大智度論 義疏通講 · 冊18Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Exposition Throughout · Vol. 18
道樹品The Tree of the Path
全文五層 →Full five layers →道樹品：空中種樹之難何以不是不可能而是甚難，種樹人不識根莖枝葉何以正是菩薩行道之相，葉華果三益何以要分三層說，菩薩如佛何以不是抬高菩薩，學如般若之次第何以一步扣一步不可跳，六重格量何以要拿乾慧地乃至向佛道菩薩來比，初發心當念一切種智何以佛不先教深法，無法為緣念為增上何以不相違，自性無故是名無法何以不是斷滅，無性之中何以還能行六度淨佛世界，畜生亦有如何以不名如佛，電光得珠之喻何以放在一念相應慧處，世俗如即是第一義如何以不是兩重真理
在問什麼
這一品問的是一個行人最容易問而最不容易答的問題：所度的眾生既然不可得，發心度眾生這件事還立得住嗎？
須菩提把這個難處說得極盡。他不說菩薩度不成，他說菩薩「所為甚難」，並且自出一喻——譬如人欲於虛空中種樹。虛空無所依，種下去無處著根；眾生不可得，發心去度無處著力。這一喻把整品的張力一次立盡：不是難在眾生太多，是難在連可度的對象都取不到。
佛的答語不從空邊回，也不從有邊回，而是把須菩提的喻接過來改一個角度。佛說：譬如人種樹，並不識得這樹的根、莖、枝、葉、華、果，只是愛護溉灌，它就漸漸長大而華葉果實成就。種樹的人不必先識得樹的體性，樹一樣會長；菩薩不必先取得眾生的實法，六波羅蜜一樣會漸漸行成佛樹。須菩提的喻說的是所種之處空，佛的喻說的是能種之人不識——兩喻一接，難處未被否認，卻被安放。這就是本品得名「道樹」的由來。
樹一立，佛隨即分三層說它的用：葉益眾生者離三惡道，華益眾生者得生人天，果益眾生者得四沙門果乃至佛道而以三乘入無餘涅槃。三層由薄轉厚，一層比一層近於究竟。論主釋此喻時更把三物的性相逐一配出：葉取其蔭涼能遮熱，華取其色好香淨柔軟，果取其色香味力。此處要留意一件事——三益之中沒有一項是『使眾生成為實有』，所益的都是眾生的苦與樂，而不是眾生的自性。
品的後半由樹喻轉入如。須菩提讚菩薩為如佛，佛不但認可，還把理由推到底：因為如的緣故說如來，也因為如的緣故說賢聖、說色乃至識、說一切法乃至有為性無為性，諸如無異，所以菩薩學這個如而得一切種智，得名如來。從此以下，經文一路問到一切種智是有法是無法、諸法自性何以無、無性之中何以還能行六度淨佛世界、諸法與諸法性既離何以還能知有知無。論主於其間設三番問答，並在末後歸到一句：世諦如即是第一義諦如。全品自「虛空中種樹」起，至「世諦、第一義諦無異也」結，問的是同一件事——空之中如何立行。
逐段解明
一、須菩提立難：不得眾生而為眾生求菩提，如空中種樹。 品首是須菩提白佛。他先讚般若甚深，隨即把甚深落到一個具體的難處上：菩薩「不得眾生，而為眾生求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。讀此句要看清兩個「眾生」是同一個——所為者是它，不可得者也是它。若讀成『眾生於俗諦有、於真諦無』而分作兩橛，難處就消失了，經文的張力也就失了。須菩提自出空中種樹之喻，正是不許人用分橛的方式把難處化掉。
二、佛以種樹為喻答：不識樹根莖枝葉而愛護溉灌，漸漸長大。 佛的答語分兩截。前截先認難：「如是！如是！諸菩薩摩訶薩所為甚難」——不否認須菩提所立之難。後截纔出喻：譬如人種樹，不識樹的根、莖、枝、葉、華、果，只是愛護溉灌，它就漸漸長大，華葉果實成就而都得受用。這一喻的著力處在「不識」二字：種樹的人不必先有一套關於樹的知見，樹的成長不繫於他的知見；菩薩不必先取得眾生的實法，六波羅蜜的漸行也不繫於此。次以法合喻：為眾生故求菩提，漸漸行六波羅蜜，得一切種智，成佛樹，以葉華果實益眾生。
三、葉益眾生者，因菩薩故得離三惡道。 佛自設三問而自答，第一問是葉。葉之益，是「因菩薩摩訶薩得離三惡道」。三惡道是苦之最極處，所以配在最薄的一層。此處不要把「因菩薩」讀成菩薩替眾生受報——經文只說因菩薩之故而得離，未說所離之苦轉在菩薩身上。
四、華益眾生者，因菩薩故得生剎利大姓乃至非有想非無想天處。 第二問是華。華之益，是得生剎利大姓、婆羅門大姓、居士大家、四天王天處乃至非有想非無想天處。此一列自人間之貴族起，歷欲界天，至無色界之頂，逐級而上。所列皆是善趣之報，故配在中層。行人於此當知：經文並不以生天為究竟，只是把它放在三層之中層——不廢，也不以為足。
五、果益眾生者，因菩薩得一切種智，令眾生得四沙門果乃至佛道，以三乘入無餘涅槃。 第三問是果。果之益，是菩薩得一切種智之後，令眾生得須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果、辟支佛道、佛道，而這些眾生「漸漸以三乘法於無餘涅槃而般涅槃」。三層至此纔到究竟。留意「漸漸」二字——與前段種樹之「漸漸長大」、行六度之「漸漸行」相呼應，全段三處用「漸漸」，是本品的行門節奏。
六、菩薩不得眾生實法而度眾生，作念一切諸法中無眾生。 三益說畢，佛回到品首之難：這菩薩「不得眾生實法，而度眾生令離我顛倒著」，並自作是念：「一切諸法中無眾生，我所為眾生求一切種智，是眾生實不可得。」此處是全品第一個收束點——度與不可得同時成立，不是先取一個實眾生再說他空，也不是因為空就不度。所離者是「我顛倒著」，不是眾生本身。
七、須菩提讚菩薩為如佛，自陳其因緣在能斷諸惡道種。 須菩提聞而稱歎：「當知是菩薩為如佛。」他自說理由：因這菩薩之故，斷一切地獄種、畜生種、餓鬼種，斷一切諸難，斷一切貧窮下賤道，斷一切欲界、色界、無色界。所舉的理由全在「斷」的一邊——從三惡道之種一路斷到三界。此語與上文葉華果三益正相對照：三益說所與，此處說所斷。
八、佛認可並更說因緣：菩薩若不發心，世間則無三世諸佛與一切賢聖。 佛不只印可，還把理由推得更廣：若菩薩不發心求菩提，世間便沒有過去未來現在諸佛，也沒有辟支佛、阿羅漢、阿那含、斯陀含、須陀洹，三惡趣及三界也沒有斷絕之時。讀此段要看它的方向——不是說菩薩造出了諸佛與賢聖，是說若無發心這一著，這一整條出生賢聖的路便不成立。發心是路的起處，不是果的作者。
九、以如故說如來、賢聖、色乃至有為無為性，諸如無異故名為如。 佛再把「如佛」之義推到根上。先重牒須菩提所說之語，再答其所以然：因為如的緣故而說如來，因為如的緣故而說辟支佛、阿羅漢、一切賢聖，因為如的緣故而說為色乃至識，因為如的緣故而說一切法乃至有為性、無為性；「是諸如，如實無異，以是故說名為如」。此處最要緊的是所列之廣——不止聖位，連色與有為無為性都在其中。如不是聖者獨有的一種高位，是說一切法時所依的同一個實。菩薩學這個如而得一切種智，所以得名如來；說他如佛，是「以如相故」，不是以人情相許。
十、學如般若波羅蜜之次第，自學一切法如至安立三乘入無餘涅槃。 佛接著給出一條逐步相扣的次第：學如般若波羅蜜則能學一切法如；學一切法如則得具足一切法如；具足已則住一切法如得自在；得自在已則善知一切眾生根；知根已則知眾生根具足；知根具足已則知一切眾生業因緣；知業因緣已則得願智具足；願智具足已則淨三世慧；淨三世慧已則饒益一切眾生；饒益已則淨佛國土；淨佛國土已則得一切種智；得一切種智已則轉法輪；轉法輪已則安立眾生於三乘，令入無餘涅槃。前二轉以「則」字相承，自「具足已」以下逐句以「已」字扣住前一步，無一步可跳。此段末結以「菩薩摩訶薩欲得一切功德，自利利人，應發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」——把整條次第收回到發心一著上。讀此段當逐句點過，不可以一句「乃至」帶過；其步數請自經文點數，不取論外之定數。
十一、須菩提言如說行深般若之菩薩，一切世間天人阿修羅應當作禮。 須菩提由上段功德之廣而生此語。所稱者不是『得道之菩薩』，是「能如說行深般若波羅蜜」的菩薩——重在如說而行，不在已得未得。
十二、佛可其言，重說一切世間應為作禮。 佛的答語幾乎是把須菩提的話再說一遍，只在末句加一「為」字而作「應當為作禮」。經中佛重說一段話，通常不是修辭，是印定；此處印定的是「如說行」即堪受禮，不待其成就。
十三、須菩提問初發意菩薩為眾生求菩提得幾所福德。 話題自此轉入格量。須菩提所問的是「初發意」的菩薩——最起頭的那一位，還沒有任何位階可言。問的又是「得幾所福德」，正是要一個可比的量。
十四、佛以千國土眾生發二乘意之福相校，不如初發意菩薩百千萬倍。 佛先設一個極大的量：一千個國土之中的眾生都發起聲聞、辟支佛之意。須菩提答「甚多無量」。佛卻說其福不如初發意菩薩，相差到算數譬喻所不能及，並出其理由：發二乘意的人都是因菩薩而出，菩薩終不因二乘而出。此理由是整段格量的軸——所比的不是功德的多少，是出生的先後。
十五、佛續以三千大千世界住乾慧地眾生之福相校。 佛把量再放大：二千世界、三千大千世界亦復如是，並且先置住聲聞辟支佛地者不論，改問三千大千世界眾生皆住乾慧地者。須菩提仍答「甚多無量」，佛仍答不如初發意菩薩。此處要看佛設問的手法——每一輪都把所比的對象往上提一級，而答語不變。
十六、佛續以住性地乃至辟支佛地之眾生相校。 第三輪把所比者一路提到性地、八人地、見地、薄地、離欲地、已辦地、辟支佛地，這是二乘修證的全副階位。這一切福德比之初發意菩薩，仍是百倍千倍巨億萬倍乃至算數譬喻所不能及。逐地列出而不作省略，正是要行人看見：所比者已無可再提，答語依然如此。
十七、佛續校初發意菩薩不如入法位菩薩、入法位不如向佛道、向佛道不如佛。 格量至此掉轉方向。前三輪是拿二乘比初發意菩薩，此輪是拿初發意菩薩比更上的菩薩：初發意不如入法位，入法位不如向佛道，向佛道不如佛功德，每一級都是百千萬倍巨億萬倍乃至算數譬喻所不能及。六重格量到此纔完整——前三重護初心不令自輕，後三重護初心不令自高。讀此段若只取前半，便成抬舉初發意；只取後半，便成貶抑初發意。兩半合看，方是經意。
十八、須菩提問初發心菩薩當念何等法。 格量既畢，須菩提所問隨之落到行門上：這樣一位初發心的菩薩，日用之中當念什麼？此問極素樸，卻是全品後半的樞紐。
十九、佛答應念一切種智。 佛的答語只六個字：「應念一切種智。」不教他先觀空，不教他先學次第，直指所念之境為佛之極果。何以如此，論主在後文設問專釋，此處先記其語。
二十、須菩提問一切種智之體與其緣、增上、行、相。 須菩提追問四事：一切種智是什麼，以何為緣、以何為增上、以何為行、以何為相。此四問是本品後半的骨架，下文佛答、論主釋，皆循此四目。
廿一、佛答一切種智無所有無想無念無生無示，無法為緣、念為增上、寂滅為行、無相為相。 佛先說其體：「一切種智無所有、無想、無念、無生、無示。」次重牒須菩提的四問而逐一答之：以無法為緣，以念為增上，以寂滅為行，以無相為相。此處有一個易錯處要先立住：既說「無想、無念」，何以又說念為增上？兩語並不相違——無念者，說其體不可以想念取；念為增上者，說行人於此門中所憑之力。論主於後文專設一問答釋此，見下第五三、五四段。
廿二、須菩提反問：既一切種智無法，色受想行識乃至有為無為相是否亦無法。 須菩提把佛之語推到一切法上。他所列的極廣：色受想行識、內法外法、四禪、四無量心、四無色定、四念處乃至八聖道分、三三昧、八背捨、九次第定、佛十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法、大慈大悲大喜大捨、六神通、有為相無為相。所列愈廣，問意愈切——他要知道這個「無法」是只就佛果說，還是通於一切。
廿三、佛答色亦無法，乃至有為相無為相亦無法。 佛的答語極短，只把須菩提所列的兩端點出：色亦無法，乃至有為相、無為相亦無法。短答而全收，正是答『通於一切』。
