 「若諸法有定實、非名相者，即是無生滅；無生滅故，無苦、無集、無盡、無道，云何以三乘度眾生？」 tr. "If dharmas had a fixed reality and were not names and marks, that would be without arising and ceasing; because there is no arising and ceasing, there would be no suffering, no accumulation, no exhaustion, no path—how could beings be delivered by means of the three vehicles?" With fixed reality, the four truths are not established. The second: 「若諸法但是空名相、無實者，亦無生滅；無生滅故，無苦、集、盡、道，亦云何可度？」 tr. "If dharmas were only empty names and marks, without reality, that too would be without arising and ceasing; because there is no arising and ceasing, there would be no suffering, accumulation, exhaustion, or path—and again how could they be delivered?" Taking one-sidedly an emptiness of annihilation, the four truths are not established either. Both extremes alike fall, and the middle way then shows.

35. Leaving existence and leaving non-existence, dwelling in the middle way—the bodhisattva practising the prajñā of the middle way obtains the omniscience of all kinds. He sets up the middle way squarely: 「今菩薩知一切法名相等空，則離世間顛倒；亦知名相空，亦離名相空。」 tr. "Now the bodhisattva knows that the names and marks and the like of all dharmas are empty, and so leaves the inversions of the world; he also knows that names and marks are empty, and also leaves the emptiness of names and marks." Leaving the inversions is leaving existence; leaving the emptiness of names and marks is leaving non-existence—the second ‘leaving’ is the most vital: only by not taking even emptiness is it named leaving non-existence. So 「如是離有離無、處中道，能度眾生」 tr. "thus leaving existence and leaving non-existence, and dwelling in the middle way, he is able to deliver beings". At the end the treatise-author gives the Buddha's intent: 「菩薩行是中道般若，得一切種智。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises this prajñā of the middle way and obtains the omniscience of all kinds." This sentence both concludes the section on names and marks and lays the ground for the three knowledges below.

36. Wishing to raise a difficulty, he first fixes the Buddha's words—does the World-Honored One speak of the omniscience of all kinds? The sūtra turns into the section on the three knowledges. The treatise-author points out Subhūti's intent: 「爾時，須菩提欲難故，先定佛語，乃問：「世尊說一切種智耶？」」 tr. "At that time Subhūti, because he wished to raise a difficulty, first fixed the Buddha's words, and so asked: ‘Does the World-Honored One speak of the omniscience of all kinds?’" First fixing his words and only afterwards raising the difficulty is the constant method of debate; the treatise-author marks it out specially so that the reader does not mistake this question for asking out of not knowing.

37. The Buddha says: I speak of the omniscience of all kinds. The Buddha says: 「我說一切種智。」 tr. "I speak of the omniscience of all kinds." With one word he acknowledges it himself, and the ground for the difficulty is then set up. This one question and answer is itself a point of teaching: the names of the three knowledges are spoken by the Buddha himself, not set up by force by people of later times.

38. What difference is there among the three kinds of knowledge—sarvajñā is the knowledge of the two vehicles. He asks further: 「佛常說三種智，三種智有何差別？」 tr. "The Buddha constantly speaks of three kinds of knowledge; what difference is there among the three kinds of knowledge?" The Buddha answers: 「薩婆若是聲聞、辟支佛智。」 tr. "Sarvajñā is the knowledge of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas." The treatise-author explains the reason: 「一切名內外十二入，是法，聲聞、辟支佛總相知，皆是無常、苦、空、無我等。」 tr. "‘All’ names the inner and outer twelve sense-fields; these dharmas the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas know by the general mark—that all are impermanent, suffering, empty, non-self, and so on." What ‘all’ points to is the inner and outer twelve sense-fields, and the two vehicles know these only by the general mark—sarvajñā is judged to belong to the two vehicles precisely in terms of this knowing by the general mark. Here the reader must remember: the names and meanings of the three knowledges in this treatise rest on different grounds from other places where sarvajñā is taken as the Buddha's knowledge; each should be understood according to its own text.

39. The knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattvas—the paths are of four kinds. 「道種智，是諸菩薩摩訶薩智。」 tr. "The knowledge of the kinds of paths is the knowledge of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas." The treatise-author explains the four kinds of paths: 「一者、人天中受福樂道，所謂種福德；并三乘道為四。」 tr. "The first is the path of receiving the happiness of merit among humans and gods, namely the planting of merit; together with the paths of the three vehicles, they make four." Below, he makes plain the sequence in which the bodhisattva uses the paths: 「應引導眾生著大道中；若不任入大道者，著二乘中；若不任入涅槃者，著人天福樂中，作涅槃因緣。」 tr. "He should lead beings and settle them within the great path; those who are not equal to entering the great path he settles within the two vehicles; those who are not equal to entering nirvāṇa he settles within the happiness of merit among humans and gods, as a cause and condition for nirvāṇa." Further, he points to the substance of each: 「世間福樂道，是十善、布施諸福德；三十七品是二乘道；三十七品及六波羅蜜是菩薩道。」 tr. "The worldly path of the happiness of merit is the ten wholesome paths, giving, and all such merit; the thirty-seven limbs of the path are the path of the two vehicles; the thirty-seven limbs of the path together with the six perfections are the bodhisattva path." Under the name of each of the four paths there is a real dharma; they are not names set up in vain. At the end he gives its bounds: 「菩薩以佛道自為、為人，以餘三道但為眾生是菩薩道種智。」 tr. "The bodhisattva uses the Buddha path both for himself and for others, and uses the other three paths solely for beings—this is the bodhisattva's knowledge of the kinds of paths." The Buddha path is for both self and others, the other three paths are solely for beings—the meaning of the word ‘kinds’ in the knowledge of the kinds of paths lies here: not merely knowing the path, but knowing what befits every path.

40. Why is the knowledge of the kinds of paths the bodhisattva's matter? Subhūti asks: 「何以道種智為菩薩事？」 tr. "Why is the knowledge of the kinds of paths the bodhisattva's matter?" Since the omniscience of all kinds is the Buddha's knowledge, why does the bodhisattva not take the omniscience of all kinds directly as his matter? What this question wishes to press out is the proper matter at the bodhisattva's station.

41. Fulfilling all paths and not taking realisation—only afterwards sitting at the seat of awakening does he take realisation. The Buddha answers: 「菩薩應具足一切道，以是道化眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva should fulfil all paths, and with these paths transform beings." Below, the difficult point is given: 「雖出入是道，未教化眾生、淨佛國土而不取證；具足是事已，然後坐道場乃取證。」 tr. "Although he goes in and out of these paths, before he has taught and transformed beings and purified buddha-lands he does not take realisation; after he has fulfilled these matters, he then sits at the seat of awakening and only then takes realisation." Going in and out of the paths and not taking realisation is where the whole of the bodhisattva's work lies—able to realise and not realising, for the sake of beings; so he concludes: 「是故，須菩提！道種智是菩薩事。」 tr. "Therefore, Subhūti! the knowledge of the kinds of paths is the bodhisattva's matter."

42. Abiding where does he realise the limit of reality—Subhūti's two faults. Subhūti asks again: 「是菩薩住何處實際作證？」 tr. "Abiding where does this bodhisattva realise the limit of reality?" The treatise-author explains the intent of the question: 「若住道中作證，是事不然，有二過故：……」 tr. "If he abides in the path and realises it, this is not so, because there are two faults: …" This is the treatise-author setting out on Subhūti's behalf the structure of his doubt, not setting up a separate view of his own.

43. The two faults in detail—a person with fetters should not have pure right knowledge; conditioned dharmas are all false and deceptive. 「一者、有結使人不應有畢竟清淨正智；若有，則與佛無異；若異者，有煩惱習氣故應有錯謬。」 tr. "First, a person who has fetters should not have the right knowledge of ultimate purity; if he had it, he would be no different from the Buddha; if he is different, then because he has the habitual residues of the afflictions, he should have error." This fault is spoken in terms of the person: to speak of ultimate purity while the fetters are not yet exhausted is to be no different from the Buddha; if one says there is a difference, then his knowledge has error and cannot be named ultimately pure. 「二者、一切有為法皆是虛誑，和合故有，假名，無有定實。」 tr. "Second, all conditioned dharmas are false and deceptive; they exist through coming together, are provisional names, and have no fixed reality." This fault is spoken in terms of dharmas: the path is conditioned, false and deceptive, a provisional name, with no place to abide. The two faults, one of person and one of dharma—abiding in it cannot be accomplished.

44. The Buddha says ‘No’—all four alternatives dismissed. 「是故佛言：「不也！」」 tr. "Therefore the Buddha says: ‘No!’" The treatise-author pushes it further: 「若住「道」中尚不得，何況「非道」！」 tr. "If even abiding in ‘the path’ he does not obtain it, how much less in ‘what is not the path’!" The path cannot even be abided in; what is not the path is still less to be discussed. 「「道非道」，亦有二過故」 tr. "‘The path and what is not the path’ also has the two faults"—taking both, one incurs both faults. 「「非道非不道」，以著心取相故，亦言「不也！」」 tr. "‘Neither the path nor not the path’—because it is grasping at marks with a clinging mind, to this too he says ‘No!’" The dismissal of the fourth alternative lies not in its meaning but in the mind—to set up the double negation is still grasping at marks, and so it too is not allowed. The dismissal of the four alternatives is here complete.

45. The path the Buddha obtained is very deep—he asks again where one abides to realise it. 「爾時，須菩提意或作是念：「佛所得道甚深，不可得底。」是故復問：「菩薩住何處實際作證？」」 tr. "At that time Subhūti perhaps had this thought in his mind: ‘The path the Buddha has obtained is very deep; its bottom cannot be reached.’ Therefore he asked again: ‘Abiding where does the bodhisattva realise the limit of reality?’" The treatise-author marks it with ‘perhaps had this thought’ as a word of conjecture and does not firmly decide what was in his mind—this is this treatise's sense of measure in recording the mental movements of others; the reader may not read it as a settled statement.

46. The Buddha asks Subhūti in return. 「佛反問須菩提。」 tr. "The Buddha asked Subhūti in return." Not answering but asking in return is the pivot of this passage; the two questions and two answers below are all born from this one turn.

47. The question raised: why does he not answer directly but ask in return? Question: 「佛何以故不直答而反問須菩提？」 tr. "Why does the Buddha not answer directly, but asks Subhūti in return?" This question is raised on the reader's behalf: since there is a straight answer, why the roundabout way? The answer is in the next passage, and its method is precisely the single meaning of ‘not abiding’ of the whole fascicle shown in the flesh.

48. He asks in return by what Subhūti himself had realised—when you obtained the path, did you realise it abiding in the four alternatives? Answer: 「須菩提自於所得道中了了無或，貴尚佛所證故，四句戲論，如有著心不了故問；……」 tr. "Subhūti himself, within the path he had obtained, was clear and plain and without bewilderment; because he honoured and exalted what the Buddha had realised, he put the four alternatives as idle discourse, as though he asked with a clinging mind, not understanding; …" Subhūti was clear and without bewilderment about his own realisation; the reason he put the question of the four alternatives came from honouring and exalting the Buddha's realisation, not from his own being unclear. 「是故佛以須菩提所得證反問：「汝得道時住四句中得證耶？」」 tr. "Therefore the Buddha used the realisation Subhūti had obtained to ask him in return: ‘When you obtained the path, was it abiding within the four alternatives that you obtained realisation?’" He takes the questioner's own realisation as a mirror—the wonder of this way of answering lies in making the questioner see the answer within his own portion.

49. With nowhere to abide I obtained the exhaustion of the outflows—the bodhisattva too is thus. 「答言：「不也！我無所住而得漏盡。」」 tr. "He answered: ‘No! With nowhere to abide I obtained the exhaustion of the outflows.’" Subhūti answers himself, and the difficulty of the four alternatives then resolves of itself. The Buddha at once goes along with it and seals it: 「汝以無所住而心得解脫，當知菩薩摩訶薩亦如是，不住四句而證實際。」 tr. "As you, with nowhere to abide, have had your mind obtain liberation, you should know that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva too is thus: not abiding in the four alternatives, he realises the limit of reality." He takes what Subhūti himself realised as the pattern for what the bodhisattva realises—the one phrase 「是故佛反問」 tr. "this is why the Buddha asked in return" concludes why he asked in return: it is not that he did not answer; it is that he made him answer himself.

50. Among the four kinds of answer, this is named the answer by counter-question. 「復有人言：四種答中，是名反問答。」 tr. "Again, someone says: among the four kinds of answer, this is named the answer by counter-question." The treatise-author records the view of another school, which, by the four kinds of pattern for answering, judges this passage to belong to the pattern of the answer by counter-question. This entry is a record of form, not a judgement of doctrine; it is recorded alongside and does not take anything from the passage above.