廿四、須菩提問其因緣。 須菩提不以短答為足，進一步問所以然：什麼因緣故一切種智無法、色乃至有為無為相亦無法。此一問把全段推入理上。
廿五、佛答自性無故是名無法。 佛答：「一切種智自性無故，若法自性無是名無法。色乃至有為、無為相亦如是。」此處要看清「無法」一詞的定義處——不是說這法不存在，是說它的自性無；自性無，所以名之為無法。定義既立，前後所有「無法」之語都當依此讀。
廿六、須菩提續問諸法自性何以無。 須菩提再往下追一層：什麼因緣故諸法的自性無。一問接一問，是把「無法」之義逼到最後的根據上。
廿七、佛答和合因緣生故無自性，一切法自性空故當知一切法無性。 佛給出最後的根據：「諸法和合因緣故生法中無自性，若無自性是名無法。」並結以「一切法自性空故，以是故當知一切法無性」。至此三層相貫：因緣和合而生，故無自性；無自性，故名無法；一切法自性空，故一切法無性。行人於此當守一個分寸——所破的是自性，不是因緣和合的法相；若讀成一切法都不存在，則下文的六波羅蜜與淨佛世界便無處安立。
廿八、須菩提問：若一切法無性，初發意菩薩以何方便力能行六度乃至一切種智、淨佛世界成就眾生。 這是全品第二個大難，與品首之難同一機杼：品首問所度之眾生不可得而何以能度，此處問所行之法無性而何以能行。須菩提把所行者逐項列出——檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜、四禪、四無量、四無色、諸空、四念處乃至八聖道分、三三昧、八背捨、九次第定、佛十力乃至大慈大悲、一切種智——列得愈全，難處愈實。
廿九、佛答學諸法無性即是方便力，行六度修學佛道，一念相應慧得一切種智，煩惱習永盡，佛眼觀三千大千世界無法尚不可得。 佛的答語是全品的行門正面。先立方便力之義：「菩薩摩訶薩能學諸法無性，亦能淨佛世界、成就眾生，知世界、眾生亦無性，即是方便力。」——方便力不在無性之外，正在能學無性而仍行。次逐項配：行檀乃至行一切種智皆是修學佛道，且知佛道亦無性；如是行至具足佛道因緣，用一念相應慧得一切種智，一切煩惱習永盡，以不生故。次以佛眼為驗：以佛眼觀三千大千世界，「無法尚不可得，何況有法」。次以布施為例逐位遮盡：所施之無法尚不可得，受者及菩薩心無法尚不知，乃至一切種智之得者、得法、得處亦然。末出其總因：「一切法本性爾」，非佛作，非聲聞辟支佛作，亦非餘人作，一切法無作者故。此段是經段的最後一大節，讀時不可只取『無所有』一邊而失其『而仍行』一邊。
三十、須菩提問諸法與諸法性是否相離。 經段末一問自此起。須菩提問：「諸法、諸法性離耶？」所問的是法與法性之間有無距離——若相離，能知與所知便斷了。
卅一、佛答如是相離；須菩提續難離法何以能知離法之有無。 佛直答「如是！如是！諸法、諸法性離。」須菩提立刻承其語而難：若相離，如何能以離法知離法之若有若無？並自申其理：無法不能知無法，有法不能知有法；無法不能知有法，有法不能知無法。四句遮盡，遂結成一問：一切法既是無所有相，菩薩如何作此法有此法無的分別。
卅二、佛答以世諦故示眾生若有若無，非以第一義；世諦第一義諦無異，以眾生不知是如故以世俗法說；復次為五受眾有著故示若有若無令知清淨無所有。 佛的答語分三截。第一截：「菩薩摩訶薩以世諦故示眾生若有、若無，非以第一義。」第二截答須菩提所問二諦有異無異：「世諦、第一義諦無異也。何以故？世諦如即是第一義諦如。」所以說有說無，是因眾生不知不見這個如。第三截以「復次」承前而更說一層：眾生於五受眾之中有著相故，不知無所有；為這些眾生而示有示無，是要令他們「知清淨無所有」。此三截合為經段之結，並與品首之難首尾相扣——不得眾生而為眾生求菩提之所以可能，正在於說有說無皆是世諦之施設，而世諦之如不異第一義之如。
卅三、論主釋：須菩提聞無所得即是得而歎未曾有。 論段以「釋曰」起。論主先點出須菩提發問時的心地：他是「從佛聞無所得即是得」，因此歎未曾有而白佛言「世尊！是般若甚深！」。此一句補出了經文所未明說的來歷——品首之讚不是泛歎，是承前品所聞而發。論主末綴「如經中廣說」，是指路之語，不是略過。
卅四、論主釋樹喻：葉華果從薄轉厚，葉蔭除熱、華可愛受人天樂、果實得諸聖道果。 論主逐物訓喻。先立通義：「以樹為譬喻，葉、華、果實，從薄轉厚。」次逐一配：如樹葉蔭，熱時涼樂，眾生因菩薩道樹之蔭得離三惡道熱苦，其所以然是「遮惡故」；如華，色好香淨柔軟，眾生因菩薩以布施持戒教化故受人天福樂；如樹果，有色香味力，眾生因菩薩故得須陀洹等諸聖道果。三物三性三益，一一相配而無虛設。此段是全品喻義的正解，讀經段三益時當合此段看。
卅五、論主牒須菩提歡喜之語並出其自說之因緣。 論主重述經文：須菩提聞是歡喜言「是菩薩如佛無異」，並指出「此中自說因緣」——即「因菩薩故斷地獄等惡道」。論主在此不下判語，只標出經文自身的結構：讚語之後緊接理由，是須菩提自己給的，不待佛說。
卅六、論主牒佛可其意並更說因緣。 論主續述：佛可其意，更說因緣，即「須菩提！若菩薩不發心求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，乃至三界無斷時」。以「更說」二字分判兩重因緣——須菩提所說在斷惡，佛所更說在若無發心則賢聖與斷時俱無。
卅七、復次：得諸法如故說名如來乃至須陀洹，如在佛亦在菩薩，離如更無有法不入如者。 論主以「復次」自出一層。先申經義：得諸法如故說名如來乃至名須陀洹，以如故說色乃至無為性，「是諸法如皆一無異」。次出結論：菩薩學這個如必當得薩婆若，所以說如佛無異。次立簡別，此是本段最要緊處——「不以我心貪貴菩薩故說言如佛，以得如故言如佛」：說菩薩如佛，不是出於偏重菩薩的私心，是就得如而言。末以一句收盡：「是如在佛，亦在菩薩，以一相故」，且「離如，更無有法不入如者」。
卅八、問答一：若以同如故名如佛，畜生亦有如何以不名如佛。 論主設第一番問答。此問極利——如既遍一切法而無異，畜生身中亦有此如，何以不說畜生如佛？此問把上段「以一相故」逼到極處，若答不住，則如佛之語成空言。
卅九、答：畜生雖有如而因緣未發，不能利益眾生、不能行如至薩婆若。 論主的答語只一句，卻分兩節：一者「因緣未發」，二者「不能利益眾生、不能行如至薩婆若」。前節就其位說，後節就其用說。可知「如佛」之名不繫於有如與否，繫於能不能行此如而至薩婆若、能不能以此如利益眾生。行人於此當自照——有如是同的，能行與否是不同的。
四十、論主釋學如般若能具足一切法如，乃至得自在、善知眾生根、知業因緣。 論主循經文次第而釋。先釋「具足」：「具足名得諸法實相，能以種種門令眾生得解」——具足不是收集之多，是得實相而能開多門。次釋因具足故於一切法如得自在，因得自在故能善知眾生根，因善知根故能知眾生諸根具足。次釋「諸根」為信等五善根，三乘人各各有之，能分別此人有彼人無、此人得力彼人不得力。次釋「具足」為信等善根具足，如是人能出世間。次逐根別說其力用：信根得力則決定能受持不疑；精進力故雖未見法而一心求道，不惜身命，不休不息；念力故常憶師教，善法來聽入、惡法來不聽入，如守門人；定力故攝心一處不動以助智慧；智慧力故能如實觀諸法相。五根各給一相一喻，不可混說。
四一、得根有二種：大心人身中成菩薩根，小心人身中成小乘根。 論主於五根之後別立一目：同是信等五根，在大心人身中則成菩薩根，在小心人身中則成小乘根；得此具足之根則可度。此判甚要——根之為根是同的，所成之乘由心之大小而分。行人於此當知所須自檢者不在有無五根，在其心之所向。
四二、或有菩薩見人雖得五根而不可度，由先世惡業罪重故。 論主立一例外：或有菩薩見人雖得信等五根而仍不可度，是由先世惡業罪重之故；因此經文纔說「知一切眾生業因緣」。此段是上下兩節的接榫——由根具足說到業因緣，不是別起話頭，是補足前節之未盡。
四三、欲知無數劫業因緣要得宿命通，既知則為眾生說過去罪業；復求願智知三世事而說未來罪福，令生恐怖或歡喜而易度。 論主逐步推出願智之所以必需。欲知無數劫的業因緣，須得宿命通；既知，便為眾生說過去的罪業因緣。但眾生以為過去之罪已過而不生畏，於是求願智以知三世之事；既知，便為眾生說未來世的罪業因緣當墮地獄，眾生聞之則懷恐怖，恐怖則心伏易度；若欲知未來世的福報因緣，為說則歡喜可度。一恐一喜兩路並用，皆是為易度。此段所顯的是說法的次第依於知見的次第，不是隨機取巧。
四四、願智具足故三世慧淨通達無礙，知三世善惡與現在諸根利鈍，然後說法教化多所利益不虛；乃至淨佛國土、得一切種智、轉法輪、以三乘安立眾生入無餘涅槃。 論主接續前節而收其果。三世慧淨者，知過去善惡業、知未來善惡果報、知現在眾生諸根利鈍，然後說法教化，「多所利益不虛」。次循經文所列一路推下：大利益眾生故能淨佛國土，淨佛國土已得一切種智，得一切種智故轉法輪，轉法輪已以三乘安立眾生入無餘涅槃。經段第十段所立的次第，至此在論段得其解說之全帳，前後當合看。
四五、如是利益皆從學如中來，故佛說欲得一切功德當發菩提心。 論主為上文一長段作總收：「如是利益，皆從學如中來」，因此佛說「菩薩欲得一切功德，自利利人，當發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」。此句把知根、知業、願智、三世慧、淨國土、一切種智諸事，一併繫回學如與發心兩處，不令其散成一串神通功用。
四六、論主牒須菩提聞功德甚多而言一切世間應當作禮。 論主重述經文並指其分際：須菩提聞是菩薩功德甚多，故有此語；論主綴一句「如經中廣說，分別初發意菩薩功德」——把六重格量一段以指路之語繫住，不在論段重出。
四七、論主補出須菩提發問之心境：知甚深般若無憶想非初學所得。 此段是論主之獨出。經文只見須菩提問「初發心菩薩，應念何等法？」，論主補出其所以問：他知道這甚深般若是無憶想的，不是初學所能得。有此一補，下文佛何以不教深法而教念一切種智，纔有著落。
四八、佛答應念一切種智；一切種智即菩提、薩婆若、佛法、佛道之異名。 論主釋佛之答語，並為「一切種智」立一異名之目：即是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提、薩婆若、佛法、佛道，「皆是一切種智異名」。此目甚有用——本論行文四名互用，讀者若不知其為異名，易誤作四事。
四九、問答二：佛何以答言念一切種智。 論主設第二番問答。所問正是上段所留之疑：既然般若甚深非初學所得，佛何以逕教他念一切種智——所念之境豈不更高？
五十、答：初發意菩薩未得深智慧而已捨五欲樂，佛教繫心念薩婆若，以四重對比之利益令其常念。 論主的答語先安其位：初發意菩薩未得深智慧，而既已捨了世間五欲樂——上不著法樂，下已捨欲樂，正在中間無所依處，故佛教他繫心念薩婆若。次出所念之內容，為四重對比：「雖捨小雜樂，當得清淨大樂；捨顛倒虛誑樂，得實樂；捨繫縛樂，得解脫樂；捨獨善樂，得共一切眾生善樂。」四重皆是一捨一得，且所捨愈細、所得愈廣，末一重更由自而及一切眾生。得如是等利益故，佛教初發意者常念薩婆若。此段是本品最切於初心的行門，四重宜逐重點過。
五一、論主牒須菩提問一切種智為有法為無法及其緣增上行相。 論主重牒經問，並補一節經文所無而義所必有者——「為是有法？為是無法？」此問在論段標得分明，下文佛答之「無所有名非法」正應此問。
五二、論主牒佛答：一切種智無所有，無所有名非法，無生無滅；諸法如實緣亦無所有，念為增上、寂滅為行、無相為相。 論主重牒佛答而於中加一釋語：「無所有名非法」——把經文「無法」一詞在此處再定一次，且繫以「無生無滅」。次逐答四目。此段與經段第廿一段當對讀：經說無法為緣，論說「諸法如實緣亦無所有」，兩語同歸而措辭有別，不可以一方改讀另一方。
五三、問答三：皆是畢竟空，念何以獨言增上。 論主設第三番問答，問的正是第廿一段所留之難：既然一切皆畢竟空，四目之中何以獨獨於「念」說是增上？此問若不解，則「無想、無念」與「念為增上」兩語必相礙。
五四、答：諸法各各有力，佛得一切種智不復思惟而所念皆得，故言念為增上。 論主的答語分兩節。前節立通則：「諸法各各有力」——畢竟空不礙各法之有其力用；並舉佛智慧為畢竟空，而如、法性、實際、無相即是寂滅之相。後節就佛果說：佛得一切種智之後「不復思惟，無復難易遠近，所念皆得」，所以說念為增上。可知「增上」者，說的是所念即得而無隔，不是說念有一個實體。畢竟空與各各有力，在此段並行不悖。
五五、論主牒須菩提問：但一切種智無法，色等法亦無法。 論主以簡語重牒經段第廿二段之長問。經文列法極廣，論段只以「色等法」三字收之——此是論主行文之常，非略過；讀者當回經段點其全列。
五六、論主牒佛答色等一切法亦是無法，並自說因緣：因緣和合生即無自性，無自性即是空無法。 論主重牒佛答，並標明佛「自說因緣」：「若法從因緣和合生，即無自性；若法無自性，即是空無法。以是因緣故，當知一切法無所有性。」與經段第廿七段所說同一理路，而此處以「空無法」三字連說，把「空」與「無法」繫為一事。
五七、論主牒須菩提問初發心菩薩以何方便行六度乃至一切種智。 論主重牒經段第廿八段之難。經文所列極長，論段收為「行檀波羅蜜乃至一切種智，淨佛世界、教化眾生」一句——同前，是收而非略。
五八、論主釋佛答：無所有法性中學，入觀亦能集諸功德教化眾生淨佛世界；有無二法一時行；行六度時亦修治佛道；坐道場用一念相應慧得一切種智，如人夜失貫珠電光暫現即時還得。 此段是論段的行門正解，內有數層。其一，方便力之所在：「無所有法性中學，入觀亦能集諸功德、教化眾生、淨佛世界，即是方便力」——不是出觀之後別做福德，是入觀之中即能集。其二，論主自出一語以明其所以然：「所謂有、無二法，能一時行故，所謂畢竟空，集諸福德」——有與無不是前後二時，是一時並行，此即巧之所在。其三，行六波羅蜜時「亦修治佛道」，且是「如佛心，以畢竟空、無所有法」而行，故能具足佛十力乃至大慈大悲。其四，坐道場用一念相應慧得一切種智，論主於此出一喻：「如人夜失貫珠，電光暫現，即時還得故」——失珠者本有其珠，電光不造珠，只是一照即得。此喻安在一念相應慧處最為切當：一切種智非一念所造，一念所得者是本有而未見者。末結煩惱及習永盡，更不復生。
五九、得佛已以佛眼觀十方世界，一切物尚不見無法何況有法；畢竟空法能破顛倒令菩薩成佛，是事尚不可得。 論主續釋得果之後的所見。以佛眼觀一切十方世界之中，「一切物尚不見無法，何況有法」。次更推一層：畢竟空之法能破顛倒、令菩薩成佛，然而「是事尚不可得，何況凡夫顛倒有法」——連能破顛倒的畢竟空之事也不可得。此一推極要緊，是防人於破執之後又執其所以破。
六十、當知一切法無所有相，是名菩薩方便；空尚不可得何況有，菩薩應行無所有般若波羅蜜。 論主為上兩段作結：「當知一切法無所有相」，並標其目曰「菩薩方便」，又以「空尚不可得，何況有」一句再遮一次，末勸菩薩應行無所有般若波羅蜜。此處「菩薩方便」四字是論主自標之目，與第五八段所立之義相貫。
六一、行無所有般若時布施物空、受者及菩薩心亦無所有，乃至得者得法得處皆無所有；一切法本性爾，非凡夫作亦非諸聖人作，一切法無作無作者故。 論主以布施為例逐位遮盡：布施時即知所施之物空、無所有，受者及菩薩心亦無所有；乃至一切種智之得者、得法、得處，無法尚不知，何況有法。次為三名下定義——「得者，菩薩；得法，是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；用得法是菩薩道」，三名各有所指而不相濫。末出其總因：「一切法本性爾，不以智慧故異」，並說非凡夫作、亦非諸聖人作，一切法無作、無作者故。此段所舉的作者兩造與經段第廿九段所舉者措辭有別，經段作非佛作、非聲聞辟支佛作、亦非餘人作，論段作非凡夫作、亦非諸聖人作——一自聖邊遮起，一自凡邊遮起，兩存其文，不可互代。
六二、須菩提意：若諸法都無所有相，誰知是無所有；故問諸法諸法性離云何以離法知離法。 論主補出須菩提發此問的心念：「若諸法都是無所有相，誰知是無所有？」有此一補，經段第卅一段那一串四句遮的難語纔見其來處——所難者不在有無，在能知者何在。論主隨後將經文之問全文重牒。
六三、佛答菩薩世俗故為眾生說若有若無非第一義；若有是實有無亦應有實，若有不實無云何應實。 論主重牒佛答，並自加一節推語：「若有是實有，無亦應有實。若有不實，無云何應實？」此推語是論主為經文所作的補證——有若是實，則與之相待的無也該是實；有既不實，無如何獨實。有無相待而立，故不得偏執其一為實。此語甚利，是本段最可帶走的一句。
六四、須菩提問世俗第一義有異耶；論主釋若異則破壞法性。 論主重牒此問，並自出一句理由：「若異，破壞法性故」——若二諦真有異，則法性成二，故不得異。此一句是論主為佛下一段答語所作的鋪路。
六五、佛答不異，世俗如即是第一義如；眾生不知是如故以世俗為說若有若無。 論主牒佛之答：「不異。世俗如即是第一義如。」並接以眾生不知是如故，以世俗為說若有若無。至此，第六二段所問的「誰知是無所有」得其答——所知非在二諦之外別有一物，說有說無是就眾生之不知而施設。
六六、復次：眾生於五受陰中有所著，為令離所有得無所有故菩薩說無所有；以世俗法故分別諸法，末勸應學無所有般若波羅蜜。 論主以「復次」自出末段，亦即全品之結。眾生於五受陰之中有所著，為使這些眾生「離所有、得無所有」故，菩薩說「無所有」；以世俗法故分別諸法，欲令眾生知是無所有。末以一句收全品：「如是，須菩提！菩薩應學無所有般若波羅蜜。」此結與品首之難遙相扣合——空中種樹之所以能種，正因所說之有無皆為令眾生知無所有而設，非取眾生為實。又當留意：經段此處作「五受眾」，論段作「五受陰」，兩處用字有別，各依其文，不相牽合。
不要讀錯
不要把空中種樹讀成不可能之事。須菩提所立之語是「甚難」，不是「不能」；佛的答語也只承其難而不承其不能——「諸菩薩摩訶薩所為甚難」之後，緊接的是種樹之喻與漸漸行六波羅蜜。若讀成不可能，則後文成佛樹、益眾生、六重格量、方便力諸段皆無所附。難與不能，只隔一字，而行門全異。
不要把「不識樹根、莖、枝、葉、華、果」讀成無知。喻中所不識者是樹的體性，所行者是愛護溉灌；菩薩所不得者是眾生的實法，所行者是漸漸六波羅蜜。論主釋此喻時所配的葉蔭、華色、果實，一一有其相用，可見喻意不在稱歎無知，在顯行不待取實。若讀成行人可以不必知法，則與下文「學一切法如」「善知眾生根」「知一切眾生業因緣」諸段正相違。
不要把葉華果三益讀成三種賞報。三益所說的是離三惡道、生人天善趣、得三乘道果，皆是就眾生的苦樂與道果而言，未說眾生因此成為實有；而三益之後緊接的正是「不得眾生實法，而度眾生令離我顛倒著」。若把三益讀成有一個實眾生領受三份實利，則品首之難不但未解，反被加重。
不要把「菩薩如佛」讀成菩薩等同於佛。經文自說其所以然是「以如相故」，論主更立簡別：「不以我心貪貴菩薩故說言如佛，以得如故言如佛。」且本品後半的六重格量明說初發意菩薩不如入法位、入法位不如向佛道、向佛道不如佛功德。以如而言則無異，以位而言則有差，兩處各有所就。若混作一談，前段成抬舉，後段成自相違。
不要把畜生亦有如一問讀成如有差別。論主的答語不曾說畜生身中的如較劣，只說「因緣未發故，不能利益眾生、不能行如至薩婆若故」。所差在能行與否，不在如之有無高下。若讀成如有等級，則上文「是諸如，如實無異」一語便無處安放。
不要把「無法」讀成什麼都沒有。佛已為此語下了定義——「若法自性無是名無法」，論主又補一句「無所有名非法」，所無者是自性，不是法相。正因如此，下文纔能在無性之中行六波羅蜜、淨佛世界、成就眾生。若讀成斷滅，則方便力一段無從成立，而論主所出的「有、無二法，能一時行」也成戲論。
不要把「無想、無念」與「念為增上」讀成相違。論主為此專設一問答，答語分兩節：「諸法各各有力」是通則，佛得一切種智之後「不復思惟，無復難易遠近，所念皆得」是別就佛果。無念者，說其體不可以想念取；念為增上者，說此門中所憑之力。兩語各有所就，不必也不得取一廢一。
不要把電光得珠之喻讀成頓得而不須前行。喻中之人本有其珠而失於夜中，電光一現即時還得——珠非電光所造。論主把此喻安在「坐道場，用一念相應慧，得一切種智」處，而此句之前已歷「行六波羅蜜時，亦修治佛道」「行菩薩道時，具足是法」諸段。故此喻所顯的是最後一照之頓，不是廢前行之漸。
不要把二諦無異讀成二諦無別。佛所說的是「世諦如即是第一義諦如」——所同者在如，而說有說無仍是世諦之施設，非第一義。論主亦自出一句「若異，破壞法性故」，只為遮異，未曾說二諦可以互代。若讀成無別，則「以世諦故示眾生若有、若無，非以第一義」一語便成虛設。
修行作用
第一件受用，是把品首之難當作日用的自檢。菩薩所為之所以甚難，難在所度者不可得而仍度。行人於發心處可作此一照：我今日所發的心，所緣的是一個實有的可度之人，還是不取其實而仍不捨其苦？若是前者，則所行雖勤而與經意隔；若是後者，雖未能純，已在道上。此一照不必等到有深智慧纔用得上，品首之難本就是對初心人說的。
第二件受用，是種樹之喻可作行門的節奏。喻中所行者只有愛護與溉灌兩事，所待者是「漸漸長大」。經段三處用「漸漸」——漸漸長大、漸漸行六波羅蜜、漸漸以三乘法入無餘涅槃。行人於此可省一大段焦躁：不識樹體而樹自長，不取眾生實法而六度自成。所須守的，是不斷其溉灌。
第三件受用，是六重格量可作兩面之藥。前三重以千國土發二乘意者、三千大千世界住乾慧地者、住性地乃至辟支佛地者，比之初發意菩薩而皆不如——此一面治自輕，初發心而未有所得者不當以為所行無分量。後三重以初發意不如入法位、入法位不如向佛道、向佛道不如佛——此一面治自高，既知所行有分量者不當以為已足。一藥兩服，隨病取之；若只服其一，便成偏枯。
第四件受用，是五根之力用可作逐根自檢。論主為信、精進、念、定、慧五根各給一相：信根得力則決定受持不疑；精進力則雖未見法而一心求道，不惜身命，不休不息；念力則常憶師教，善法來聽入、惡法來不聽入，如守門人；定力則攝心一處不動以助智慧；慧力則能如實觀諸法相。五者可作五問，一日之中隨處可用。又當合第四一段看——同是五根，在大心人身中成菩薩根，在小心人身中成小乘根；故檢完五根之後還須再問一句：我這五根所向者何處。
第五件受用，是四重樂可作初心人的所念。論主為初發意菩薩所出的四句，正是佛教他繫心念薩婆若時應作之念：雖捨小雜樂，當得清淨大樂；捨顛倒虛誑樂，得實樂；捨繫縛樂，得解脫樂；捨獨善樂，得共一切眾生善樂。此四句最宜背持——初捨欲樂而未得法樂之時，人最易退，而此四句所給的正是那一段中間路上的依憑。末一重由自及他，尤不可略。
第六件受用，是方便力可作觀行與福德不二的準則。論主明說「無所有法性中學，入觀亦能集諸功德、教化眾生、淨佛世界」，又自出「有、無二法，能一時行」一句。行人常患兩病：一者作福德時失其空觀，二者修空觀時廢其福德。此段所給的藥是一時並行——布施之時即知物空、受者空、己心空而布施不停，此即經中所說的方便力。可自布施一門起手；論主既以布施逐位遮盡，餘行亦當一一準此而推。
第七件受用，是「若有不實，無云何應實」一句可作破執之刀。人破有之後最易執無，以為無是實。論主此語只兩句而根株盡拔：有若是實，與之相待的無也該是實；有既不實，無如何獨實。日用中凡起『這是真的沒有』之念時，可以此一句自問；此語與第五九段「是事尚不可得，何況凡夫顛倒有法」一段合看，更見其徹。
承衍