51. The question raised: abiding in the vajra samādhi, how can it be said that he does not abide in the path? Question: 「須菩提住金剛三昧，心得解脫，云何言「不住道中」？」 tr. "Subhūti abides in the vajra samādhi and his mind obtains liberation; how can it be said that he ‘does not abide in the path’?" Since it says ‘abides in the vajra samādhi’, that is abiding; since it says he does not abide, before and after contradict each other. What this question presses on is the double sense of the one word ‘abide’.

52. Abiding is a name for grasping at marks—because he does not use it, he does not abide in it. Answer: 「住名取相，定有是法；……」 tr. "Abiding is a name for grasping at marks, holding that this dharma definitely exists; …" First the meaning of ‘abide’ is fixed: one who abides must grasp at marks, and one who grasps at marks must hold that this dharma is there. 「是人更求無為勝法故，不名為住有為法，為不用故，不於中住。」 tr. "This person seeks further the surpassing dharma of the unconditioned, and so he is not named as abiding in conditioned dharmas; because he does not use it, he does not abide in it." The vajra samādhi is a surpassing conditioned dharma, while that person's aim is the unconditioned; he neither takes it up nor uses it, so though he is placed within it, it is not named abiding. The ‘abide’ of the sūtra is a word of place, the ‘abide’ of the treatise-author is a word of grasping and clinging—once the double sense is divided, the contradiction resolves of itself.

53. Again, someone says—having obtained the signless dharma, there is nothing to discriminate. 「復有人言：住是名相凡夫法中，便有分別是金剛，是解脫。得無相法，則無所分別。」 tr. "Again, someone says: it is abiding within this dharma of ordinary persons, names and marks, that there is discrimination—this is the vajra, this is liberation. Having obtained the signless dharma, there is nothing to discriminate." This school explains it from the point of discrimination between subject and object: discriminating the vajra from liberation is itself a matter within names and marks; once the signless is obtained, discrimination dissolves of itself. It stands together with the explanation above; both suffice to explain ‘not abiding’.

54. The Buddha asks in return for the sake of the signless dharma—one should not raise a difficulty by means of names and marks. 「佛為無相法故，反問須菩提：「汝不應以名相故問，汝不應以名相為難。」」 tr. "For the sake of the signless dharma the Buddha asked Subhūti in return: ‘You should not ask by means of names and marks; you should not raise a difficulty by means of names and marks.’" This sentence points out one layer further the intent of the counter-question: the counter-question is not only a skill in the method of answering, it is a blocking with respect to the two Chinese characters ‘names and marks’—since the question is set up by names and marks, the answer may not repay it with names and marks; so by the counter-question he breaks the place from which the question is asked.

55. The omniscience of all kinds is the Buddha's knowledge—penetrating without obstruction within all dharmas of the three times. The treatise-author properly explains the third knowledge: 「一切種智是佛智。」 tr. "The omniscience of all kinds is the Buddha's knowledge." Its meaning is: 「一切種智名一切三世法中通達無礙，知大小、精麁，無事不知。」 tr. "The omniscience of all kinds means penetrating without obstruction within all dharmas of the three times, knowing the great and the small, the fine and the coarse, with no matter unknown." Look at it against the ‘knowing by the general mark’ of the two vehicles above: they have only the general mark, whereas this knows the great and small, fine and coarse, with no matter unknown—the superiority and inferiority of the three knowledges is judged by whether what is known is pervasive or not, not by setting up a separate substance.

56. The two marks of the omniscience of all kinds—the mark of quiescence and the mark of penetration. 「佛自說「一切種智」義，有二種相：……」 tr. "The Buddha himself states the meaning of ‘the omniscience of all kinds’: it has two kinds of marks: …" The first: 「通達諸法實相故寂滅相。」 tr. "Because it penetrates the real mark of all dharmas, it is the mark of quiescence." The simile says: 「如大海水中風不能動，以其深故波浪不起；一切種智亦如是，戲論風所不能動。」 tr. "As in the waters of the great sea the wind cannot stir it, because it is deep, and no waves rise; the omniscience of all kinds too is thus—the wind of idle discourse cannot stir it." Being deep and so unmoved is the meaning of quiescence. The second: 「一切諸法可以名相文字言說，了了通達無礙。」 tr. "All dharmas that can be spoken of by names, marks, letters, and words it penetrates clearly and plainly without obstruction." So he concludes: 「攝有、無二事故名「一切種智」。」 tr. "Because it gathers together the two matters of existence and non-existence, it is named ‘the omniscience of all kinds’." One of quiescence and one of penetration, one of non-existence and one of existence—only when both matters are gathered together is it named the omniscience of all kinds; this answers exactly to the general principle above of ‘not clinging and yet not obstructing distinction’.

57. Someone says—the ten powers and the rest together are named the omniscience of all kinds. 「有人言：十力、四無所畏、四無礙法、十八不共法，盡是智慧相，和合名為一切種智。」 tr. "Someone says: the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, and the eighteen unshared dharmas are all marks of wisdom; coming together, they are named the omniscience of all kinds." This school sets up the meaning from the coming together of the items of virtue; the treatise-author records it and adds neither approval nor rejection.

58. Again, someone says—by the vajra samādhi, in sequence, unobstructed liberation is obtained. 「復有人言：金剛三昧次第得無礙解脫故，若大小、近遠、深淺、難易，無事不知。」 tr. "Again, someone says: because by the vajra samādhi, in sequence, unobstructed liberation is obtained, whether great or small, near or far, deep or shallow, difficult or easy, there is no matter unknown." This school sets up the meaning from the sequence of realisation. The two schools above and below, one in terms of virtue and one in terms of realisation, stand side by side with the two marks the Buddha himself speaks. At the end the treatise-author gathers them with one sentence: 「如是等種種無量因緣，名一切種智。」 tr. "By such immeasurable causes and conditions of every kind, it is named the omniscience of all kinds." Keeping the various views side by side without judging is this treatise's constant method where a name has many gates of meaning.

59. Wisdom has higher, middle, and lower—is there difference in the cutting off of the afflictions? 「須菩提聞是已，問佛：「智慧故有上、中、下分別，煩惱斷復有差別不？」」 tr. "Subhūti, having heard this, asked the Buddha: ‘Because wisdom is distinguished as higher, middle, and lower, is there then also a difference in the cutting off of the afflictions?’" Since knowledge has three grades, the cutting off should have three degrees—this question comes along the line of principle, and the answer below goes beyond what one would expect.

60. At the time of cutting off there is difference, once cut off there is no difference—the sharpness and bluntness of a knife. 「佛言：「無差別。」」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘There is no difference.’" The treatise-author explains it: 「斷時有差別，斷已無差別；……」 tr. "At the time of cutting off there is a difference; once cut off there is no difference; …" The simile says: 「譬如刀有利鈍，斷時有遲速，斷已無差別。」 tr. "It is like a knife that may be sharp or blunt: at the time of cutting there is slowness or swiftness, but once cut there is no difference." The process of cutting off belongs to the conditioned and so has superior and inferior; what cutting off accomplishes belongs to the unconditioned and so has no difference. He further divides the reality of it: 「如來煩惱及習都盡；聲聞、辟支佛但煩惱盡，而習氣有餘。」 tr. "The Tathāgata's afflictions and habitual residues are all entirely exhausted; the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have only the afflictions exhausted, while the habitual residues still remain." This sentence sets up the guiding thread of the latter half of the Last Part—the division between the afflictions and the habitual residues is where the three vehicles come to be with remainder and without remainder.

61. Are the three kinds of cutting off conditioned or unconditioned—all are unconditioned. 「須菩提問佛：「世尊！三種斷，是有為、是無為？」佛答：「皆是無為。」」 tr. "Subhūti asked the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! These three kinds of cutting off—are they conditioned or unconditioned?’ The Buddha answered: ‘All are unconditioned.’" Since all are unconditioned, the principle of there being no difference grows firmer still; and yet the talk of with remainder and without remainder then seems hard to get through—the several questions below press precisely on this point.

62. Within the unconditioned dharma can a difference be found—signless and immeasurable. 「復問：「世尊！無為法中可得差別不？」佛答：「是法無相、無量，云何可得差別？」」 tr. "He asked further: ‘World-Honored One! Within the unconditioned dharma can a difference be found?’ The Buddha answered: ‘This dharma is signless and immeasurable; how could a difference be found?’" Being signless, it has no mark that can be compared; being immeasurable, it has no measure that can be weighed—the setting up of difference must rely on mark and on measure, and since both are absent, difference has no ground on which to stand.

63. Why is it said that there is remainder and no remainder—this habitual residue is not named a true affliction. 「復問：「世尊！若無差別，云何說是斷中有餘、是斷中無餘？」」 tr. "He asked further: ‘World-Honored One! If there is no difference, why is it said that in this cutting off there is a remainder and in that cutting off there is no remainder?’" The Buddha answers: 「須菩提！是習，不名真煩惱。」 tr. "Subhūti! This habitual residue is not named a true affliction." One sentence unties the knot: in what has a remainder, what remains is habitual residue, not true affliction; in the cutting off of true affliction, the three vehicles alike are unconditioned and alike without difference. The name of difference is placed upon the residues, not upon the cutting off.

64. The habitual residues of the two vehicles are not exhausted—the monkey's leaping, the calling of ‘little slave-girl’. The treatise-author brings up matters to give it substance: 「有人雖斷一切煩惱，身、口中亦有煩惱相出；凡人見聞是相已，則起不清淨心。」 tr. "There are those who, although they have cut off all afflictions, still show marks of affliction in body and in speech; ordinary people, having seen and heard these marks, then give rise to an impure mind." Below, two matters are brought up. The first is the arhat Madhuvāsiṣṭha, 「五百世在獼猴中，今雖得阿羅漢，猶騰跳樹木」 tr. "who for five hundred lives was among monkeys; now, although he has obtained arhatship, he still leaps and bounds among the trees"; foolish people seeing it make light of him, and the treatise-author specially distinguishes: 「是阿羅漢無煩惱心而猶有本習。」 tr. "This arhat has no mind of affliction, and yet he still has his original habits." The second is the arhat Pilindavatsa, 「五百世生婆羅門中，習輕蔑心故」 tr. "who for five hundred lives was born among brahmins, because a mind of disdain had become habitual"; although he had obtained arhatship, he still spoke to the spirit of the river Ganges, saying 「小婢！止流！」 tr. "Little slave-girl! Stop the flow!"; the god of the Ganges was angered and went to the Buddha to lay a complaint, and 「佛教懺悔，猶稱「小婢」」 tr. "the Buddha taught him to repent, and he still called her ‘little slave-girl’". Having repented and yet the habit of the mouth unchanged—this shows exactly that habitual residue is not affliction: the mind is without pride and yet the mouth brings it out of itself; these two matters are the most apt to wake one up from the error of ‘seeing marks and doubting the sage’. So he concludes: 「如是等身、口業煩惱習氣，二乘不盡。」 tr. "Such habitual residues of the afflictions in deeds of body and speech the two vehicles do not exhaust."

65. The Buddha's habitual residues are exhausted—five hundred matters of reviling, five hundred matters of praise. 「佛無如是事。」 tr. "The Buddha has no such matters." Below, a long string of matters is brought up as proof. The first: 「如一婆羅門惡口，一時以五百事罵佛，佛無慍色；婆羅門心乃歡喜，即復一時以五百善事讚歎於佛，佛亦無喜色。」 tr. "As when a brahmin, foul-mouthed, at one time reviled the Buddha with five hundred matters, and the Buddha had no look of displeasure; the brahmin's mind then became glad, and straightaway at one time he praised the Buddha with five hundred good matters, and the Buddha also had no look of joy." Blame and praise came alike from one person's mouth and the Buddha's countenance did not move, so 「當知佛煩惱習氣盡故，好、惡無異」 tr. "one should know that because the Buddha's habitual residues of the afflictions are exhausted, good and ill are no different to him".

66. Good name and evil name—Sundarī's slander. The second: 「佛初得道，實功德中出好名聲充滿十方，唯佛自知；而孫陀梨梵志女，殺身謗佛，惡名流布。佛於此二事，心無有異，亦不憂喜。」 tr. "When the Buddha first obtained the path, from his real merits a good name went forth filling the ten directions, which the Buddha alone knew of himself; and Sundarī, a woman of the brahmin ascetics, slandered the Buddha by her being killed, and an evil name spread abroad. Toward these two matters the Buddha's mind had no difference, and he neither sorrowed nor rejoiced." The good name came from real virtue, the evil name from false contrivance; one real and one false, and yet the mind was not two—this is in terms of the one pass of name.

67. The empty bowl and the offerings of the gods, horse-barley and heavenly food. The third and fourth are in terms of the pass of gain and offerings: 「入婆羅門聚落中，空鉢而出；天人種種供養。」 tr. "He entered a village of brahmins and came out with an empty bowl; gods and humans made offerings of every kind." 「又復三月食馬麥；釋提桓因恭敬，以天食供養。」 tr. "Again, for three months he ate horse-barley; Śakra Devānām Indra reverently made offerings of heavenly food." Utmost poverty and utmost offering are brought up together, and the mind neither increases nor decreases.

68. Thorns and cold wind, and the heavenly white jewel-stone. The fifth is in terms of the pass of dwelling-place: 「阿羅婆伽林中，棘刺寒風，佛在中宿；又於歡喜園中，在天白寶石上，柔濡滑澤，又敷天臥具。於此好惡事中，心無憂喜。」 tr. "In the Aluopojia forest, among thorns and a cold wind, the Buddha passed the night; again, in the Garden of Joy, he was upon the heavenly white jewel-stone, soft and smooth and glossy, and heavenly bedding was spread as well. Among these good and ill matters his mind had neither sorrow nor joy." A place of suffering and a place of pleasure, the two extremes, and yet the mind neither takes nor rejects.

69. Rolling a rock with a hateful mind and bowing at the feet with a reverent mind—as one loves one's two eyes. The sixth is in terms of the pass of persons: 「提婆達瞋心以石堆佛，羅睺羅敬心合手禮佛；於此二人，其心平等，如愛兩眼。」 tr. "Devadatta with a hateful mind rolled a rock at the Buddha; Rāhula with a reverent mind joined his hands and bowed to the Buddha; toward these two persons his mind was equal, as one loves one's two eyes." Enemy and kin at their utmost, and yet equal as the two eyes—this simile is extremely intimate: the two eyes are not divided into this and that, and the Buddha's regard for enemy and kin too is not divided into this and that. The treatise-author gathers it all up: 「如是等種種干亂，無有異想；譬如真金，燒磨鍛截，其色不變。佛經此眾事，心無增減，是故可知諸佛愛恚等諸煩惱習氣都盡。」 tr. "Through such disturbances of every kind, he had no different thought; it is like true gold: burned, ground, forged, and cut, its colour does not change. The Buddha passed through these many matters and his mind neither increased nor decreased; therefore one can know that the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions, love and hatred and all the others, are entirely exhausted." Look at the simile of true gold against the simile of the knife above: the knife simile concerns the slowness or swiftness of cutting, the gold simile concerns passing through matters without changing—one in terms of that which cuts, one in terms of what is passed through.

70. Within the real mark there is no path and no nirvāṇa—why distinguish residues exhausted and not exhausted? 「須菩提意：「若諸法實相中，若道、若涅槃無所有；若無所有，何以分別是須陀洹乃至辟支佛習氣未盡、佛習氣盡？」」 tr. "Subhūti's meaning: ‘If within the real mark of all dharmas, whether the path or nirvāṇa, there is nothing existent; if there is nothing existent, why is it distinguished that from the srota-āpanna up to the pratyekabuddha the habitual residues are not yet exhausted, and the Buddha's habitual residues are exhausted?’" Since the preceding passage spoke to the utmost of the difference between the residues of the Buddha and of the two vehicles, this question turns from the place where the real mark is without anything existent to challenge what that difference relies on.

71. The sages of the three vehicles all have their difference by means of the unconditioned dharma. 「佛言：「三乘聖人皆以無為法而有差別。」」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘The sages of the three vehicles all have their difference by means of the unconditioned dharma.’" The treatise-author adds a turning phrase: 「雖因無為有差別，而有為法中可得說。」 tr. "Although it is by reason of the unconditioned that there is difference, it can be spoken of within conditioned dharmas." The cause of the difference lies in the portion and measure of what is realised of the unconditioned; the speaking of the difference lies in the verbal expression of the conditioned—cause and speaking belong to two places, and the meaning is then without obstruction.

72. Wishing to fix the Buddha's words—is it really by reason of the unconditioned dharma that there is difference? 「須菩提欲定佛語，故問：「世尊！實以無為法故有差別耶？」」 tr. "Subhūti, wishing to fix the Buddha's words, therefore asked: ‘World-Honored One! Is it really by reason of the unconditioned dharma that there is difference?’" It is the same method as ‘wishing to raise a difficulty, he first fixes the Buddha's words’ above. The treatise-author marks its intent again, showing that Subhūti's questions are all raised with a purpose.

73. Worldly names and marks can be distinguished, within the foremost dharma there is no discrimination—the later limit is nirvāṇa without remainder. The Buddha answers: 「世俗法語言名相故可分別，第一法中無分別。」 tr. "By reason of the words, names, and marks of worldly dharmas, distinctions can be made; within the foremost dharma there is no discrimination." Why? 「第一義中一切語言道斷，以一切心所行斷故。」 tr. "Within the highest meaning all the ways of words are cut off, because all that the mind moves in is cut off." The way of words cut off and the place of the mind's movement extinguished, discrimination has nowhere to be applied. 「但以諸聖人結使斷故，說有後際。」 tr. "It is only because the fetters of the sages have been cut off that it is said there is a later limit." The treatise-author explains it: 「後際者，所謂無餘涅槃。」 tr. "The later limit means nirvāṇa without remainder." This explanatory phrase is extremely vital: the later limit is not the last stretch of time; it is another name for the place where the fetters are cut off and exhausted.

74. Because of the emptiness of specific marks the prior limit is unfindable, how much less the later limit. 「須菩提問：「世尊！諸法自相空故，前際不可得，何況後際！」」 tr. "Subhūti asked: ‘World-Honored One! Because of the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas, even the prior limit is unfindable, how much less the later limit!’" The treatise-author supplies its reason: 「因前際故有後際。」 tr. "It is by reason of the prior limit that there is a later limit." Since the prior limit is unfindable, the later limit, which is set up in dependence on it, has still less to rely on—this difficulty breaks it by the meaning of mutual dependence.

75. The Buddha approves his meaning—birth and old age and death are unfindable before, after, and at one time. 「佛可其意，以眾生不知諸法自相空故，說是前際、是後際；自相空諸法中，前、後際不可得。」 tr. "The Buddha approved his meaning: it is because beings do not know the emptiness of specific marks of dharmas that it is said this is the prior limit, this is the later limit; within dharmas empty of specific marks, the prior and later limits are unfindable." Below, he pushes it through the three passes of birth, old age, and death: 「若先有生，則後有老死；若離老死有生，是則不死而生，是生無因無緣」 tr. "If there is birth first, then afterwards there is old age and death; if there were birth apart from old age and death, that would be being born without dying, and this birth would be without cause and without condition"—the claim of birth first and death after becomes causeless at the point of a birth apart from death. 「若先老死後有生者，不生云何有老死？」 tr. "If there were old age and death first and birth afterwards, when there is no birth how could there be old age and death?"—the claim of death first and birth after has no old age and death to set up at the point where there is not yet birth. 「先後既不可得，一時亦不可得」 tr. "Since before and after are unfindable, at one time is also unfindable"—all three times are broken. So he concludes: 「自相空法中，無有前後際。」 tr. "Within dharmas empty of specific marks, there is no prior and later limit."

76. The bodhisattva should practise prajñā by means of the dharma of the emptiness of specific marks. 「佛言：「如是！須菩提！菩薩應以自相空法行般若，內外法乃至佛法不著故。」」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘Just so! Subhūti! The bodhisattva should practise prajñā by means of the dharma of the emptiness of specific marks, because he does not cling to inner and outer dharmas and so on up to the Buddha's dharmas.’" The meaning of the emptiness of specific marks here turns from the discussion that breaks the limits into the support of the gate of practice; and the phrase ‘and so on up to not clinging to the Buddha's dharmas’ is especially weighty: only when not clinging reaches even to the Buddha's dharmas is it named prajñā.

77. The question raised: the mark of prajñā has been spoken of constantly above, so why is it asked again now? Question: 「上來常說般若波羅蜜相，今何以更問？」 tr. "Above, the mark of prajñāpāramitā has been spoken of constantly; why is it asked again now?" The whole treatise speaks again and again of the mark of prajñā, and asking again here seems a repetition. The reason this question is set up is precisely to press out the division below between ‘asking about the mark’ and ‘asking about the meaning’.

78. Not only asking about the mark—by what meaning is it named prajñā. Answer: 「不但問相，人常說般若波羅蜜，般若波羅蜜以何義故名般若。」 tr. "It is not only the mark that is asked about; people constantly speak of prajñāpāramitā, and by what meaning is prajñāpāramitā named prajñā?" What was spoken before was the mark; what is asked now is where the name and its meaning come from—since what is asked is different, it is not a repetition. The long stretch below explaining how prajñāpāramitā gets its name is all born from this one question.

79. Reaching the further shore by the foremost crossing—the crossing by lower, middle, and higher knowledge. 「佛言：「以第一度，一切法到彼岸，名般若波羅蜜。」」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘By the foremost crossing, reaching the further shore in all dharmas, it is named prajñāpāramitā.’" The treatise-author explains the first meaning of ‘the foremost crossing’: 「聲聞人以下智度；辟支佛以中智度；菩薩以上智度，故名第一度。」 tr. "The śrāvaka crosses by lower knowledge; the pratyekabuddha crosses by middle knowledge; the bodhisattva crosses by higher knowledge; therefore it is named the foremost crossing." The three vehicles are alike named crossing and yet their knowledge is lower, middle, and higher; the bodhisattva stands at the higher, and so it is called foremost.

80. The afflictions of nine kinds, wisdom of nine kinds—crossing by the upper-upper knowledge. 「復次，煩惱有九種，上、中、下各有三品。智慧亦有九種：……」 tr. "Again, the afflictions are of nine kinds, upper, middle, and lower each having three grades. Wisdom too is of nine kinds: …" Below, he lists their grades: 「下下智慧從鈍根須陀洹來，乃至上下是第一聲聞舍利弗等；上中是大辟支佛；上上是菩薩。以上上智慧度，故名第一度。」 tr. "The lower-lower wisdom is counted from the srota-āpanna of dull faculties, and so on up to the upper-lower, which is the foremost of the śrāvakas, Śāriputra and others; the upper-middle is the great pratyekabuddha; the upper-upper is the bodhisattva. Because one crosses by the upper-upper wisdom, it is named the foremost crossing." Nine grades are matched with nine grades, and the bodhisattva alone stands at the upper-upper—this is the second meaning.

81. Knowing both the general mark and the specific marks clearly. 「聲聞、辟支佛但總相度，於別相少；菩薩一切法總相、別相皆了了知，故名第一度。」 tr. "The śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas cross only by the general mark, and of the specific marks they have little; the bodhisattva knows clearly and plainly both the general mark and the specific marks of all dharmas; therefore it is named the foremost crossing." This is the third meaning, and it answers head to tail to the judgement above of ‘the two vehicles knowing by the general mark’: knowing by the general mark is not failing to know, but it does not reach round the specific marks, and so it is not named foremost.

82. Wisdom pervading the knowable dharmas. 「復次，菩薩度時，智慧遍滿可知法中；二乘人可知法中不能遍滿。是故名第一度。」 tr. "Again, when the bodhisattva crosses, his wisdom pervades the knowable dharmas; persons of the two vehicles cannot pervade the knowable dharmas. Therefore it is named the foremost crossing." This fourth meaning is set up on the word ‘pervade’: the realm of the dharmas known is the same, while whether the knowing pervades or not differs.

83. A crossing of peace and security—the simile of the ship of the seven jewels and the raft of grass. 「復次，第一度者，大乘福德、智慧、六波羅蜜、三十七品具足滿，故安隱度。」 tr. "Again, the foremost crossing means that the merit, the wisdom, the six perfections, and the thirty-seven limbs of the path of the Great Vehicle are fulfilled and complete, and so it is a crossing of peace and security." Further, he adds the outer conditions: 「又十方諸佛、大菩薩、諸天皆來佐助，安隱得度。」 tr. "Moreover, the buddhas of the ten directions, the great bodhisattvas, and the gods all come to assist, and one crosses in peace and security." The simile says: 「如人乘七寶船，牢治行具，上有種種好食、有好導師，遇隨意好風，則為好度；若人乘草栰度恐怖，不名好度。」 tr. "As a person rides a ship of the seven jewels, with the gear for the journey made firm and ready; on it there are all kinds of good food, there is a good guide, and he meets a good wind as he would wish—then it is a good crossing; if a person crosses riding a raft of grass in terror, it is not named a good crossing." The ship has four matters complete—the vessel firm, the provisions sufficient, the guide good, the wind favourable; this fifth meaning is set up on ‘peace and security’, showing that the foremost crossing lies not only in the height of knowledge but also in the readiness of the provisions and the help of good friends.