本品的骨幹，是一段經文與一段論釋。經①自須菩提白佛歎般若甚深、立不得眾生而為眾生求菩提如空中種樹之難起，佛承其難而以種樹不識根莖枝葉為喻，明漸行六波羅蜜得一切種智成佛樹而以葉華果實益眾生，逐設三問以明葉離三惡道、華生人天乃至非有想非無想處、果得四沙門果乃至佛道以三乘入無餘涅槃，並結以不得眾生實法而度眾生令離我顛倒著；次須菩提讚菩薩為如佛而自陳斷諸惡道種之因緣，佛可之而更說若不發心則三世諸佛賢聖與三界斷時俱無，並以如故說如來乃至說色與有為無為性、諸如無異故名為如，勸學如般若；次出學如之次第，自學一切法如、具足、得自在、知眾生根、知根具足、知業因緣、願智具足、淨三世慧、饒益眾生、淨佛國土、得一切種智、轉法輪，至安立三乘入無餘涅槃，結以欲得一切功德當發菩提心；次須菩提言如說行者一切世間應當作禮，佛可之；次問初發意菩薩之福德，佛以千國土發二乘意者、三千大千世界住乾慧地者、住性地乃至辟支佛地者三重相校，復以初發意不如入法位、入法位不如向佛道、向佛道不如佛功德三重相校；次問初發心當念何等法，佛答應念一切種智，並答其緣增上行相為無法緣、念增上、寂滅行、無相相；次問一切種智既無法則色乃至有為無為相亦無法否，佛答皆無法，並以自性無故是名無法、和合因緣生故無自性為其因緣；次問無性之中何以能行六度乃至一切種智淨佛世界成就眾生，佛答學諸法無性即是方便力，行六度修學佛道乃至一念相應慧得一切種智、煩惱習永盡，並以佛眼觀三千大千世界無法尚不可得、布施乃至一切種智之得者得法得處皆不可得、一切法本性爾無作者為結；末問諸法諸法性離而何以能以離法知離法之有無，佛答以世諦故示若有若無非以第一義，二諦無異以世諦如即是第一義諦如，復次為五受眾有著者示有示無令知清淨無所有，結以應當作是行般若波羅蜜。論①以「釋曰」隨文而釋：先補須菩提聞無所得即是得而歎未曾有之來歷，次逐物訓樹喻之葉華果三性三益；次牒須菩提歡喜之語與佛更說之因緣，次以復次申得諸法如故說名如來乃至須陀洹，並立「不以我心貪貴菩薩故說言如佛」之簡別；次設三番問答——畜生亦有如何以不名如佛、佛何以答言念一切種智、皆是畢竟空何以獨言念為增上；其間釋具足為得諸法實相能以種種門令眾生得解，釋諸根為信等五善根而逐根別說其力用，立得根二種之判，出先世罪重雖得五根而不可度之例，推宿命通與願智之所以必需，收三世慧淨之利益而一路推至以三乘安立眾生入無餘涅槃，並總收為「如是利益，皆從學如中來」；次為一切種智立異名之目，出四重捨得之樂為初發意所念，釋念為增上以「諸法各各有力」為通則，釋無所有法性中學而「有、無二法，能一時行」為方便，出「如人夜失貫珠，電光暫現，即時還得故」之喻以配一念相應慧，遮畢竟空能破顛倒之事亦不可得，為得者得法得處三名各下定義，補「若有不實，無云何應實」與「若異，破壞法性故」兩節推語；末以復次釋五受陰有所著者說無所有，結以應學無所有般若波羅蜜。
本品與前後諸品的義脈，可見者有三線。其一、承前：前品〈三慧品第七十〉廣說三慧三智之別，本品承其勢而轉入行——既知所學之慧，乃問所度之眾生不可得而何以能行，故品首之難不是別起爐灶，是接著前品的落處發問。其二、品內自成兩轉：前半以樹喻立『行不待取實』，後半以如與二諦立『說不礙無所有』，兩半以「菩薩如佛」一節為樞——如既遍一切法，則說有說無皆在如中，故後半諸問皆可安。其三、垂後：本品結於「應學無所有般若波羅蜜」，而次品〈菩薩行品第七十二〉即就菩薩之行相續說，兩品相次而立；次品品題諸本另有作〈道行品〉者，其字之異同並諸本分卷，詳考據層。
古德之釋，本品可誌者一家。吉藏《大品經義疏》釋此品，先立大科云：「此下第二明發心修行。此中有三：第一從此品竟六喻品，明自行；第二從四攝品以下，明化他行；第三從畢定品，明自他二行無不信皆不退。」——以本品為「明發心修行」一大段之首。次科本品為七云：「初品中為七：第一明方便起心無所依著希有可歎；第二如佛歎；第三以體如同佛故勸學如，學如必須發心」——七科之分與本論經段之次第大體相應，而所立之名為吉藏自家科判，非本論之文，並錄不判。其釋品名設兩問，一問因果云：「問：此云道樹，樹為是因樹因道？為果佛樹佛道？答：此語通也。言道是無上菩提道，樹亦是無上菩提樹也。」一問自行化他云：「問：此道樹是自行，為是化他？答：具足二也。菩薩求佛道樹是行，以此華果答眾生，以此樹華菓是化他。」——以道樹一名通於因果、通於自他，此與本論以葉華果三益說化他、以漸行六度說自行者取義相近，而所依之語不同，兩存之。其釋空中種樹之難云：「有所得人見眾生是有，不知是空，空中度眾生，於其是難。」——以有所得心為難之所從生，本論則但述其難而不標所得之心，是吉藏自家之釋。其釋佛答之具二事云：「須菩提但明眾生不可得，為眾生種樹，不明樹體有無。佛答則具二事：不識樹者，此明菩薩體樹不可得也。」——以問答兩邊之所明分為一事二事，與本論釋喻專就葉華果三益者所就不同，並錄。其釋葉之益云：「葉陰涼，除三惡道熱」，與本論「如樹葉蔭，熱時涼樂」及「得離三惡道熱苦」二語相合。其釋初發所念云：「當念何等法，第五、明始行所念也。」又云：「般若深妙一無定相，故令始行標心佛心果也。」——以般若無定相為佛令始行標心佛果之由，與本論所出之四重捨得樂者理路有別，兩存之。其釋念為增上云：「種智雖畢竟淨而能知一切法，故云念為增上也。」——與本論「諸法各各有力」之答同歸而所取之喻據不同。其釋方便一段云：「上云種智及一切法自性空，令問云：何等空中方便修行耶？」又云：「此文中略就檀一行中成熟眾生淨佛國土，餘行皆應爾也。」——以檀一行為例而例餘行，與本論以布施逐位遮盡者體例相同。其釋得法之名云：「得法者得佛道，用得法是菩薩道也。」——與本論「得法，是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；用得法是菩薩道」一語所指相同而措辭小異。其釋末段云：「佛答：明第一義中未曾有不有，今隨俗故，云佛知無所有而為眾生說有不有也。」——以第一義中未曾有不有解二諦不異，與本論「世俗如即是第一義如」所歸相同。
慧影《大智度論疏》、均正《四論玄義》二家，本品〔查無〕：二書之中『道樹品』『種樹品』皆零命中，慧影書中『道樹』一詞唯一見者係論佛土之語，與本品品題無涉，如實誌其闕，不以他處之文充之。天台一家諸疏之中『道樹』一詞屢見，然皆為坐道樹成道之通泛用語，非具名徵引本品，亦〔查無〕。諸本品題之異稱與品次之差、所釋經本品名之異名，詳考據層。
The Tree of the Path: Why the Difficulty of Planting a Tree in Space Is Not an Impossibility but a Great Difficulty; Why the Tree-Planter's Not Recognising Root, Trunk, Branches, and Leaves Is Precisely the Mark of the Bodhisattva's Practice of the Path; Why the Three Benefits of Leaves, Flowers, and Fruit Must Be Spoken of in Three Layers; Why the Bodhisattva's Being as a Buddha Is Not an Exalting of the Bodhisattva; Why the Sequence of Training in Suchness-Prajñā Locks Step upon Step and Cannot Be Skipped; Why the Sixfold Weighing Must Take the Ground of Dry Wisdom and So On up to the Bodhisattva Turned towards the Buddha Path for Comparison; Why, When the One of the First Arousing of the Mind Should Keep in Mind the Omniscience of All Kinds, the Buddha Does Not First Teach the Deep Dharma; Why the Non-existent Dharma as Object and Thought as Dominant Condition Do Not Contradict Each Other; Why Being Called a Non-existent Dharma Because Self-Nature Is Non-existent Is Not Annihilation; Why within Being without Nature One Can Still Practise the Six Perfections and Purify Buddha-Worlds; Why the Animals, Though They Too Have Suchness, Are Not Named as a Buddha; Why the Simile of Obtaining the Pearls by Lightning Is Placed Where the Wisdom Associated with a Single Thought Stands; and Why the Suchness of Worldly Convention Being Precisely the Suchness of the Highest Meaning Is Not Two Tiers of Truth
What Is Being Asked
What this chapter asks is a question that a practitioner most easily asks and that is least easily answered: since the beings to be delivered are unfindable, does the matter of arousing the mind to deliver beings still stand?
Subhūti states this difficulty to the utmost. He does not say that the bodhisattva cannot accomplish the delivering; he says that 「所為甚難」 tr. "what they do is very hard," and he himself puts forth a simile—it is as a person wishing to plant a tree in space. Space has nothing to rest on, and what is planted has nowhere to take root; beings are unfindable, and the mind aroused to deliver them has nowhere to apply its strength. This one simile sets up the whole tension of the chapter at a single stroke: the difficulty is not that beings are too many; it is that even the object to be delivered cannot be taken hold of.