84. The three vehicles alike cross to the further shore, nirvāṇa, and extinguish all sorrow and suffering. 「復次，佛說：「三乘人以是般若波羅蜜度到彼岸涅槃，滅一切憂苦，以是義故，名般若波羅蜜。」」 tr. "Again, the Buddha says: ‘Persons of the three vehicles, by this prajñāpāramitā, cross to the further shore, nirvāṇa, and extinguish all sorrow and suffering; by reason of this meaning it is named prajñāpāramitā.’" This sixth meaning is set up on the fruit to which one crosses: prajñā is prajñā in that it can extinguish sorrow and suffering and reach the further shore; it is not merely a name for contemplative understanding.

85. Investigated down to the atom, nothing firm and real is found—the two dharmas of mind and form broken up. 「復次，是般若波羅蜜中，一切法，內外、大小，思惟、籌量、分別、推求，乃至如微塵，不得堅實。」 tr. "Again, within this prajñāpāramitā, all dharmas, inner and outer, great and small, when reflected on, weighed, distinguished, and investigated, and so on down to the size of an atom, are not found to be firm and real." Dharmas of form, pushed to the atom, cannot be divided further; dharmas of mind, pushed to a single thought, cannot be analysed further: 「既到微塵，則不可分別；心心數法，乃至一念中，亦不可分別。」 tr. "Once one has reached the atom, it cannot be distinguished; mind and mental-factor dharmas, and so on down to within a single thought, also cannot be distinguished." So 「是般若波羅蜜中，心、色二法破壞，推求不得堅實」 tr. "within this prajñāpāramitā, the two dharmas of mind and form are broken up; investigated, they are not found to be firm and real". This meaning is set up on ‘investigated and not found’—the name prajñā is gained from the place where it searches to the end and finds nothing.

86. The further shore names exhausting the limit of all wisdom—suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality gathered into prajñā. 「復次，般若名慧，波羅蜜，到彼岸。彼岸名盡一切智慧邊。」 tr. "Again, prajñā names wisdom; pāramitā, reaching the further shore. The further shore names exhausting the limit of all wisdom." Next he explains the mark of wisdom: 「智慧名不可破壞相，不可破壞相即是如、法性、實際，以其實故不可破壞。」 tr. "Wisdom names the mark that cannot be broken up; the mark that cannot be broken up is precisely suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality, which, because they are real, cannot be broken up." So 「是三事攝入般若中故，名為般若波羅蜜」 tr. "because these three matters are gathered into prajñā, it is named prajñāpāramitā". This passage gathers the three names of suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality, which have run through the whole chapter since the First Part, under the one name of prajñā—the three names are not something separate outside prajñā; they are prajñā's mark that cannot be broken up.

87. Without joining and without dispersing, of one mark, which is to say the signless. 「復次，般若波羅蜜，無有法與法有合有散，畢竟空故。」 tr. "Again, in prajñāpāramitā there is no dharma that with another dharma is joined or dispersed, because of ultimate emptiness." Further, he cites the earlier text: 「是般若無色、無形、無對，一相，所謂無相」 tr. "this prajñā is without form, without shape, without resistance, of one mark, which is to say the signless", and notes 「是義如先說」 tr. "this meaning is as spoken of earlier". He cites it without spreading it out, showing that it is a meaning already spoken. The general conclusion in one sentence: 「如是等種種因緣，故名般若義。」 tr. "By such causes and conditions of every kind, therefore, it is named the meaning of prajñā." With the eight meanings above set side by side, the naming of prajñā is here complete.

88. The power of prajñā—it can illuminate what the sun and moon do not illuminate. 「今當說般若力，……」 tr. "Now the power of prajñā should be spoken of: …" Its power is threefold: 「般若能生一切智慧、禪定等諸法」 tr. "prajñā can give rise to all wisdom, meditative concentration, and such dharmas"—this is the power of giving rise to dharmas; 「能生一切樂說辯才；以般若力故演說一句，種種莊嚴窮劫不盡」 tr. "it can give rise to all the eloquence of delighting in speech; because of the power of prajñā, one expounds a single phrase with every kind of adornment, and though the kalpas be exhausted it is not exhausted"—this is the power of giving rise to eloquence; 「星宿日月不能照處，般若能照，能破邪見、無明黑闇故」 tr. "where the stars, the sun, and the moon cannot illuminate, prajñā can illuminate, because it can break the darkness of wrong views and ignorance"—this is the power of illuminating darkness. The sun and moon illuminate the darkness of form and cannot illuminate the darkness of the mind; prajñā illuminates the darkness of the mind—since what is illuminated is different, the sun and moon are not taken as its measure.

89. The evils cannot break it up—within prajñā they are all unfindable. 「魔若魔人、求聲聞辟支佛人、外道、惡人所不能壞。」 tr. "Māra or Māra's people, those who seek the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha, those of the outside paths, and evil persons cannot break it up." The reason they cannot break it up: 「菩薩行般若，此諸惡人於般若中皆不可得故。」 tr. "Because when the bodhisattva practises prajñā, these evil persons are all unfindable within prajñā." It is not that its power can withstand them; it is that within prajñā there is nothing of them to be found—read against the deeds of Māra spoken of in the chapters above, this phrase shows most clearly how prajñā is the ultimate protection of the person: the one who could break it up and what would be broken up are both unfindable.

90. With a single mind believing, receiving, and reciting it, the evils find no opening. 「復次，若行者一心信受、諷誦，諸惡不能得便，何況正憶念、如說行！」 tr. "Again, if the practitioner with a single mind believes and receives it and recites it, the evils find no opening, how much less when he rightly recollects it and practises as it says!" From the shallow to the deep, from the lesser to the greater: if believing, receiving, and reciting are already so, one who rightly recollects and practises as it says need not even be spoken of. So he concludes: 「如是，須菩提！菩薩應行般若義。」 tr. "Just so, Subhūti! The bodhisattva should practise the meaning of prajñā."

91. The meaning of prajñā—the four noble practices beginning with impermanence, and the ten knowledges. 「般若義者，所謂無常義，苦、空、無我義，四諦智、盡智、無生智、法智、比智、世智、知他心智、如實智義故，應行般若。」 tr. "What is called the meaning of prajñā is the meaning of impermanence; the meaning of suffering, emptiness, and non-self; the meaning of the knowledges of the four truths, the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, dharma-knowledge, subsequent knowledge, worldly knowledge, the knowledge of others' minds, and the knowledge of things as they really are—for the sake of these one should practise prajñā." The simile says: 「是般若如大海有種種寶物，或大、或小，唯一是如意寶；般若波羅蜜亦有種種諸智慧寶——無常等四聖行、十智，唯有如實智如如意寶。」 tr. "This prajñā is like the great sea, in which there are all kinds of jewels, some great and some small, and only one is the wish-fulfilling jewel; prajñāpāramitā too has all kinds of jewels of wisdom—the four noble practices beginning with impermanence, and the ten knowledges—and only the knowledge of things as they really are is like the wish-fulfilling jewel." Though the jewels of the sea are many, the wish-fulfilling jewel alone is honoured—the knowledges go together, and the knowledge of things as they really are is their eye; this simile lays the ground for the special explanation of the knowledge of things as they really are below.

92. The question raised: an earlier chapter said that practising by permanence and impermanence is not named practising prajñā. Question: 「如先品說：「若常、若無常等行，不名行般若波羅蜜。」今何以言「行無常等義故，應行般若波羅蜜」？」 tr. "As is said in an earlier chapter: ‘Practising by way of permanence or impermanence and the like is not named practising prajñāpāramitā.’ Why is it now said, ‘Because one practises the meaning of impermanence and the like, one should practise prajñāpāramitā’?" The two statements, earlier and later, are opposite; this question is right to the point.

93. Impermanence is of two kinds—idle discourse with a clinging mind, and breaking the inversion without clinging. Answer: 「我已先答，無常有二種：若著心，戲論無常，是不名行般若；若以無著心，不戲論無常，為破常倒，又不自生著心，是名行般若。」 tr. "I have already answered this earlier: impermanence is of two kinds. If with a clinging mind one makes idle discourse of impermanence, this is not named practising prajñā; if with a mind without clinging one does not make idle discourse of impermanence, and, in order to break the inversion of permanence, also does not of oneself give rise to a clinging mind, this is named practising prajñā." The same practice of impermanence is judged by clinging and not clinging—exactly the same as the judgement above of ‘the ordinary and the noble alike speaking the one word suffering’. Wherever throughout the whole treatise the reader comes upon places where earlier and later seem to contradict each other, this one word ‘clinging’ should mostly be taken as the key.

94. The question raised: the three baskets have only the ten knowledges, so why is there here the knowledge of things as they really are? Question: 「三藏中但有十智，此中何以有如實智？」 tr. "In the three baskets there are only the ten knowledges; why is there here the knowledge of things as they really are?" The number of the ten knowledges is the fixed number of the teaching of the Small Vehicle; adding now the knowledge of things as they really are goes beyond that number. This question is a difficulty of doctrinal classification.

95. The great Dharma can receive the small dharma. Answer: 「是故名大乘！大法能受小法，小不能受大。」 tr. "That is why it is named the Great Vehicle! The great Dharma can receive the small dharma; the small cannot receive the great." He does not argue about the increase or decrease of the number; he points only to the greatness or smallness of the capacity: the Great Vehicle has room for the ten knowledges, the ten knowledges have no room for the Great Vehicle. This answer is short and decisive.

96. The question raised: what mark does the knowledge of things as they really are have? Question: 「十智各各有體相，如實智有何等相？」 tr. "The ten knowledges each have their own substance and mark; what mark does the knowledge of things as they really are have?" Since it is listed as one knowledge, it should have its mark. This question presses out the proper explanation below.

97. Someone says—knowing the real mark of all dharmas is the mark of the knowledge of things as they really are. Answer: 「有人言：能知諸法實相，所謂如、法性、實際，是名如實智相。」 tr. "Someone says: being able to know the real mark of all dharmas—namely suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality—this is named the mark of the knowledge of things as they really are." The treatise-author first records another school's view, explaining it by the three names of suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality—which throws light on, and is thrown light on by, the ‘three matters gathered into prajñā’ above.

98. The Buddha says that the knowledge of things as they really are is obtained only by the buddhas. 「佛此中說：「如實智唯是諸佛所得。」」 tr. "Here the Buddha says: ‘The knowledge of things as they really are is obtained only by the buddhas.’" The treatise-author explains the reason: 「煩惱未盡者猶有無明故，不能知如實。」 tr. "Those whose afflictions are not yet exhausted still have ignorance, and so cannot know things as they really are." One layer further: 「二乘及大菩薩習未盡故，不能遍知一切法、一切種，不名如實智；……」 tr. "The two vehicles and the great bodhisattvas, because their habitual residues are not yet exhausted, cannot know pervasively all dharmas and all kinds, and theirs is not named the knowledge of things as they really are; …" At the end he sets it up squarely: 「但諸佛於一切無明盡無遺餘故，能如實知。」 tr. "Only the buddhas, because in them all ignorance is exhausted with nothing left over, can know things as they really are." The standard of judgement lies in the four Chinese characters rendered here as ‘exhausted with nothing left over’—it is not said that the two vehicles know nothing at all; it is said that what they know is not pervasive.

99. The question raised: if only the Buddha knows things as they really are, how do the two vehicles obtain nirvāṇa? Question: 「若除佛更無如實知者，二乘云何得涅槃、大菩薩得無生忍？」 tr. "If apart from the Buddha there is no other who knows things as they really are, how do the two vehicles obtain nirvāṇa, and the great bodhisattvas obtain the acceptance of non-arising?" Since they lack the knowledge of things as they really are, on what does the realisation of their fruits rely? This question is extremely vital; if it were not set out, the preceding words would amount to cutting off the realisation of the two vehicles.

100. The knowledge of things as they really are is of two kinds—the pervading and complete, and the not yet complete. Answer: 「如實智有二種：一者、遍滿具足，二者、未具足。具足者，佛；不具足者，二乘及大菩薩。」 tr. "The knowledge of things as they really are is of two kinds: the first is pervading and complete, the second is not yet complete. The complete is the Buddha's; the incomplete is that of the two vehicles and the great bodhisattvas." With one name divided into two, the difficulty resolves of itself: what is obtained only by the Buddha is the pervading and complete knowledge of things as they really are; it is not said that the two vehicles have none at all.