The Buddha's answer does not come back from the side of emptiness, nor does it come back from the side of existence; it takes over Subhūti's simile and changes its angle. The Buddha says: it is as a person plants a tree, not recognising the tree's root, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruit, and only cherishes and guards it and waters it, and it little by little grows large, and flowers, leaves, and fruit are accomplished. The person who plants the tree need not first recognise the substance and nature of the tree, and the tree grows all the same; the bodhisattva need not first obtain the real dharma of beings, and the six perfections all the same little by little are practised into the Buddha-tree. Subhūti's simile speaks of the place where one plants being empty; the Buddha's simile speaks of the one who plants not recognising—when the two similes are joined, the difficulty is not denied, and yet it is given its place. This is the origin of the chapter's name, 「道樹」 tr. "the tree of the path."
Once the tree is set up, the Buddha at once speaks of its use in three layers: those whom the leaves benefit are freed from the three evil destinies, those whom the flowers benefit obtain birth among humans and gods, and those whom the fruit benefits obtain the four fruits of the śramaṇa and so on up to the Buddha path, and by the three vehicles enter nirvāṇa without remainder. The three layers go from thin to thick, each layer nearer to the ultimate than the last. When the treatise-author explains this simile he further matches out the nature and marks of the three things one by one: the leaves are taken for their shade and coolness, which can keep off the heat; the flowers for their fine colour, pure fragrance, and softness; the fruit for their colour, fragrance, flavour, and strength. Here one matter should be kept in mind—among the three benefits there is not one that is ‘causing beings to become really existent’; what is benefited is in every case the suffering and pleasure of beings, not the self-nature of beings.
The latter half of the chapter turns from the tree simile into suchness. Subhūti praises the bodhisattva as being as a Buddha; the Buddha not only approves it but also pushes the reason to the bottom: by reason of suchness the Tathāgata is spoken of, and by reason of suchness too the worthies and sages are spoken of, form and so on up to consciousness are spoken of, all dharmas and so on up to the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature are spoken of; the suchnesses are without difference, and therefore the bodhisattva trains in this suchness, obtains the omniscience of all kinds, and obtains the name Tathāgata. From here onward, the sūtra text asks all the way through: whether the omniscience of all kinds is an existent dharma or a non-existent dharma, why the self-nature of dharmas is non-existent, how within being without nature one can still practise the six perfections and purify buddha-worlds, and, since dharmas and the nature of dharmas are separated, how one can still know existence and know non-existence. In between, the treatise-author sets up three rounds of question and answer, and at the end returns to a single sentence: the suchness of worldly truth is precisely the suchness of the truth of the highest meaning. The whole chapter, beginning from 「虛空中種樹」 tr. "planting a tree in space" and concluding at 「世諦、第一義諦無異也」 tr. "Worldly truth and the truth of the highest meaning are without difference," asks about one and the same matter—how practice is to be set up within emptiness.
Passage by Passage
1. Subhūti sets up the difficulty: not finding beings and yet seeking awakening for the sake of beings is like planting a tree in space. At the head of the chapter Subhūti addresses the Buddha. He first praises prajñā as very deep, and at once brings that depth down onto a concrete difficulty: the bodhisattva 「不得眾生，而為眾生求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "does not find beings, and yet for the sake of beings seeks anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." In reading this sentence one must see clearly that the two occurrences of 「眾生」 tr. "beings" are one and the same—that for whose sake one acts is it, and that which is unfindable is also it. If it is read as ‘beings exist in the mundane truth and do not exist in the true truth’ and so split into two sections, the difficulty disappears, and the tension of the sūtra text is lost too. Subhūti's putting forth of the simile of planting a tree in space is precisely a refusal to let anyone dissolve the difficulty by the method of splitting it into sections.
2. The Buddha answers with the simile of planting a tree: not recognising the tree's root, trunk, branches, and leaves, and yet cherishing and guarding it and watering it, it little by little grows large. The Buddha's answer is in two sections. The first section first acknowledges the difficulty: 「如是！如是！諸菩薩摩訶薩所為甚難」 tr. "Just so! Just so! What the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas do is very hard"—he does not deny the difficulty Subhūti has set up. Only the second section brings out the simile: it is as a person plants a tree, not recognising the tree's root, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruit, only cherishing and guarding it and watering it, and it little by little grows large; flowers, leaves, and fruit are accomplished, and all obtain the use of them. The point where this simile puts its strength lies in the two Chinese characters 「不識」 tr. "not recognising": the person who plants the tree need not first have a set of views about the tree, and the growth of the tree does not depend on his views; the bodhisattva need not first obtain the real dharma of beings, and the gradual practice of the six perfections does not depend on this either. Next the Dharma is matched with the simile: for the sake of beings one seeks awakening, little by little practises the six perfections, obtains the omniscience of all kinds, accomplishes the Buddha-tree, and with leaves, flowers, and fruit benefits beings.
3. As for the leaves benefiting beings: because of the bodhisattva, beings obtain freedom from the three evil destinies. The Buddha himself sets up three questions and himself answers them; the first question is about the leaves. The benefit of the leaves is 「因菩薩摩訶薩得離三惡道」 tr. "because of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, they obtain freedom from the three evil destinies." The three evil destinies are the uttermost place of suffering, and so they are matched with the thinnest layer. Here one should not read 「因菩薩」 tr. "because of the bodhisattva" as the bodhisattva receiving the retribution in place of beings—the sūtra text says only that because of the bodhisattva they obtain freedom; it does not say that the suffering they are freed from is transferred onto the bodhisattva's body.
4. As for the flowers benefiting beings: because of the bodhisattva, beings obtain birth in the great clans of the kṣatriyas and so on up to the abode of the heaven of neither perception nor non-perception. The second question is about the flowers. The benefit of the flowers is obtaining birth in the great clans of the kṣatriyas, the great clans of the brahmins, the great families of the householders, the abode of the Heaven of the Four Heavenly Kings, and so on up to the abode of the heaven of neither perception nor non-perception. This list rises from the nobility of the human world, passes through the heavens of the desire realm, and reaches the summit of the formless realm, going up step by step. What is listed is all the retribution of the good destinies, and so it is matched with the middle layer. The practitioner should know here: the sūtra text does not take birth in heaven as the ultimate; it only places it in the middle of the three layers—it does not discard it, nor does it take it as sufficient.
5. As for the fruit benefiting beings: because the bodhisattva obtains the omniscience of all kinds, he causes beings to obtain the four fruits of the śramaṇa and so on up to the Buddha path, and by the three vehicles to enter nirvāṇa without remainder. The third question is about the fruit. The benefit of the fruit is that, after the bodhisattva obtains the omniscience of all kinds, he causes beings to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna, the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, the fruit of the anāgāmin, the fruit of the arhat, the pratyekabuddha path, and the Buddha path, and these beings 「漸漸以三乘法於無餘涅槃而般涅槃」 tr. "little by little, by the dharmas of the three vehicles, attain parinirvāṇa within nirvāṇa without remainder." Only here do the three layers reach the ultimate. Note the two Chinese characters 「漸漸」 tr. "little by little"—they echo the 「漸漸長大」 tr. "little by little it grows large" of the tree-planting in the preceding passage and the 「漸漸行」 tr. "little by little practise" of practising the six perfections; the whole section uses 「漸漸」 tr. "little by little" in three places, and this is the rhythm of the gate of practice in this chapter.
6. The bodhisattva does not find the real dharma of beings and yet delivers beings, and has the thought that within all dharmas there are no beings. When the three benefits have been spoken, the Buddha returns to the difficulty at the head of the chapter: this bodhisattva 「不得眾生實法，而度眾生令離我顛倒著」 tr. "does not find the real dharma of beings, and yet delivers beings, causing them to be free from clinging to self and to inversion," and himself has this thought: 「一切諸法中無眾生，我所為眾生求一切種智，是眾生實不可得。」 tr. "Within all dharmas there are no beings; the beings for whose sake I seek the omniscience of all kinds are really unfindable." This is the first point of gathering-in of the whole chapter—delivering and unfindability stand at the same time; it is not first taking a real being and then saying that he is empty, nor is it not delivering because of emptiness. What is left behind is 「我顛倒著」 tr. "clinging to self and to inversion," not beings themselves.
7. Subhūti praises the bodhisattva as being as a Buddha, and himself states that its causes and conditions lie in his being able to cut off the seeds of the evil destinies. Subhūti, hearing this, exclaims: 「當知是菩薩為如佛。」 tr. "It should be known that this bodhisattva is as a Buddha." He states the reason himself: because of this bodhisattva, all the seeds of the hells, the seeds of the animals, and the seeds of the hungry ghosts are cut off; all the difficulties are cut off; all the paths of the poor, the low, and the mean are cut off; all of the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm is cut off. The reasons given lie entirely on the side of 「斷」 tr. "cutting off"—cutting off all the way from the seeds of the three evil destinies to the three realms. These words stand in exact contrast with the three benefits of leaves, flowers, and fruit above: the three benefits speak of what is given; here it speaks of what is cut off.
8. The Buddha approves and further states the causes and conditions: if the bodhisattva did not arouse the mind, the world would have no buddhas of the three times and no worthies and sages. The Buddha does not only give his approval; he also pushes the reason wider: if the bodhisattva did not arouse the mind to seek awakening, the world would have no buddhas of the past, the future, and the present, and would also have no pratyekabuddhas, arhats, anāgāmins, sakṛdāgāmins, or srota-āpannas, and the three evil destinies and the three realms would have no time of being cut off. In reading this passage one should see its direction—it is not saying that the bodhisattva creates the buddhas and the worthies and sages; it is saying that without this one move of arousing the mind, this whole road that gives birth to the worthies and sages does not stand. Arousing the mind is the starting point of the road, not the maker of the fruit.
9. By reason of suchness the Tathāgata, the worthies and sages, and form and so on up to the conditioned and unconditioned natures are spoken of; because the suchnesses are without difference, it is named suchness. The Buddha pushes the meaning of 「如佛」 tr. "as a Buddha" still further down to its root. He first repeats the words Subhūti has spoken, and then answers why it is so: by reason of suchness the Tathāgata is spoken of; by reason of suchness the pratyekabuddha, the arhat, and all the worthies and sages are spoken of; by reason of suchness form and so on up to consciousness are spoken of; by reason of suchness all dharmas and so on up to the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature are spoken of; 「是諸如，如實無異，以是故說名為如」 tr. "these suchnesses are, in reality, without difference; for this reason it is named suchness." What matters most here is the breadth of what is listed—not only the positions of the sages; even form and the conditioned and unconditioned natures are among them. Suchness is not some high position possessed by the sages alone; it is the one and the same reality relied on when all dharmas are spoken of. The bodhisattva trains in this suchness and obtains the omniscience of all kinds, and so obtains the name Tathāgata; saying that he is as a Buddha is 「以如相故」 tr. "by reason of the mark of suchness," not a compliment granted out of human sentiment.
10. The sequence of training in suchness-prajñāpāramitā, from training in the suchness of all dharmas up to establishing beings in the three vehicles and causing them to enter nirvāṇa without remainder. The Buddha then gives a sequence in which step locks onto step: training in suchness-prajñāpāramitā, one is then able to train in the suchness of all dharmas; training in the suchness of all dharmas, one then obtains the fulfilment of the suchness of all dharmas; having fulfilled it, one then abides in the suchness of all dharmas and obtains mastery; having obtained mastery, one then knows well the faculties of all beings; having known the faculties, one then knows the completeness of the faculties of beings; having known the completeness of the faculties, one then knows the causes and conditions of the deeds of all beings; having known the causes and conditions of deeds, one then obtains the fulfilment of the knowledge from vows; having fulfilled the knowledge from vows, one then purifies the wisdom of the three times; having purified the wisdom of the three times, one then greatly benefits all beings; having greatly benefited them, one then purifies buddha-lands; having purified buddha-lands, one then obtains the omniscience of all kinds; having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, one then turns the wheel of the Dharma; having turned the wheel of the Dharma, one then establishes beings in the three vehicles and causes them to enter nirvāṇa without remainder. The first two turns follow each other by the character 「則」 tr. "then"; from 「具足已」 tr. "having fulfilled" onward, each sentence locks onto the step before by the character 「已」 tr. "having," and not one step can be skipped. The passage concludes with 「菩薩摩訶薩欲得一切功德，自利利人，應發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who wishes to obtain all merits, benefiting himself and benefiting others, should arouse the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—gathering the whole sequence back to the one move of arousing the mind. In reading this passage one should touch on it sentence by sentence, and must not pass over it with a single 「乃至」 tr. "and so on up to"; as for its number of steps, please count them from the sūtra text itself, and do not take a fixed number from outside the treatise.