101. The simile of the two lamps in a dark room—one may not say that the first lamp gave no illumination. The simile says: 「譬如闇室中，為有所作故然燈，所為已辦；後來燈，其明益增。黑闇有二分：一分，初燈已除；第二分，後燈所除。第二分闇與初燈明和合；若不爾，第二燈則無所用。」 tr. "It is as in a dark room, because there is something to be done, a lamp is lit, and what was to be done is already accomplished; with the lamp that comes afterwards, the brightness increases still more. The darkness has two portions: one portion the first lamp has already removed; the second portion is what the later lamp removes. The second portion of darkness was together with the brightness of the first lamp; if it were not so, the second lamp would be of no use." The fineness of the simile lies in the sentence ‘the second portion of darkness was together with the brightness of the first lamp’: the brightness of the first lamp and the darkness not yet removed are in one room together, and so the later lamp has its use; if the first lamp had removed it all, the later lamp would be set up for nothing. So he joins it to the dharma: 「二乘及大菩薩智慧雖已破無明，佛智慧所除無明分是諸人所不能除。」 tr. "Although the wisdom of the two vehicles and the great bodhisattvas has already broken ignorance, the portion of ignorance that the Buddha's wisdom removes is what these persons cannot remove." A twofold warning follows from it: 「不得言初燈無照」 tr. "one may not say that the first lamp gave no illumination"—one may not, because it is not exhausted, say that there is no realisation; 「不得言二乘及菩薩智慧是遍如實智」 tr. "one may not say that the wisdom of the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas is the pervading knowledge of things as they really are"—nor may one, because there is realisation, say that it already pervades. At the end he concludes: 「遍如實智，是佛；但如實智，二乘及菩薩所共。」 tr. "The pervading knowledge of things as they really are is the Buddha's; the knowledge of things as they really are simply is shared by the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas." One name and yet divided in two—the two meanings of superior and inferior and of what is shared are both complete.

102. Within deep prajñā benefit and non-benefit are unfindable—how is one to practise for the sake of benefit? 「爾時，須菩提問佛：「世尊！若深般若中義、非義不可得，云何言『菩薩為深般若義故行般若』？」」 tr. "At that time Subhūti asked the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! If within deep prajñā benefit and non-benefit are unfindable, why is it said that “the bodhisattva practises prajñā for the sake of the benefit of deep prajñā”?’" The sūtra turns into the last section. This question has the same structure as the first question of the whole fascicle: how can there be distinction within what is non-existent—that one about the three vehicles, this one about benefit and non-benefit.

103. Dharmas in three divisions—benefit, non-benefit, and neither benefit nor non-benefit. The explanation of the Buddha's answer: 「貪欲等煩惱非義不應行者，諸法有三分：貪欲等諸煩惱是非義；六波羅蜜等諸善法是義；色等法，無記故，非義非非義。」 tr. "As for greed and the other afflictions being non-benefit and not to be practised: dharmas have three divisions—greed and the other afflictions are non-benefit; the six perfections and the other wholesome dharmas are benefit; form and such dharmas, because they are indeterminate, are neither benefit nor non-benefit." The judgement of the three divisions takes the wholesome, the evil, and the indeterminate as its bones—this is the common classification of the teaching, which the treatise-author borrows to lay the ground for the three poisons below.

104. From each of the three divisions arises one of the three poisons—from pleasure greed, from suffering hatred, from neither suffering nor pleasure delusion. 「若人於煩惱及行煩惱者中，生怨憎心；於六波羅蜜等諸善法及行善法者中，生愛念心；於色等無記法及行無記法者中，即生癡心。」 tr. "If a person gives rise to a mind of resentment and hatred toward the afflictions and toward those who practise the afflictions; gives rise to a mind of love toward the six perfections and the other wholesome dharmas and toward those who practise wholesome dharmas; and toward form and such indeterminate dharmas and toward those who practise indeterminate dharmas, then gives rise to a deluded mind." Each of the three divisions answers to one poison: evil dharmas raise hatred, wholesome dharmas raise love, the indeterminate raises delusion—the most worth heeding is the middle item: to give rise to love toward wholesome dharmas and toward those who practise wholesome dharmas is also among what is blocked. The treatise-author cites the sūtra as proof: 「凡人得受樂時生貪心，受苦時生瞋心，受不苦不樂時生癡心。」 tr. "When ordinary people receive pleasure, a greedy mind arises; when they receive suffering, a hating mind arises; when they receive what is neither suffering nor pleasure, a deluded mind arises." The three marks of feeling are matched with the three divisions of dharmas, and the source of the sickness is then plain.

105. Within the mark of the one suchness there is neither benefit nor non-benefit. 「是故說：「菩薩應作是念：『欲貪等非義，不應念以為非。』」如經廣說。」 tr. "Therefore it is said: ‘The bodhisattva should have this thought: “Desire, greed, and the like are non-benefit; one should not think of them as wrong.”’ As is said at length in the sūtra." Not thinking of them as wrong means that even the thought of ‘judging them to be wrong’ should not be kept—the blocking reaches its utmost here. 「此中自說因緣：「惡法、善法、無記法，一如相，無有義、非義，如相無二無分別故。」」 tr. "Here he himself states the causes and conditions: ‘Evil dharmas, wholesome dharmas, and indeterminate dharmas are of the one mark of suchness, without benefit and non-benefit, because the mark of suchness is without duality and without discrimination.’" The judgement of the three divisions here returns to the one suchness: the judgement is set up to break the sickness, and the one suchness is its original state.

106. When the Buddha obtained the path he did not see a single dharma that was benefit or non-benefit. 「復次，佛得道時，不見一法若義、若非義。」 tr. "Again, when the Buddha obtained the path, he did not see a single dharma that was benefit or was non-benefit." The Buddha's own realisation is taken as proof: at the moment of obtaining the path, the marks of benefit and non-benefit both do not appear—it is not that he does not know good and evil; it is that he does not see any benefit or non-benefit of fixed reality that can be found.

107. The real mark of all dharmas always abides, whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha. 「諸法實相，有佛無佛常住，不作義、非義。若如是知，即是義；但破分別心故，說：「義、非義不應行。」」 tr. "The real mark of all dharmas, whether there is a Buddha or there is no Buddha, always abides; it does not make benefit or non-benefit. If one knows it thus, that is benefit; it is only in order to break the discriminating mind that it is said: ‘Benefit and non-benefit should not be practised.’" This passage has two meanings together: first, the ever-abiding of the real mark does not exist or not exist according to whether a Buddha appears in the world; second, the words ‘should not be practised’ were set up from the first to break the discriminating mind, not to add a further block on the real mark. To know that it is thus is precisely the true benefit—within the blocking there is an affirming, and the reader may not see only its blocking.

108. One should practise the prajñā apart from benefit and non-benefit. 「「如是，須菩提！菩薩應行是離義非義般若波羅蜜。」」 tr. "‘Just so, Subhūti! The bodhisattva should practise this prajñāpāramitā that is apart from benefit and non-benefit.’" One sentence gathers up the passage above into a gate of practice: what is practised is the prajñā ‘apart from benefit and non-benefit’—the one word ‘apart’ is a place of practice, not a place of abandoning.

109. For what reason is prajñā neither benefit nor non-benefit—being without making and without rising, there is nothing it can make. 「須菩提復問：「何緣故般若非義非非義？」佛答：「一切法無作無起相故無所能作，云何般若波羅蜜作義以非義？」」 tr. "Subhūti asked further: ‘For what reason is prajñā neither benefit nor non-benefit?’ The Buddha answered: ‘Because all dharmas are of the mark of non-action and non-rising, there is nothing they can make; how could prajñāpāramitā make benefit or non-benefit?’" The answer fastens onto the ‘non-action and non-rising’ of the first question of the whole fascicle—head and tail hold together: there, non-action and non-rising made one doubt the division of the three vehicles; here, non-action and non-rising make plain that benefit and non-benefit are not established.

110. The sages take the unconditioned dharma as benefit, so why is it said that it cannot make it—no increase and no decrease. 「須菩提復問：「世尊！若一切諸佛及弟子皆以無為法為義，佛何以說般若波羅蜜不能作義以非義？」佛答：「一切聖人雖以無為法為義，不作義以非義，無增無損故。」」 tr. "Subhūti asked further: ‘World-Honored One! If all the buddhas and their disciples take the unconditioned dharma as benefit, why does the Buddha say that prajñāpāramitā cannot make benefit or non-benefit?’ The Buddha answered: ‘Although all the sages take the unconditioned dharma as benefit, they do not make benefit or non-benefit, because there is no increase and no decrease.’" Taking the unconditioned as benefit and yet not making benefit—‘taking as benefit’ is that toward which one returns and tends, ‘making benefit’ is adding something; the unconditioned dharma neither increases nor decreases anything for beings, and so it cannot be said to make.

111. The simile of space—a non-existent dharma, and yet the world by means of it has something it does. 「此中說譬喻：「如虛空如不能益眾生、不能損眾生，虛空無法故，無有義以非義，何況虛空如！」」 tr. "Here a simile is stated: ‘As the suchness of space cannot benefit beings and cannot harm beings—space, because it is a non-existent dharma, is without benefit or non-benefit; how much less the suchness of space!’" Space is still a non-existent dharma; the suchness of space is still less to be discussed. And the treatise-author at once turns out its use: 「虛空雖無法，一切世間因虛空故得有所作；般若波羅蜜亦如是，雖無相、無為，而因般若能行五波羅蜜等一切佛道法。」 tr. "Although space is a non-existent dharma, all the world, by reason of space, is able to have something it does; prajñāpāramitā too is thus: although it is signless and unconditioned, yet by reason of prajñā one can practise the five perfections and all the dharmas of the Buddha path." Non-existent and yet able to contain, containing and yet having use—this simile is woven on the same loom as the earlier simile of the conjured Buddha: both make plain ‘with nowhere to abide and yet having something done’. At the end he divides by the two truths to gather it up: 「以著心故，說「般若無義非義」；無著心故，說「第一實義」。以世諦故說言義，第一義中無有義。」 tr. "Because of the clinging mind it is said that ‘prajñā is without benefit and non-benefit’; because of the mind without clinging, ‘the foremost real meaning’ is spoken of. By reason of worldly truth it is said that there is benefit; within the highest meaning there is no benefit."

112. Prajñā of two kinds—the conditioned prajñā and the unconditioned prajñā. 「復次，般若有二種：一者、有為，二者、無為。學有為般若，能具足六波羅蜜，住十地中；學無為般若，滅一切煩惱習，成佛道。」 tr. "Again, prajñā is of two kinds: the first is conditioned, the second is unconditioned. Training in the conditioned prajñā, one can fulfil the six perfections and abide within the ten grounds; training in the unconditioned prajñā, one extinguishes all the afflictions and their habitual residues and accomplishes the Buddha path." One name divided in two, in the same way as the twofold division of the knowledge of things as they really are above: the conditioned accomplishes the stations of practice, the unconditioned accomplishes the ultimate fruit.

113. Training in the unconditioned prajñā one obtains omniscience—so why is it said to be without benefit? 「今須菩提問佛：「世尊！菩薩學無為般若，得一切智，云何言無義？」佛答：「雖得薩婆若，不以二法故得。」」 tr. "Now Subhūti asked the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! The bodhisattva trains in the unconditioned prajñā and obtains omniscience; why is it said to be without benefit?’ The Buddha answered: ‘Although he obtains sarvajñā, he does not obtain it by reason of two dharmas.’" The treatise-author explains ‘two dharmas’: 「分別取相者，是名二法。」 tr. "Discriminating and grasping at marks is named two dharmas." Obtaining and yet not obtaining by two dharmas—what is blocked is obtaining by grasping at marks, not obtaining itself.

114. Can the non-dual dharma obtain the non-dual dharma—No. 「復問：「不二法能得不二法耶？」佛答：「不也！」」 tr. "He asked further: ‘Can the non-dual dharma obtain the non-dual dharma?’ The Buddha answered: ‘No!’" The treatise-author explains the reason: 「不二法即是無為；無為無有得不得相，是無為法不可行故。」 tr. "The non-dual dharma is precisely the unconditioned; the unconditioned has no mark of obtaining or not obtaining, because this unconditioned dharma cannot be practised." Upon the unconditioned there is no mark of obtaining and no mark of practising either; to obtain the non-dual by the non-dual, neither the obtainer nor the obtained is established.

115. Can one obtain the non-dual dharma by two dharmas—No. 「復問：「若以不二法不得，可以二法得不二法不？」答言：「不也！」」 tr. "He asked further: ‘If one does not obtain it by the non-dual dharma, can one obtain the non-dual dharma by two dharmas?’ The answer was: ‘No!’" The explanation: 「二法虛誑不實故，云何行不實而得實法？」 tr. "Because two dharmas are false and deceptive, not real—how could one practise the unreal and obtain the real dharma?" Since the two dharmas are false and deceptive, if they are taken as what obtains, what is obtained becomes false and deceptive too. Both roads are blocked, and the question below then comes to its end.