11. Subhūti says that the gods, humans, and asuras of all the world should pay homage to the bodhisattva who practises the deep prajñā as taught. Subhūti's words arise from the breadth of the merits in the passage above. The one he extols is not ‘the bodhisattva who has attained the path’; it is the bodhisattva who 「能如說行深般若波羅蜜」 tr. "is able to practise the deep prajñāpāramitā as taught"—the weight is on practising as taught, not on whether he has already attained or not yet attained.
12. The Buddha approves his words and says again that all the world should pay homage to him. The Buddha's answer almost says Subhūti's words over again, only adding in the last phrase the one character 「為」 tr. "for him," so that it reads 「應當為作禮」 tr. "should pay homage to him." When the Buddha in the sūtra says a passage over again, it is usually not rhetoric; it is a sealing; what is sealed here is that 「如說行」 tr. "practising as taught" is itself worthy of receiving homage, without waiting for its accomplishment.
13. Subhūti asks how much merit the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent obtains in seeking awakening for the sake of beings. From here the topic turns into weighing. What Subhūti asks about is the bodhisattva of 「初發意」 tr. "the first arousing of intent"—the very first one, who does not yet have any stage to speak of. And what he asks is 「得幾所福德」 tr. "how much merit does he obtain," precisely wanting a measure that can be compared.
14. The Buddha compares it with the merit of the beings of a thousand lands arousing the intent of the two vehicles, which falls short of the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent by a hundred-thousand-myriad-fold. The Buddha first sets up an extremely great measure: the beings within a thousand lands all arouse the intent of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha. Subhūti answers 「甚多無量」 tr. "Very much, and immeasurable." Yet the Buddha says that their merit does not come up to that of the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent, differing to the point of being beyond the reach of calculation and simile, and he brings out the reason: those who arouse the intent of the two vehicles all come forth because of the bodhisattva; the bodhisattva never comes forth because of the two vehicles. This reason is the axle of the whole passage of weighing—what is compared is not the amount of merit; it is the before and after of giving birth.
15. The Buddha continues by comparing the merit of the beings of the three-thousand great-thousand world who abide on the ground of dry wisdom. The Buddha enlarges the measure again: the two-thousand world and the three-thousand great-thousand world are also like this; and, first leaving aside those who abide on the grounds of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, he asks instead about the beings of the three-thousand great-thousand world all abiding on the ground of dry wisdom. Subhūti still answers 「甚多無量」 tr. "Very much, and immeasurable," and the Buddha still answers that it does not come up to the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent. Here one should see the Buddha's method of setting the question—each round raises the object of comparison one level, while the answer does not change.
16. The Buddha continues by comparing it with the beings who abide on the ground of the stage of nature and so on up to the pratyekabuddha ground. The third round raises the object of comparison all the way through the ground of the stage of nature, the ground of the person of the eight, the ground of seeing, the ground of thinning, the ground of freedom from desire, the ground of what has been done, and the pratyekabuddha ground; this is the whole array of stages of the practice and realisation of the two vehicles. All this merit, compared with the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent, still falls short by a hundredfold, a thousandfold, a vast koṭi of myriads-fold, and so on up to being beyond the reach of calculation and simile. Listing ground by ground without abbreviation is precisely to make the practitioner see: what is compared can be raised no further, and the answer is still thus.
17. The Buddha continues the weighing: the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent does not come up to the bodhisattva who has entered the position of dharmas, the one who has entered the position of dharmas does not come up to the one turned towards the Buddha path, and the one turned towards the Buddha path does not come up to the Buddha. At this point the weighing turns its direction around. The preceding three rounds take the two vehicles to compare with the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent; this round takes the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent to compare with bodhisattvas higher up: the one who has first aroused intent does not come up to the one who has entered the position of dharmas, the one who has entered the position of dharmas does not come up to the one turned towards the Buddha path, the one turned towards the Buddha path does not come up to the merit of the Buddha, and at each level it is by a hundred-thousand-myriad-fold, a vast koṭi of myriads-fold, and so on up to being beyond the reach of calculation and simile. Only here is the sixfold weighing complete—the first three tiers protect the first mind from belittling itself; the latter three tiers protect the first mind from exalting itself. If in reading this passage one takes only the first half, it becomes an exalting of the first arousing of intent; if one takes only the latter half, it becomes a belittling of the first arousing of intent. Only when the two halves are seen together is it the sūtra's meaning.
18. Subhūti asks what dharma the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind should keep in mind. The weighing being finished, what Subhūti asks accordingly comes down onto the gate of practice: such a bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind—in daily use, what should he keep in mind? This question is extremely plain, yet it is the pivot of the whole latter half of the chapter.
19. The Buddha answers that he should keep in mind the omniscience of all kinds. The Buddha's answer is only six Chinese characters: 「應念一切種智。」 tr. "He should keep in mind the omniscience of all kinds." He does not teach him first to contemplate emptiness, nor does he teach him first to learn a sequence; he points straight to the object kept in mind as the Buddha's ultimate fruit. Why this is so, the treatise-author sets up a question later on to explain specially; here the words are first recorded.
20. Subhūti asks about the substance of the omniscience of all kinds and about its object, its dominant condition, its practice, and its mark. Subhūti presses with four matters: what the omniscience of all kinds is, what it has as its object, what as its dominant condition, what as its practice, and what as its mark. These four questions are the skeleton of the latter half of the chapter; the Buddha's answers and the treatise-author's explanations below all follow these four headings.
21. The Buddha answers that the omniscience of all kinds is without anything existent, without perception, without thought, without arising, without showing, and has the non-existent dharma as its object, thought as its dominant condition, quiescence as its practice, and the signless as its mark. The Buddha first speaks of its substance: 「一切種智無所有、無想、無念、無生、無示。」 tr. "The omniscience of all kinds is without anything existent, without perception, without thought, without arising, without showing." Next he repeats Subhūti's four questions and answers them one by one: it has the non-existent dharma as its object, thought as its dominant condition, quiescence as its practice, and the signless as its mark. Here there is a point easily got wrong that must first be settled: having said 「無想、無念」 tr. "without perception, without thought," why does he also say that thought is its dominant condition? The two statements do not contradict each other—‘without thought’ says that its substance cannot be taken by perception and thought; ‘thought as its dominant condition’ speaks of the power on which the practitioner relies within this gate. The treatise-author specially sets up a question and answer later on to explain this; see passages 53 and 54 below.
22. Subhūti asks in return: since the omniscience of all kinds is a non-existent dharma, are form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the marks of the conditioned and the unconditioned, also non-existent dharmas? Subhūti pushes the Buddha's words onto all dharmas. What he lists is extremely broad: form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; inner dharmas and outer dharmas; 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; the three samādhi; the eight liberations; the nine successive absorptions; the Buddha's ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas; great kindness, great compassion, great joy, and great equanimity; the six supernormal powers; the mark of the conditioned and the mark of the unconditioned. The broader the list, the more pressing the intent of the question—he wants to know whether this 「無法」 tr. "non-existent dharma" is said only of the Buddha's fruit, or extends to everything.
23. The Buddha answers that form too is a non-existent dharma, and so on up to the mark of the conditioned and the mark of the unconditioned too being non-existent dharmas. The Buddha's answer is extremely short; he only points out the two ends of the list Subhūti has made: form too is a non-existent dharma, and so on up to the mark of the conditioned and the mark of the unconditioned too are non-existent dharmas. A short answer that gathers in everything is precisely an answer of ‘it extends to everything’.
24. Subhūti asks for its causes and conditions. Subhūti does not take the short answer as sufficient, and asks further why it is so: by reason of what causes and conditions the omniscience of all kinds is a non-existent dharma, and form and so on up to the marks of the conditioned and the unconditioned are also non-existent dharmas. This one question pushes the whole section into principle.
25. The Buddha answers that because self-nature is non-existent, this is called a non-existent dharma. The Buddha answers: 「一切種智自性無故，若法自性無是名無法。色乃至有為、無為相亦如是。」 tr. "Because the self-nature of the omniscience of all kinds is non-existent. If the self-nature of a dharma is non-existent, this is called a non-existent dharma. Form and so on up to the mark of the conditioned and the mark of the unconditioned are also like this." Here one must see clearly the place where the term 「無法」 tr. "non-existent dharma" is defined—it does not say that this dharma does not exist; it says that its self-nature is non-existent; because its self-nature is non-existent, it is called a non-existent dharma. Once the definition is set up, all the statements of 「無法」 tr. "non-existent dharma" before and after should be read according to it.
26. Subhūti continues by asking why the self-nature of dharmas is non-existent. Subhūti presses down one layer further: by reason of what causes and conditions the self-nature of dharmas is non-existent. One question following on another is driving the meaning of 「無法」 tr. "non-existent dharma" to its final ground.
27. The Buddha answers that because they are born from the coming together of causes and conditions they are without self-nature, and that because all dharmas are empty of self-nature it should be known that all dharmas are without nature. The Buddha gives the final ground: 「諸法和合因緣故生法中無自性，若無自性是名無法。」 tr. "Because dharmas are born from the coming together of causes and conditions, within the dharma that is born there is no self-nature; if there is no self-nature, this is called a non-existent dharma." And he concludes with 「一切法自性空故，以是故當知一切法無性」 tr. "because all dharmas are empty of self-nature; for this reason it should be known that all dharmas are without nature." At this point the three layers run through one another: born from the coming together of causes and conditions, therefore without self-nature; without self-nature, therefore called a non-existent dharma; all dharmas empty of self-nature, therefore all dharmas without nature. The practitioner should here keep one measure—what is refuted is self-nature, not the dharma-marks that arise from the coming together of causes and conditions; if it is read as all dharmas not existing, then the six perfections and the purifying of buddha-worlds below would have nowhere to be set up.
28. Subhūti asks: if all dharmas are without nature, by what power of skilful means is the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent able to practise the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, purify buddha-worlds, and bring beings to accomplishment? This is the second great difficulty of the whole chapter, woven on the same loom as the difficulty at the head of the chapter: the head of the chapter asks how, since the beings to be delivered are unfindable, one is able to deliver them; here it asks how, since the dharmas to be practised are without nature, one is able to practise them. Subhūti lists what is to be practised item by item—dānapāramitā and so on up to prajñāpāramitā, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, the four formless absorptions, the emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, the three samādhi, the eight liberations, the nine successive absorptions, the Buddha's ten powers and so on up to great kindness and great compassion, the omniscience of all kinds—and the more complete the list, the more solid the difficulty.
29. The Buddha answers that training in dharmas' being without nature is precisely the power of skilful means; practising the six perfections he cultivates and trains in the Buddha path; with the wisdom associated with a single thought he obtains the omniscience of all kinds, and the afflictions and their habitual residues are forever exhausted; looking over the three-thousand great-thousand world with the Buddha-eye, even a non-existent dharma is unfindable. The Buddha's answer is the positive face of the gate of practice of the whole chapter. First he sets up the meaning of the power of skilful means: 「菩薩摩訶薩能學諸法無性，亦能淨佛世界、成就眾生，知世界、眾生亦無性，即是方便力。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva is able to train in dharmas' being without nature, and is also able to purify buddha-worlds and bring beings to accomplishment, and knows that worlds and beings are also without nature; this is precisely the power of skilful means."—the power of skilful means is not outside of being without nature; it lies exactly in being able to train in being without nature and still practise. Next he matches it item by item: practising giving and so on up to practising the omniscience of all kinds are all cultivating and training in the Buddha path, and he also knows that the Buddha path is without nature; practising thus until the causes and conditions of the Buddha path are fulfilled, with the wisdom associated with a single thought he obtains the omniscience of all kinds, and all the afflictions and their habitual residues are forever exhausted, because they no longer arise. Next the Buddha-eye is taken as the proof: looking over the three-thousand great-thousand world with the Buddha-eye, 「無法尚不可得，何況有法」 tr. "even a non-existent dharma is unfindable, how much less an existent dharma." Next, taking giving as the example, he blocks everything off position by position: even the non-existent dharma of what is given is unfindable; even the non-existent dharma of the one who receives and of the bodhisattva's mind is not known; and so on up to the one who obtains, the dharma obtained, and the place of obtaining of the omniscience of all kinds, which are likewise so. At the end he brings out its general cause: 「一切法本性爾」 tr. "the original nature of all dharmas is just so"; it is not made by the Buddha, not made by the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, nor made by any other person, because all dharmas have no maker. This passage is the last great section of the sūtra segment; in reading it one must not take only the side of ‘being without anything existent’ and lose the side of ‘and yet still practising’.