116. If neither by duality nor by non-duality, how is one to obtain it—nothing to be attained is precisely attaining. 「復問：「世尊！若不以二、不以不二，云何當得一切種智？」佛答：「無所得即是得。」」 tr. "He asked further: ‘World-Honored One! If it is neither by duality nor by non-duality, how is one to obtain the omniscience of all kinds?’ The Buddha answered: ‘Nothing to be attained is precisely attaining.’" This is the knot in which the whole chapter ends. The dismissal of the four alternatives, not abiding in the two places, not clinging to names and marks, the double giving up of benefit and non-benefit—all that came before serves to press out this one sentence; and this sentence does not set up a separate mysterious attaining; it only moves the meaning of the word ‘attaining’ from the place of grasping at marks to the place of not grasping at marks.

117. Duality and non-duality are both nothing to be attained—practising in accord with emptiness, the signless, and non-action. At the end the treatise-author explains: 「此中二、不二，即是無分別，皆無所得。是無所得，不以有所得為行。」 tr. "The duality and non-duality here are non-discrimination, and are all nothing to be attained. This nothing to be attained is not practised by way of something to be attained." Next he blocks a doubt: since there is nothing to be attained, is practice then abandoned? 「雖行有為法得是無所得，心不取相故無所得。」 tr. "Although one practises conditioned dharmas and obtains this nothing to be attained, because the mind does not grasp at marks, it is nothing to be attained." Practice is not abandoned and yet what is obtained is nothing to be attained—how this can be so: 「與空、無相、無作合行故。」 tr. "Because one practises in accord with emptiness, the signless, and non-action." The three gates of liberation joined with practice are the real place to set one's hand to ‘practising with nothing to be attained’. The whole fascicle stops here, and the whole chapter too stops here.

Do Not Misread

Do not misread 「皆以世俗法故說，非最第一義」 tr. "all this is spoken according to worldly dharmas; it is not the very highest meaning" as saying that the three vehicles and the three groups need not be distinguished. When the treatise-author says that distinctions come from the worldly, he is saying that their household register lies in the worldly, not that they are without use; the judgement of assured of rightness, assured of wrongness, and unassured, the setting up of the three vehicles, the difference of the three knowledges, are all practical distinctions set up to break the inversions. Between abolishing distinctions and not clinging to distinctions lies precisely the boundary between the ordinary and the noble.

Do not misread 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining" as saying that there is no need to practise. In the last passage the treatise-author has already blocked this doubt in advance: 「雖行有為法得是無所得，心不取相故無所得。」 tr. "Although one practises conditioned dharmas and obtains this nothing to be attained, because the mind does not grasp at marks, it is nothing to be attained." The reason attaining is nothing to be attained lies in the mind's not grasping at marks, not in the matter's not being done; the practices of the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and the ten grounds are not reduced by a single item—what is reduced is only the mind that grasps at marks.

Do not misread the cutting off of the Buddha and of the two vehicles as saying that there is high and low upon the unconditioned dharma. The sūtra says plainly that the three kinds of cutting off 「皆是無為」 tr. "are all unconditioned", and that the unconditioned is 「無相、無量，云何可得差別」 tr. "signless and immeasurable; how could a difference be found"; the name of difference is placed upon the habitual residues, not upon the unconditioned cutting off. The sharpness or bluntness of the knife is a matter of the time of cutting; once cut there is no difference—to misread this place is to set up grades upon nirvāṇa.

Do not misread 「如實智唯是諸佛所得」 tr. "the knowledge of things as they really are is obtained only by the buddhas" as saying that the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas have no real knowledge. The treatise-author at once divides it into two kinds: the pervading and complete is the Buddha's, the not yet complete is that of the two vehicles and the great bodhisattvas; and with the two lamps in the dark room he plainly sets up a warning—「不得言初燈無照」 tr. "one may not say that the first lamp gave no illumination". One sentence blocks going too far, one sentence blocks falling short; the two warnings must be read together.

Do not misread the equal merit of offerings to the conjured Buddha and the true Buddha as saying that images are no different from the true Buddha, so that images may be slighted. The treatise-author's judgement lies in the two meanings of ‘because the mind is equal the merit is equal’ and ‘the field of merit is immeasurable’: what merit relies on is the real mark and the mind, and so an image of stone or clay, scattering flowers, and calling the name all reach the ending of suffering; and yet one who injures it with an evil mind likewise 「便得逆罪」 tr. "then incurs a heinous sin"—merit and sin alike, in both directions, are set up by mind and matter answering to each other; it is not saying that an image may be slighted.

Do not move the sentence that assigns sarvajñā to the two vehicles elsewhere and read it into other places. This treatise says plainly in this passage 「薩婆若是聲聞、辟支佛智」 tr. "sarvajñā is the knowledge of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas", and what it rests on is the knowing by the general mark of 「一切名內外十二入」 tr. "‘all’ names the inner and outer twelve sense-fields"; yet elsewhere in this chapter and in the other chapters there are also texts that take sarvajñā as the Buddha's knowledge—the name is the same while the portion and measure of what it points to differ with the text; each should be understood according to what its own text sets up, and one may not use this sentence to do away with those texts.

Do not misread 「不住四句而證實際」 tr. "not abiding in the four alternatives, he realises the limit of reality" as saying that the Buddha never obtained the path. The Buddha's own answer is perfectly plain: 「實得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提道，但無所住。」 tr. "I really did obtain the path of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; only, it is with nowhere to abide." Obtaining is real obtaining, abiding is no abiding; Subhūti's words of his own realisation, 「我無所住而得漏盡」 tr. "with nowhere to abide I obtained the exhaustion of the outflows", are precisely the living proof. To read not abiding as not obtaining is to fall into the view of annihilation that the sūtra of the First Part blocks.

Do not misread ‘apart from benefit and non-benefit’ as not distinguishing good and evil. The treatise-author first sets up the three divisions—the afflictions are non-benefit, wholesome dharmas are benefit, the indeterminate is neither benefit nor non-benefit—and further points out that giving rise to love toward wholesome dharmas is also a sickness; what is left behind is the mark of benefit and non-benefit held fixedly, not the teaching of good and evil. The last words, the one sentence 「若如是知，即是義」 tr. "if one knows it thus, that is benefit", show exactly that within the blocking there is an affirming.

Bearing on Practice

Take 「皆以世俗法故說，非最第一義」 tr. "all this is spoken according to worldly dharmas; it is not the very highest meaning" and set every name and mark in its place. The names of stages, of dharma-numbers, of grades used in practice are each a setting-up within worldly dharmas—use them without contending, practise them without holding on. Whenever calculations of high and low arise because of names and marks, first bring up this one sentence.

Take ‘clinging to emptiness also gives rise to doubt’ and examine the one-sidedness of your own effort. The treatise-author points out that the ordinary person surely gives rise to doubt by clinging to the five aggregates, and 「亦著是空、無作、無起法故生疑」 tr. "also clings to this dharma of emptiness, non-action, and non-rising, and therefore gives rise to doubt". One who hears of emptiness and thinks he has obtained it has precisely a new place of clinging; where doubt arises is often not in not yet having heard of emptiness, but in having heard of emptiness and holding on to it.

Take 「心不取相故無所得」 tr. "because the mind does not grasp at marks, it is nothing to be attained" as the gate of practice in daily use. Giving, keeping the precepts, and meditative concentration are each done as before; done, nothing is kept, no merit reckoned, no doer and done set up—this is practising with nothing to be attained. Only when practice and not grasping at marks run together at one time is it 「與空、無相、無作合行」 tr. "practising in accord with emptiness, the signless, and non-action".

Take the passage on keeping the Buddha in mind with a mind of kindness, scattering flowers, and calling the name, and settle where you yourself set your hand. With the threefold word ‘set aside’ the treatise-author has already lowered the threshold to the very lowest: not seeing an image of the Buddha and keeping the Buddha in mind with respect will do, and calling once namo Buddha will do as well. Because the field of merit is immeasurable, 「雖濡心布施，其福亦無盡」 tr. "even though one gives with a soft mind, the merit too is without end"—not to give oneself up because of the softness and weakness of one's own mind is the kindness this passage bestows on those new to the mind.

Take the two similes, the sharpness or bluntness of the knife and the first and later lamps, and measure your own portion. At the time of cutting there is slowness or swiftness, and once cut there is no difference; so do not shrink back because your own effort is slow. The illumination of the first lamp is not no illumination and yet is not yet pervading illumination; so do not, because you are in accord in a small portion, call yourself already sufficient. One simile spurs one on, one simile restrains pride.

Take the monkey's leaping and the calling of ‘little slave-girl’ and put to rest contempt toward others. To see the marks of habitual residue in someone and at once give rise to an impure mind is precisely the sickness the treatise-author brings up, 「愚人見之即生輕慢」 tr. "foolish people seeing it at once give rise to contempt". Habitual residue is not affliction, and the mark is not the same as the mind—toward the shortcomings of good friends who practise alongside you, first remember this passage.

Take the Buddha's three pairs—blame and praise, suffering and pleasure, enemy and kin—as the touchstone of your state. The five hundred matters of reviling and the five hundred matters of praise, the empty bowl and the offerings of the gods, the thorns and the jewel-stone, the thrown rock and the bowing at the feet—each is a miniature of what we meet every day. When a state comes, ask only one question: does this mind increase or decrease? 「譬如真金，燒磨鍛截，其色不變」 tr. "it is like true gold: burned, ground, forged, and cut, its colour does not change" is the mark to be hoped for.

Take 「不住四句而證實際」 tr. "not abiding in the four alternatives, he realises the limit of reality" and examine every notion of attainment. If in the course of effort the thought arises, ‘I abide in such a place, I obtain such a dharma’, shine the four alternatives on it: abiding in the path, abiding in what is not the path, abiding in both, abiding in neither—to all four alternatives the answer is No. Move the answer from ‘where one abides’ to ‘nowhere to abide’, and only then is the road not blocked.

Take the simile of the ship of the seven jewels and put your own provisions in order. The vessel firm, the provisions sufficient, the guide good, the wind favourable—these answer to the fulfilment of merit and wisdom, the cultivation of the six perfections and the thirty-seven limbs of the path, reliance on the good friend, and the assistance of the buddhas and bodhisattvas. What is called crossing in peace and security is not a crossing by luck; only when the four matters are ready is it steady.

Further Resonances

What the Last Part carries on from the Middle Part is a stretch of explanation that gathers the difficulties of the sūtra one by one back into the meaning of the treatise. The First Part set up the substance of the three wisdoms: the three questions of practising, giving rise to, and cultivating; practising because form is quiescent, giving rise because it arises like space, cultivating because one cultivates the breaking up of dharmas; and with the four alternatives it dismissed the mark of ‘obtaining sarvajñā’, returning to like the mark of suchness, like the limit of reality, like the nature of dharmas. The Middle Part turned out the doubts about the three vehicles and beings, the discussion of the conjured Buddha and the true Buddha, the difficulty of names and marks and speech, and the questions of the three knowledges and the three kinds of cutting off, the sūtra pressing all the way to the double giving up of benefit and non-benefit. The Last Part is wholly the treatise-author's explanation: with ‘clinging to emptiness also brings doubt’ he picks out the root of doubt; with not finding by the five eyes and the mad person without eyes he cuts off the seeking; with the three groups coming from breaking the inversions and all spoken according to worldly dharmas he fixes their pattern; with the conjured Buddha abiding in neither of the two natures and yet coming and going expounding the Dharma he unties the knot of ‘not abiding and yet obtaining’; with the three layers of the ten powers entering the real mark, the Vinaya following provisional names, and the deed of mind being greatest, he resolves the doubt about the equal merit of true and conjured; with the threefold word ‘set aside’—images of stone and clay, scattering flowers, calling the name—he shows the immeasurability of the field of merit; with the burning house and the lure he makes plain that distinguishing and speaking of dharmas does not ruin the highest meaning; with leaving existence and leaving non-existence and dwelling in the middle way he concludes the section on names and marks; with knowing by the general mark, the four paths, and fulfilling all paths he divides the bounds of the three knowledges; with the sharpness or bluntness of the knife he divides the time of cutting from after the cutting, with habitual residue not being true affliction he divides with remainder from without remainder, with the monkey and the little slave-girl he proves what remains of the habitual residues of the two vehicles, with blame and praise, suffering and pleasure, enemy and kin he proves that the Buddha's habitual residues are entirely exhausted; with the emptiness of specific marks he breaks the prior and later limits; with eight meanings he explains how prajñā gets its name, with three powers he shows the use of prajñā; with the wish-fulfilling jewel alone honoured he draws out the knowledge of things as they really are, with the two lamps in the dark room he divides the pervading from the not yet pervading; at the end, with the three divisions and the three poisons, the one mark of suchness, and the simile of space, he gathers up benefit and non-benefit, and returns to the one sentence 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining".