30. Subhūti asks whether dharmas and the nature of dharmas are separated. The last question of the sūtra segment rises from here. Subhūti asks: 「諸法、諸法性離耶？」 tr. "Are dharmas separated from the nature of dharmas?" What he asks is whether there is any distance between a dharma and the nature of dharmas—if they are separated, the knower and the known are cut apart.
31. The Buddha answers that they are indeed separated; Subhūti continues the difficulty: how can a separated dharma know of a separated dharma whether it exists or does not exist? The Buddha answers directly: 「如是！如是！諸法、諸法性離。」 tr. "Just so! Just so! Dharmas are separated from the nature of dharmas." Subhūti at once takes up his words and raises the difficulty: if they are separated, how can a separated dharma know of a separated dharma whether it exists or does not exist? And he himself sets out his reasoning: a non-existent dharma cannot know a non-existent dharma, an existent dharma cannot know an existent dharma; a non-existent dharma cannot know an existent dharma, an existent dharma cannot know a non-existent dharma. With the four alternatives blocked off completely, he then forms a single question: since all dharmas are of the mark of being without anything existent, how does the bodhisattva make the distinction that this dharma exists or this dharma does not exist?
32. The Buddha answers that by reason of worldly truth one shows beings that it exists or does not exist, not by the highest meaning; that worldly truth and the truth of the highest meaning are without difference, and it is because beings do not know this suchness that one speaks by worldly dharmas; and furthermore, that because there is clinging within the five aggregates of clinging, one shows that it exists or does not exist, causing them to know the pure being without anything existent. The Buddha's answer is in three sections. The first section: 「菩薩摩訶薩以世諦故示眾生若有、若無，非以第一義。」 tr. "It is by reason of worldly truth that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva shows beings that it exists or does not exist, not by the highest meaning." The second section answers Subhūti's question whether the two truths are different or not: 「世諦、第一義諦無異也。何以故？世諦如即是第一義諦如。」 tr. "Worldly truth and the truth of the highest meaning are without difference. Why? The suchness of worldly truth is precisely the suchness of the truth of the highest meaning." The reason for speaking of existence and speaking of non-existence is that beings do not know and do not see this suchness. The third section, taking up the preceding with 「復次」 tr. "furthermore," speaks of one layer more: because beings have the mark of clinging within the five aggregates of clinging, they do not know what is without anything existent; showing existence and showing non-existence for the sake of these beings is in order to cause them to 「知清淨無所有」 tr. "know the pure being without anything existent." These three sections together form the conclusion of the sūtra segment, and they lock head and tail with the difficulty at the head of the chapter—that not finding beings and yet seeking awakening for the sake of beings is possible lies precisely in this: speaking of existence and speaking of non-existence are both the setting-up of worldly truth, and the suchness of worldly truth is not different from the suchness of the highest meaning.
33. The treatise-author explains: Subhūti, having heard that nothing to be attained is precisely attainment, exclaims that such a thing had never been. The treatise segment begins with 「釋曰」 tr. "explaining, it says." The treatise-author first points out the ground of Subhūti's mind when he puts his question: he had 「從佛聞無所得即是得」 tr. "heard from the Buddha that nothing to be attained is precisely attainment," and therefore exclaimed that such a thing had never been and said to the Buddha, 「世尊！是般若甚深！」 tr. "World-Honored One! This prajñā is very deep!" This one sentence supplies a provenance the sūtra text does not state clearly—the praise at the head of the chapter is not a general exclamation; it arises from what was heard in the preceding chapter. The treatise-author's closing addition, 「如經中廣說」 tr. "as is said at length in the sūtra," is a phrase pointing the way, not a passing-over.
34. The treatise-author explains the tree simile: leaves, flowers, and fruit go from thin to thick; the shade of the leaves removes heat, the flowers are lovely and bring the pleasure of humans and gods, the fruit obtains the fruits of the noble path. The treatise-author glosses the simile thing by thing. First he sets up the general meaning: 「以樹為譬喻，葉、華、果實，從薄轉厚。」 tr. "The tree is taken as the simile; leaves, flowers, and fruit go from thin to thick." Next he matches them one by one: as the shade of the tree's leaves, cool and pleasant in the time of heat, beings by the shade of the bodhisattva's tree of the path obtain freedom from the hot suffering of the three evil destinies, and the reason is 「遮惡故」 tr. "because evil is kept off"; as the flowers, fine in colour, pure in fragrance, and soft, beings, because the bodhisattva teaches and transforms them by giving and upholding the precepts, receive merit and pleasure among humans and gods; as the tree's fruit, with colour, fragrance, flavour, and strength, beings, because of the bodhisattva, obtain the fruits of the noble path, such as that of the srota-āpanna. Three things, three natures, three benefits, matched one to one, with none set up in vain. This passage is the proper explanation of the meaning of the simile in the whole chapter; when reading the three benefits of the sūtra segment, one should read it together with this passage.
35. The treatise-author repeats Subhūti's words of rejoicing and brings out the causes and conditions he himself states. The treatise-author restates the sūtra text: Subhūti, hearing this, rejoiced and said, 「是菩薩如佛無異」 tr. "This bodhisattva is as a Buddha, without difference," and he points out that 「此中自說因緣」 tr. "here he himself states the causes and conditions"—namely, 「因菩薩故斷地獄等惡道」 tr. "because of the bodhisattva, the evil destinies such as the hells are cut off." Here the treatise-author passes no judgement; he only marks the sūtra text's own structure: the words of praise are followed at once by the reason, and that reason is given by Subhūti himself, without waiting for the Buddha to speak.
36. The treatise-author repeats that the Buddha approved his meaning and further stated the causes and conditions. The treatise-author continues the restatement: the Buddha approved his meaning and further stated the causes and conditions, namely 「須菩提！若菩薩不發心求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，乃至三界無斷時」 tr. "Subhūti! If the bodhisattva did not arouse the mind to seek anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and so on up to: the three realms would have no time of being cut off." By the two Chinese characters 「更說」 tr. "further stated" he distinguishes the two layers of causes and conditions—what Subhūti states lies in cutting off evil; what the Buddha further states lies in this: without the arousing of the mind, the worthies and sages and the time of cutting off would both be absent.
37. Furthermore: because of obtaining the suchness of dharmas one is called Tathāgata, and so on up to srota-āpanna; suchness is in the Buddha and also in the bodhisattva; apart from suchness there is no further dharma that does not enter suchness. The treatise-author, with 「復次」 tr. "furthermore," brings out one more layer of his own. First he extends the meaning of the sūtra: because of obtaining the suchness of dharmas one is called Tathāgata and so on up to being called srota-āpanna; because of suchness form and so on up to the unconditioned nature are spoken of; 「是諸法如皆一無異」 tr. "these suchnesses of dharmas are all one and without difference." Next he brings out the conclusion: the bodhisattva who trains in this suchness will certainly obtain sarvajñā, and therefore it is said that he is as a Buddha, without difference. Next he sets up a distinction, and this is the most crucial point of this passage—「不以我心貪貴菩薩故說言如佛，以得如故言如佛」 tr. "It is not because my mind covets and prizes the bodhisattva that I say he is as a Buddha; it is because he obtains suchness that he is said to be as a Buddha": saying that the bodhisattva is as a Buddha does not come from a private mind partial to the bodhisattva; it is said with respect to obtaining suchness. At the end he gathers it all up in one sentence: 「是如在佛，亦在菩薩，以一相故」 tr. "This suchness is in the Buddha and is also in the bodhisattva, because it is the same one mark," and 「離如，更無有法不入如者」 tr. "Apart from suchness, there is no further dharma that does not enter suchness."
38. Question and answer one: if it is because of being the same in suchness that one is named as a Buddha, the animals too have suchness; why are they not named as a Buddha? The treatise-author sets up the first round of question and answer. This question is extremely sharp—since suchness pervades all dharmas and is without difference, in the body of an animal too there is this suchness; why is it not said that the animal is as a Buddha? This question drives the 「以一相故」 tr. "because it is the same one mark" of the preceding passage to its extreme; if the answer cannot hold, the words ‘as a Buddha’ become empty words.
39. Answer: though the animals have suchness, the causes and conditions have not yet come forth; they cannot benefit beings and cannot practise suchness up to sarvajñā. The treatise-author's answer is only one sentence, yet it divides into two parts: first, 「因緣未發」 tr. "the causes and conditions have not yet come forth"; second, 「不能利益眾生、不能行如至薩婆若」 tr. "they cannot benefit beings and cannot practise suchness up to sarvajñā." The first part speaks with respect to position; the latter part speaks with respect to function. It can thus be known that the name 「如佛」 tr. "as a Buddha" does not depend on whether one has suchness or not; it depends on whether one can practise this suchness up to sarvajñā, and whether one can benefit beings with this suchness. The practitioner should here look into himself—having suchness is the same; being able to practise it or not is different.
40. The treatise-author explains that training in suchness-prajñā can fulfil the suchness of all dharmas, and so on up to obtaining mastery, knowing well the faculties of beings, and knowing the causes and conditions of deeds. The treatise-author explains following the sequence of the sūtra text. First he explains 「具足」 tr. "fulfilment": 「具足名得諸法實相，能以種種門令眾生得解」 tr. "Fulfilling is called obtaining the real mark of all dharmas, being able by all kinds of gates to bring beings to understanding"—fulfilment is not a great quantity of things collected; it is obtaining the real mark and being able to open many gates. Next he explains that because of fulfilment one obtains mastery in the suchness of all dharmas, because of obtaining mastery one can know well the faculties of beings, and because of knowing the faculties well one can know the completeness of the faculties of beings. Next he explains 「諸根」 tr. "the faculties" as the five wholesome roots, faith and the rest, which persons of the three vehicles each have, and one can distinguish that this person has them and that person does not, this person has obtained their power and that person has not. Next he explains 「具足」 tr. "complete" as the wholesome roots such as faith being complete; such a person is able to leave the world. Next he speaks separately, faculty by faculty, of their power and function: when the faculty of faith obtains its power, one is then certainly able to receive and uphold without doubt; by the power of vigour, though one has not yet seen the Dharma, one seeks the path with a single mind, not sparing body or life, without resting and without ceasing; by the power of mindfulness one constantly recollects one's teacher's teaching—when wholesome dharmas come one lets them in, when evil dharmas come one does not let them in, like a gatekeeper; by the power of concentration one collects the mind in one place and does not move, so as to help wisdom; by the power of wisdom one is able to contemplate the marks of dharmas as they really are. To each of the five faculties he gives one mark and one simile; they must not be spoken of in a jumble.
41. There are two kinds of obtaining the faculties: in the body of a person of the great mind they become bodhisattva faculties; in the body of a person of small mind they become faculties of the Small Vehicle. After the five faculties the treatise-author sets up a separate heading: the same five faculties, faith and the rest, become bodhisattva faculties in the body of a person of the great mind, and become faculties of the Small Vehicle in the body of a person of small mind; obtaining these complete faculties, one can then be delivered. This judgement is very important—the faculties as faculties are the same; the vehicle they accomplish is divided by the greatness or smallness of the mind. The practitioner should know here that what he himself must examine is not whether he has the five faculties or not, but where his mind is turned.