Among the explanations of the ancient masters, one school can be recorded for what this fascicle touches on. Jizang divides this chapter into three, and of the division this fascicle falls under he says: 「爾時須菩提下，第三、明三智。為二：初、明智優劣；次、明斷不明。」 tr. "From ‘At that time Subhūti’ onward is the third, making plain the three knowledges. It is in two: first, making plain the superiority and inferiority of knowledge; next, making plain whether the cutting off is clear or not." Dividing the section on the three knowledges into the two divisions of the superiority and inferiority of knowledge and whether the cutting off is clear or not, he answers to this treatise's order of first explaining the difference of the three knowledges and afterwards explaining that the three kinds of cutting off are without difference. On the difference in cutting off he says: 「佛與二乘智有利鈍故斷時有差別，斷後俱無正使故斷後無別也。」 tr. "Because the knowledge of the Buddha and of the two vehicles is sharp or blunt, at the time of cutting off there is a difference; after the cutting off, both are without the actual fetters, and so after the cutting off there is no difference." Explaining the difference at the time of cutting by sharp and blunt, and the sameness after the cutting by both being without the actual fetters, he shares exactly the bounds of this treatise's single simile of the sharpness or bluntness of the knife. He further says: 「此中先明無為差別，據所悟無為無異，無為即實相也。」 tr. "Here first the difference in the unconditioned is made plain: in terms of the unconditioned that is awakened to, there is no difference; the unconditioned is the real mark." Dividing it into two layers, that which is awakened to and that which awakens, he sheds light on this treatise's setting out that 「三乘聖人皆以無為法而有差別」 tr. "the sages of the three vehicles all have their difference by means of the unconditioned dharma" and yet 「有為法中可得說」 tr. "it can be spoken of within conditioned dharmas". On the later limit he says: 「道斷結說後際者，聖斷結盡故得無餘，無餘即後際也。」 tr. "As for saying that the fetters are cut off and speaking of the later limit: because the sages' fetters are cut off and exhausted, they obtain the without-remainder, and the without-remainder is the later limit." What it points to agrees completely with this treatise's one sentence 「後際者，所謂無餘涅槃」 tr. "the later limit means nirvāṇa without remainder". Coming to the explanation of the section on prajñā, Jizang sets up four gates of his own, and first answers this fascicle's doubt, 「上來常說般若波羅蜜相，今何以更問」 tr. "above, the mark of prajñāpāramitā has been spoken of constantly; why is it asked again now", saying: 「上離波若為三慧，今合三慧為波若。」 tr. "Above, prajñā was separated into the three wisdoms; now the three wisdoms are joined into prajñā." Explaining by separating and joining why the earlier and later questions are not a repetition, he takes a different path from this treatise's answer, ‘not only asking about the mark, but asking where its name comes from’, while the doubt dispelled is the same; they are recorded side by side without judgement. On the foremost crossing he says: 「第一度者，聲聞下度、緣覺中度、菩薩第一度也。」 tr. "As for the foremost crossing: the śrāvaka's is the lower crossing, the pratyekabuddha's the middle crossing, the bodhisattva's the foremost crossing." This agrees completely with this treatise's first meaning. Of the section on benefit and non-benefit he judges: 「義非義下，第四兩捨也。」 tr. "From ‘benefit and non-benefit’ onward is the fourth, the double giving up." Judging it as the double giving up, he answers to this treatise's words ‘apart from benefit and non-benefit’. Further, on the conditioned and unconditioned of prajñā he says: 「實相是無為般若，觀照文字是有為般若也。」 tr. "The real mark is the unconditioned prajñā; contemplative illumination and letters are the conditioned prajñā." He matches the three—the real mark, contemplative illumination, and letters—to the conditioned and the unconditioned, whereas this treatise divides only the two kinds, conditioned and unconditioned, and does not reach the heading of letters—this is Jizang's own division, differing in breadth from what this treatise sets up; both are kept, and his explanation is not used to replace this text. As for Jizang's whole division of the sections of this chapter, the choices among the divergent explanations of the various schools, and the sources of his citations, these are examined in detail in the apparatus layer.

The chapter ends here. The First Part asked about the practising, giving rise to, and cultivating of the three wisdoms, the Middle Part raised difficulties over the distinctions of the three vehicles and the three knowledges, the Last Part explains that all distinctions are worldly settings-up and returns them to nothing to be attained—though the name of the three wisdoms is set up on practising, giving rise to, and cultivating, in reality it accomplishes only one matter: with nothing to be attained in any dharma, and yet not obstructing practice. The next chapter, "The Tree of the Path", should make plain the marks of arousing the mind and cultivating practice, setting off precisely from this place of nothing to be attained.

Further Resonances

What "The Three Wisdoms" inherits, Treatise ① reports plainly in its very first sentence: 「聽者聞種種讚般若功德，得善知一切事，而貴愛是般若波羅蜜，方便欲得。」 tr. "The listeners, hearing the merits of prajñā praised in every way, and that it is able to know all matters well, prize and delight in this prajñāpāramitā and wish to obtain it by skilful means." What is called 「得善知一切事」 tr. "that it is able to know all matters well" points precisely to the preceding chapter, "The Great Skilful Means"—that chapter speaks at length of the bodhisattva knowing well the five aggregates, knowing well the twelve sense-fields and the eighteen elements, knowing well the causal condition and the sequential condition, and so on up to 「善知眾生種種善惡心」 tr. "knowing well the various good and evil minds of beings" and 「善知分別三乘」 tr. "knowing well how to distinguish the three vehicles"—all the way through it is 「善知」 tr. "knowing well"; the listeners, having heard that prajñā can make a person know all things well, then give rise to a question: from where should this prajñā be practised, from where should it be given rise to, from where should it be cultivated? This chapter arises by taking up precisely this question, and therefore at its opening it does not speak of merits, but speaks only of practising, giving rise to, and cultivating. What it opens, too, is already glimpsed in this chapter's last sentence: this chapter closes with 「無所得即是得，以是得無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining; by this attaining there is nothing to be attained," and at the opening of the next chapter, "The Tree of the Path," Subhūti at once takes up this nothing to be attained and praises its difficulty—「諸菩薩摩訶薩不得眾生，而為眾生求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是為甚難」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattvas do not find beings, and yet for the sake of beings seek anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; this is very difficult"—and takes planting a tree in space as its simile. This chapter speaks of how, within nothing to be attained, sarvajñā is attained; the next chapter, from this very place of nothing to be attained, speaks of beings being unfindable and yet seeking awakening for the sake of beings. This chapter uses the conjured person's delivering and transforming of beings to make clear that there are no real beings to be delivered; the next chapter uses the root, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruit of the planted tree to speak of its growing to completion little by little and 「以葉、華、果實益眾生」 tr. "benefiting beings with leaves, flowers, and fruit." One gathering in, one letting out: the veins of meaning join each other exactly.

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 「大智度論釋三惠品第七十」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, commentary on the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, the Seventieth"; 「惠」 tr. "wisdom, in its variant writing" is a variant form of 「慧」 tr. "wisdom," not a different name; the fascicle heading of the Song edition and the Yuan edition reads 「大智度論釋三慧品第七十上」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, commentary on the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, the Seventieth, first part," the Ming edition reads 「釋三慧品第七十之上」 tr. "commentary on the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, the Seventieth, the first part," the Palace edition reads 「大智度論釋第七十品上三慧品」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, commentary on the seventieth chapter, first part, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’," the Shōgozō manuscript reads 「釋第六十九品上」 tr. "commentary on the sixty-ninth chapter, first part," and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript reads 「摩訶般若波羅蜜品第六十九三慧品」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā, the sixty-ninth chapter, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’"—the title numbering of both the Shōgozō and Ishiyama texts differs from the base text by one step, consistent with the several preceding chapters, and this is recorded as it is. The continuation titles at the fascicle's end are the same: at the end of fascicle eighty-three, the Song edition and the Palace edition read 「大智度論釋卷第八十三第六十九品下訖七十品上」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, commentary, fascicle the eighty-third, the sixty-ninth chapter, last part, ending at the seventieth chapter, first part," the Yuan edition reads 「大智度論釋卷第八十三釋第六十九品下訖七十品上」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, commentary, fascicle the eighty-third, commentary on the sixty-ninth chapter, last part, ending at the seventieth chapter, first part," the Shōgozō manuscript reads 「大智度經論卷第八十三釋第六十八品下訖第六十九品上」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, fascicle the eighty-third, commentary on the sixty-eighth chapter, last part, ending at the sixty-ninth chapter, first part," and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript reads 「摩訶般若波羅蜜卷第八十三」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā, fascicle the eighty-third"; as for the opening title of fascicle eighty-four, the Song edition reads 「大智度論卷八十四釋第七十品下三慧品之餘」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle eighty-four, commentary on the seventieth chapter, last part, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, continued," the Palace edition reads 「大智度論卷第八十四釋第七十品下三慧品」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle the eighty-fourth, commentary on the seventieth chapter, last part, the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’," the Yuan and Ming editions read 「大智度論卷八十四釋三慧品第七十下」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, fascicle eighty-four, commentary on the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’, the Seventieth, last part," the Shōgozō manuscript reads 「大智度經論卷第八十四釋第六十九品下」 tr. "Great Wisdom-Crossing Sūtra-Treatise, fascicle the eighty-fourth, commentary on the sixty-ninth chapter, last part," and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript reads 「摩訶般若波羅蜜第六十九卷八十四」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā, the sixty-ninth, fascicle eighty-four"; and at the fascicle's end, the Shōgozō and Ishiyama texts again each attach under the fascicle title the words 「釋第六十九品下」 tr. "commentary on the sixty-ninth chapter, last part" and 「釋六十九品竟」 tr. "the commentary on the sixty-ninth chapter ends here" respectively—the attachment of fascicle boundary to chapter boundary differs from text to text, and both are kept and recorded side by side without judgement. In the transmitted text of the great sūtra that it explains, this chapter's proper title likewise reads 「三慧品第七十」 tr. "‘The Three Wisdoms’, the Seventieth," agreeing with this treatise's title, and only the Shōgozō manuscript reads 「六十九」 tr. "sixty-nine," running in the same track as the one-step difference of the Shōgozō line of the treatise's texts. Yet what most deserves attention lies not in the differences of the texts but in one matter: in the text proper of the whole chapter's two sūtra sections and two treatise sections, the two Chinese characters 「三慧」 tr. "three wisdoms" do not appear even once; only the chapter title has them—this name is a heading, not a word the sūtra and the treatise use themselves.

The ancient masters pointed this out long ago. Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, explaining this chapter, says at its very opening: 「經及論無三慧名，直云行、生、修般若耳。若以般若為慧，於義得也。」 tr. "The sūtra and the treatise have no name ‘three wisdoms’; they simply speak of practising, giving rise to, and cultivating prajñā. If prajñā is taken as wisdom, the meaning holds." Having made clear that the name is a heading, he then distinguishes two ways of reading the three wisdoms: 「三慧有二：聞、思、修三，此多就無階級、階級為論耳。行、生、修三慧，多就階級、無階級為論」 tr. "The three wisdoms are of two kinds: the three of hearing, reflection, and cultivation—these are mostly discussed with reference to what is without stages and what has stages. The three wisdoms of practising, giving rise, and cultivating are mostly discussed with reference to what has stages and what is without stages." Below this he records in full the differences of the various masters in assigning the stages, and does not force them into one: one account says 「三十心為行，初地得無生為生慧」 tr. "the thirty minds are practising; obtaining non-arising at the first ground is the wisdom of giving rise," while for the wisdom of cultivating there are again two explanations, 「一云：初地既為生，二地去屬修慧」 tr. "One says: since the first ground is giving rise, from the second ground onwards belongs to the wisdom of cultivating," and 「二解：初地至六地為生，七地去為修也」 tr. "The second explanation: from the first ground to the sixth ground is giving rise; from the seventh ground onwards is cultivating"; he also records the explanation that this treatise sets down, 「有人言：乾慧地為行」 tr. "Someone says: the ground of dry wisdom is practising," and further records 「有人言：梁武解初地具行、生、修，但義說三也」 tr. "Someone says: Emperor Wu of Liang explained that the first ground is complete with practising, giving rise, and cultivating, and that the three are spoken of only in terms of meaning." His sectional division of the whole chapter also corresponds to the threefold shape of the present edition: 「初為二周：一者、略明三慧；二、廣明三慧。略中為三：一、明三慧體；二、明修三慧時節；三、明修三慧之方。」 tr. "First there are two rounds: first, briefly making clear the three wisdoms; second, making clear the three wisdoms at length. Within the brief there are three: first, making clear the substance of the three wisdoms; second, making clear the time of cultivating the three wisdoms; third, making clear the method of cultivating the three wisdoms." And as for why the question of this chapter arises, his account tallies exactly with Treatise ①'s own statement: 「問來者，上品歎般若功德，故言善知一切法。聽者愛敬般若，故須菩提為之發問也。」 tr. "As for how the question comes: the preceding chapter praised the merits of prajñā, and therefore said that it knows all dharmas well. The listeners love and revere prajñā, and therefore Subhūti puts the question for them." As for the opening and joining of the threefold three dharmas of the whole chapter, Jizang sets a question and answers it most clearly: 「上已明三慧三智，今何故更問波若？答：上離波若為三慧，今合三慧為波若。又上但明波若，今釋波羅蜜，故一品具釋般若波羅蜜也。」 tr. "Question: above, the three wisdoms and the three knowledges have already been made clear; why now ask about prajñā again? Answer: above, prajñā was separated to make the three wisdoms; now the three wisdoms are joined to make prajñā. Again, above only prajñā was made clear; now pāramitā is explained, and so the one chapter explains prajñāpāramitā in full." His explanation of the foremost crossing is also brief: 「第一度者，聲聞下度、緣覺中度、菩薩第一度也。」 tr. "The foremost crossing: the śrāvaka's is the lower crossing, the pratyekabuddha's the middle crossing, and the bodhisattva's the foremost crossing." Explaining the five eyes not seeing awakening, he does not allow anyone to read it as the Buddha having something he does not see—「今明五眼不見者，不見凡夫所見菩提」 tr. "Now it makes clear that the five eyes' not seeing is not seeing the awakening that ordinary persons see," 「又今見菩提而見無所見，故云不見也」 tr. "Again, now one sees awakening and yet in seeing sees nothing, and therefore it is called not seeing." In explaining the passage on mind and mental-factor dharmas not moving, he draws on the words of Sengrui by way of comparison: 「叡公釋淨名經云：菩薩以法身為身，雖處而非三界；妙慧為心，雖緣而常寂滅也。」 tr. "Master Rui, explaining the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, says: the bodhisattva takes the Dharma body as his body; though he dwells there, he is not of the three realms; he takes wondrous wisdom as his mind; though it takes objects, it is constantly quiescent." At the end, explaining the unconditioned prajñā, he brings out separately the division of the conditioned and the unconditioned: 「無為二種：一者實相般若為果地，般若是無為也。說智及智處皆名般若，實相是無為般若，觀照文字是有為般若也。」 tr. "The unconditioned is of two kinds: first, the prajñā of the real mark is the ground of fruition, and this prajñā is unconditioned. Knowledge and the place of knowledge are both called prajñā; the real mark is the unconditioned prajñā; contemplative illumination and letters are the conditioned prajñā." And one sentence of his commentary, where it passes into the next chapter, can serve precisely as the overall gathering of this chapter—「道樹品者，上三慧三智三度即是二離用，今明合明一道。」 tr. "As for the chapter ‘The Tree of the Path’: above, the three wisdoms, the three knowledges, and the three crossings are the function of the two taken apart; now it makes clear the joining, making clear the one path."

There are also the mirrorings of two other ancient masters, one lacking and one abundant, and both should be recorded as they are. Huiying's Commentary is a commentary made on this treatise itself; of his book only fragmentary fascicles survive today, only fascicles one, six, fourteen, fifteen, seventeen, twenty-one, and twenty-four remaining, and this chapter is not among what survives; yet in two places of what is extant he announces in advance that he will explain at length at this chapter—one says 「如後品中說，下三慧品中當廣釋也」 tr. "as it is spoken of in a later chapter; it will be explained at length below, in the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’," and one says 「二乘有習已下，至三慧品中釋當釋也」 tr. "From ‘the two vehicles have habitual residues’ downwards, it will be explained when the explanation reaches the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’." The latter sentence is especially worth recording: the 「二乘有習」 tr. "the two vehicles have habitual residues" that Huiying points to is precisely what this chapter's Sūtra ② sets out—「諸佛煩惱習一切悉斷，聲聞、辟支佛煩惱習不悉斷」 tr. "the buddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are all entirely severed, while the śrāvakas' and pratyekabuddhas' habitual residues of the afflictions are not all entirely severed"—and what Treatise ② details in the two matters of Madhuvāsiṣṭha and Pilindavatsa; though the text he announced does not survive, this chapter does indeed fulfil what he awaited, and this is recorded as it is, without forcing a connection. Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises is the reverse: the density of its citations of this chapter is the greatest among the masters, more than ten places in all, and all of them are marked with the fixed citation form 「大品經三慧品云」 tr. "the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger Sūtra says": sometimes he cites the judgement of non-duality—「大品三慧品云：諸有二者，名為有所得；無有二者，名為無所得。何等為二？所謂眼、色為二」 tr. "The chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’ of the Larger says: whatever has duality is named with something to be attained; what is without duality is named with nothing to be attained. What is duality? That is, the eye and form are a duality," which elsewhere is given as 「諸有二者有所得，無有二者無所得也」 tr. "whatever has duality is with something to be attained; what is without duality is with nothing to be attained," and in yet another fascicle he cites it once more and adds a remark of his own, 「佛自分明言：無有二者，名為無所得」 tr. "The Buddha himself says clearly: what is without duality is named with nothing to be attained"; sometimes he cites the simile of the giving rise of prajñā—「虗空生故般若生等」 tr. "because space arises, prajñā arises, and so on"; sometimes he cites the first of the three knowledges—「一切智即是聲聞、辟支佛智」 tr. "omniscience is precisely the knowledge of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas"; sometimes he cites the section on names and marks and gathers it up in his own words—「凡夫著名取相，聞苦著苦相，乃至聞空、無相、無作著空、無相、無作。諸佛弟子不著名，不隨相」 tr. "The ordinary person clings to names and grasps at marks; hearing of suffering, he clings to the mark of suffering, and so on up to hearing of emptiness, the signless, and non-action, he clings to emptiness, the signless, and non-action. The buddhas' disciples do not cling to the name and do not pursue the mark"; sometimes he cites the five eyes—「佛五眼所不見，云何道佛來應之」 tr. "What the Buddha's five eyes do not see—how can one say the Buddha comes to respond to it," 「佛言：吾以五眼尚不見眾生，豈況菩提可得」 tr. "The Buddha said: I with the five eyes do not even see beings; how much less can awakening be obtained"; sometimes he cites the time—「從初發心行彼若」 tr. "from the first arousing of the mind, practise biruo"; sometimes he cites mind and mental factors not moving and the practice of the conjured person—「若心心數法不行，故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "if it is because mind and mental-factor dharmas do not move, one therefore practises prajñāpāramitā," 「如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，如佛所化人行也」 tr. "Thus, Subhūti! the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā just as a person conjured by the Buddha practises"; sometimes he cites the merit of keeping the Buddha in mind—「一、花嚴虗空中念佛，乃至畢竟，故其福不盡」 tr. "One flower adorning space while keeping the Buddha in mind, up to the ultimate, therefore his merit is not exhausted." His citations are mostly summary rather than word for word; for instance, he cites the sentence on the three vehicles alike crossing over as 「諸佛、菩薩、辟支佛、阿羅漢，通是般若波羅蜜，得變彼堓」 tr. "The buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and arhats, going through this prajñāpāramitā, obtain the changing of the further bank," whereas this treatise's base text in fact reads 「諸佛、菩薩、辟支佛、阿羅漢用是般若波羅蜜得度彼岸」 tr. "the buddhas, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, and arhats use this prajñāpāramitā to cross over to the further shore"; the wording of the two differs, and both are recorded side by side without judgement. Further, in one other place in his book, 「三慧品」 tr. "the chapter ‘The Three Wisdoms’" refers to a chapter heading of the same name in another book, and what it cites is the assignment of the three wisdoms of hearing, reflection, and cultivation to the three realms, not the text of this chapter; this is distinguished as it is, without confusing the two—and this too shows precisely that the two kinds of three wisdoms that Jizang distinguished are not empty.

Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, the two places the ancient masters point to precisely illuminate the two faces of this chapter's meaning. To say 「經及論無三慧名」 tr. "the sūtra and the treatise have no name ‘three wisdoms’" is to say that the three this chapter heads are from the first not a name and number that can be held: practising, giving rise, and cultivating are only spoken of separately, and spoken of together they are only one prajñā—and so from the three questions onwards the sūtra text takes apart sentence by sentence: by cultivating one does not obtain sarvajñā, and by not cultivating one does not obtain it either; 「不行，是名行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Not practising—this is named practising prajñāpāramitā"; and it ends with 「無所為故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "he practises prajñāpāramitā because there is nothing it is done for." To say 「上離波若為三慧，今合三慧為波若」 tr. "above, prajñā was separated to make the three wisdoms; now the three wisdoms are joined to make prajñā" is to say that within one chapter it first opens and afterwards joins: opened, there are the three wisdoms, there are the three knowledges, there is the difference of what is severed and what is not severed; joined, 「煩惱斷無差別」 tr. "in the severance of the afflictions there is no difference," 「一相故名一切種智」 tr. "because of one mark it is named the omniscience of all kinds," 「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining." What names it three is the gate of teaching; what returns it to one is the real mark; and why the Buddha is willing to speak in distinctions, the sūtra itself also accounts for—「以眾生無法有法想，我以除其妄著，世俗法故說有得，非第一義。」 tr. "Because beings give rise to the perception of an existent dharma with regard to a non-existent dharma, in order to remove their false clinging I say, by way of worldly dharmas, that there is something to be attained; it is not the highest meaning." That seven or eight in ten of the ancient masters' citations of this chapter fall upon the one sentence 「諸有二者，是有所得；無有二者，是無所得」 tr. "whatever has duality is with something to be attained; what is without duality is with nothing to be attained" is no accident either: the bone of the whole chapter is this one judgement; the three wisdoms, the three knowledges, benefit and non-benefit, duality and non-duality—what is stripped away layer after layer is always that 「二」 tr. "duality."

So what "The Three Wisdoms" leaves us in the end is a way of using the mind that can be carried into daily use. When I vow to cultivate practice and am impatient to see what I have attained, I remember that in this chapter four times the question is asked about cultivating and not cultivating and each time the Buddha answers 「不」 tr. "No," and that the sickness lies not in cultivating but only in one who 「以取相著心問」 tr. "asks with a mind that grasps at marks and clings." When I check myself by what I have practised and feel that nothing at all has been accomplished, I remember that the place of entry the sūtra text allows is as low as 「一稱南無佛」 tr. "calling out namo Buddha once," and that its merit is 「乃至畢苦，其福不盡」 tr. "up to the ending of suffering, the merit is not exhausted." When I read the meaning of emptiness and suspect that all discrimination is false and every gate of teaching empty, I remember that the Buddha on the one hand says that the five eyes do not obtain awakening, and on the other hand still distinguishes the three groups, the three knowledges, and the four fruits—「世間言說故有差別，非第一義」 tr. "because of worldly speech there is difference; it is not the highest meaning"—distinction is set up to remove false clinging, not to have one abolish along with it even the names that point the way. When habitual residues appear before me and I suspect that all I have cultivated so far has come to nothing, I remember that the arhat still 「騰跳樹木」 tr. "leaps and bounds among the trees," still calls her 「小婢」 tr. "little slave-girl," and that the treatise-author judges it, saying 「習非煩惱」 tr. "the habitual residue is not an affliction"—severing the afflictions and exhausting the habitual residues are from the first two layers of work. When the Dharma's meaning is deep and far and my mind grows timid and weak, I remember that simile of the lamp: the first lamp has already removed one portion of the darkness, the later lamp further removes its second portion, and yet 「不得言初燈無照」 tr. "one may not say that the first lamp gave no illumination." Holding to these few places, one knows why the six Chinese characters of the whole chapter's final answer are not abstruse talk—「無所得即是得」 tr. "nothing to be attained is precisely attaining," and the note the treatise-author gives for it is extremely plain: 「雖行有為法得是無所得，心不取相故無所得。」 tr. "Although one practises conditioned dharmas and obtains this nothing to be attained, because the mind does not grasp at marks, it is nothing to be attained."