42. Or there is a bodhisattva who sees that a person, though he has obtained the five faculties, cannot be delivered, because the sins of his evil deeds of former lives are heavy. The treatise-author sets up an exception: or there is a bodhisattva who sees that a person, though he has obtained the five faculties such as faith, still cannot be delivered, and this is because the sins of his evil deeds of former lives are heavy; therefore the sūtra text only then says 「知一切眾生業因緣」 tr. "knows the causes and conditions of the deeds of all beings." This passage is the joint between the two parts above and below—going from the completeness of the faculties to the causes and conditions of deeds is not raising a separate topic; it is completing what the preceding part left unfinished.
43. Wishing to know the causes and conditions of deeds through countless kalpas, one must obtain the supernormal power of former lives; having known, one tells beings of their past sinful deeds; one further seeks the knowledge from vows to know the matters of the three times and tells of future sin and merit, causing them to give rise to fear or to joy and so to be easily delivered. The treatise-author brings out step by step why the knowledge from vows is necessary. To know the causes and conditions of deeds through countless kalpas, one must obtain the supernormal power of former lives; having known, one then tells beings of the causes and conditions of their past sinful deeds. But beings take past sins as already gone and do not give rise to fear; therefore one seeks the knowledge from vows in order to know the matters of the three times; having known, one then tells beings of the causes and conditions of the sinful deeds of the future age—that they will fall into the hells; when beings hear it, they become afraid, and being afraid, their minds are tamed and they are easy to deliver; if one wishes to know the causes and conditions of the rewards of merit in the future age, when one tells them, they rejoice and can be delivered. The two roads of fear and joy are used together, both for the sake of easy delivering. What this passage shows is that the sequence of expounding the Dharma rests on the sequence of knowing and seeing, not on seizing chances as they come.
44. Because the knowledge from vows is fulfilled, the wisdom of the three times is pure, penetrating without obstruction, knowing the good and evil of the three times and the keenness and dullness of faculties in the present, and then expounding the Dharma to teach and transform, benefiting much and not in vain; and so on up to purifying buddha-lands, obtaining the omniscience of all kinds, turning the wheel of the Dharma, and establishing beings by the three vehicles and causing them to enter nirvāṇa without remainder. The treatise-author continues from the preceding part and gathers in its fruit. The wisdom of the three times being pure means knowing the good and evil deeds of the past, knowing the good and evil retributions of the future, and knowing the keenness and dullness of the faculties of beings in the present, and then expounding the Dharma to teach and transform them, 「多所利益不虛」 tr. "benefiting much and not in vain." Next, following the list of the sūtra text, he pushes all the way down: because one greatly benefits beings one is able to purify buddha-lands; having purified buddha-lands one obtains the omniscience of all kinds; because one has obtained the omniscience of all kinds one turns the wheel of the Dharma; having turned the wheel of the Dharma one establishes beings by the three vehicles and causes them to enter nirvāṇa without remainder. The sequence set up in passage 10 of the sūtra segment here obtains, in the treatise segment, the full account of its explanation; the two should be read together.
45. Such benefits all come from within training in suchness; therefore the Buddha says that one who wishes to obtain all merits should arouse the mind of awakening. The treatise-author makes a general gathering-in of the long passage above: 「如是利益，皆從學如中來」 tr. "Such benefits as these all come from within training in suchness," and therefore the Buddha says 「菩薩欲得一切功德，自利利人，當發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」 tr. "The bodhisattva who wishes to obtain all merits, benefiting himself and benefiting others, should arouse the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." This sentence ties knowing the faculties, knowing deeds, the knowledge from vows, the wisdom of the three times, purifying the lands, the omniscience of all kinds, and the rest all back to the two places of training in suchness and arousing the mind, not letting them scatter into a string of the functions of supernormal powers.
46. The treatise-author repeats that Subhūti, hearing that the merits are very many, says that all the world should pay homage. The treatise-author restates the sūtra text and points out its limit: Subhūti, hearing that this bodhisattva's merits are very many, therefore spoke these words; the treatise-author adds one sentence, 「如經中廣說，分別初發意菩薩功德」 tr. "As is said at length in the sūtra, distinguishing the merits of the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent"—tying up the passage of the sixfold weighing with a phrase pointing the way, and not bringing it out again in the treatise segment.
47. The treatise-author supplies the state of mind in which Subhūti asks: he knows that the very deep prajñā is without recollection and imagining and is not what a beginner obtains. This passage is the treatise-author's own contribution. In the sūtra text one sees only Subhūti asking 「初發心菩薩，應念何等法？」 tr. "What dharma should the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind keep in mind?"; the treatise-author supplies why he asks: he knows that this very deep prajñā is without recollection and imagining, not what a beginner can obtain. With this one supplement, why the Buddha below does not teach the deep Dharma but teaches keeping in mind the omniscience of all kinds only then has something to rest on.
48. The Buddha answers that one should keep in mind the omniscience of all kinds; the omniscience of all kinds is one with awakening, sarvajñā, the Buddha-dharma, and the Buddha path, these being other names for it. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answer, and sets up for 「一切種智」 tr. "the omniscience of all kinds" a heading of its other names: it is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, sarvajñā, the Buddha-dharma, the Buddha path, and 「皆是一切種智異名」 tr. "these are all other names for the omniscience of all kinds." This heading is very useful—in the running text of this treatise the four names are used interchangeably, and a reader who does not know them to be other names easily takes them wrongly as four matters.
49. Question and answer two: why does the Buddha answer, saying to keep in mind the omniscience of all kinds? The treatise-author sets up the second round of question and answer. What is asked is exactly the doubt left over by the passage above: since prajñā is very deep and not what a beginner obtains, why does the Buddha straightaway teach him to keep in mind the omniscience of all kinds—is not the object kept in mind higher still?
50. Answer: the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent has not yet obtained deep wisdom and has already given up the pleasures of the five desires; the Buddha teaches him to bind his mind and keep sarvajñā in mind, and by the benefits of the fourfold contrast causes him constantly to keep it in mind. The treatise-author's answer first settles his position: the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent has not yet obtained deep wisdom, and yet has already given up the pleasures of the five desires of the world—above, he does not cling to the pleasure of the Dharma; below, he has already given up the pleasure of desire; he stands exactly in the middle, in a place with nothing to rely on, and so the Buddha teaches him to bind his mind and keep sarvajñā in mind. Next he brings out the content of what is kept in mind, as a fourfold contrast: 「雖捨小雜樂，當得清淨大樂；捨顛倒虛誑樂，得實樂；捨繫縛樂，得解脫樂；捨獨善樂，得共一切眾生善樂。」 tr. "Though you give up small and mixed pleasures, you will obtain pure and great pleasure; giving up inverted, false, and deceptive pleasure, you obtain real pleasure; giving up the pleasure of bondage, you obtain the pleasure of liberation; giving up the pleasure of being good alone, you obtain the pleasure of being good in common with all beings." All four are one giving-up and one obtaining, and the finer what is given up, the broader what is obtained; the last one moreover reaches from oneself to all beings. Because of obtaining such benefits as these, the Buddha teaches the one who has first aroused intent constantly to keep sarvajñā in mind. This passage is the gate of practice in this chapter most pressing for the first mind; the four should be touched on one by one.
51. The treatise-author repeats Subhūti's question whether the omniscience of all kinds is an existent dharma or a non-existent dharma, and what are its object, dominant condition, practice, and mark. The treatise-author repeats the sūtra's question, and supplies a part that the sūtra text does not have but that its meaning necessarily has—「為是有法？為是無法？」 tr. "Is it an existent dharma? Is it a non-existent dharma?" This question is marked clearly in the treatise segment, and the Buddha's answer below, 「無所有名非法」 tr. "what is without anything existent is called not a dharma," corresponds exactly to this question.
52. The treatise-author repeats the Buddha's answer: the omniscience of all kinds is without anything existent; what is without anything existent is called not a dharma, without arising and without ceasing; its object, the suchness and reality of dharmas, is also without anything existent; thought is its dominant condition, quiescence its practice, the signless its mark. The treatise-author repeats the Buddha's answer and adds within it a gloss: 「無所有名非法」 tr. "what is without anything existent is called not a dharma"—defining once more at this place the sūtra's term 「無法」 tr. "non-existent dharma," and linking it with 「無生無滅」 tr. "without arising and without ceasing." Next he answers the four headings one by one. This passage should be read against passage 21 of the sūtra segment: the sūtra says the non-existent dharma is its object, the treatise says 「諸法如實緣亦無所有」 tr. "its object, the suchness and reality of dharmas, is also without anything existent"; the two statements return to the same place while their wording differs, and one must not reread either by means of the other.
53. Question and answer three: since all is ultimate emptiness, why is thought alone said to be dominant? The treatise-author sets up the third round of question and answer, and what it asks is precisely the difficulty left over by passage 21: since all is ultimate emptiness, why, among the four headings, is it only of 「念」 tr. "thought" that it is said to be dominant? If this question is not resolved, then 「無想、無念」 tr. "without perception, without thought" and 「念為增上」 tr. "thought as its dominant condition" must obstruct each other.
54. Answer: dharmas each have their own power; the Buddha, having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, no longer ponders, and whatever he keeps in mind he obtains; therefore thought is said to be dominant. The treatise-author's answer is in two parts. The first part sets up the general rule: 「諸法各各有力」 tr. "dharmas each have their own power"—ultimate emptiness does not obstruct each dharma's having its own power and function; and he cites the Buddha's wisdom as ultimate emptiness, and suchness, the nature of dharmas, the limit of reality, and the signless as precisely the mark of quiescence. The latter part speaks with respect to the Buddha's fruit: after the Buddha obtains the omniscience of all kinds, he 「不復思惟，無復難易遠近，所念皆得」 tr. "no longer ponders, and no longer has any difference of hard and easy, far and near; whatever he keeps in mind he obtains," and therefore it is said that thought is dominant. It can thus be known that 「增上」 tr. "dominant" speaks of what is kept in mind being obtained at once without gap; it does not say that thought has a real substance. Ultimate emptiness and each having its own power go side by side in this passage without contradiction.
55. The treatise-author repeats Subhūti's question: is it only the omniscience of all kinds that is a non-existent dharma, or are dharmas such as form also non-existent dharmas? The treatise-author repeats in brief words the long question of passage 22 of the sūtra segment. The sūtra text lists dharmas extremely broadly; the treatise segment gathers them only with the three Chinese characters 「色等法」 tr. "dharmas such as form"—this is the treatise-author's usual way of writing, not a passing-over; the reader should go back to the sūtra segment and count off its full list.
56. The treatise-author repeats the Buddha's answer that all dharmas such as form are also non-existent dharmas, and that he himself states the causes and conditions: what is born from the coming together of causes and conditions is without self-nature, and what is without self-nature is empty, a non-existent dharma. The treatise-author repeats the Buddha's answer, and marks that the Buddha 「自說因緣」 tr. "himself states the causes and conditions": 「若法從因緣和合生，即無自性；若法無自性，即是空無法。以是因緣故，當知一切法無所有性。」 tr. "If a dharma is born from the coming together of causes and conditions, it is without self-nature; if a dharma is without self-nature, it is empty, a non-existent dharma. By reason of these causes and conditions, it should be known that all dharmas are of a nature without anything existent." It is the same line of reasoning as what is said in passage 27 of the sūtra segment, while here the three Chinese characters 「空無法」 tr. "empty, a non-existent dharma" are said together, binding 「空」 tr. "emptiness" and 「無法」 tr. "non-existent dharma" into one matter.
57. The treatise-author repeats Subhūti's question: by what skilful means does the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind practise the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds? The treatise-author repeats the difficulty of passage 28 of the sūtra segment. The sūtra text lists things at great length; the treatise segment gathers them into the one sentence 「行檀波羅蜜乃至一切種智，淨佛世界、教化眾生」 tr. "practise dānapāramitā and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, purify buddha-worlds, and teach and transform beings"—as before, it is a gathering, not an abridgement.
58. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answer: training within the nature of dharmas that is without anything existent, entering contemplation, one is also able to gather merits, teach and transform beings, and purify buddha-worlds; the two dharmas of existence and non-existence are practised at one time; when practising the six perfections one also cultivates and orders the Buddha path; sitting at the seat of awakening, using the wisdom associated with a single thought, one obtains the omniscience of all kinds, as a person who at night loses a string of pearls, and the lightning flashes for a moment, at once obtains it back. This passage is the proper explanation of the gate of practice in the treatise segment, and there are several layers within it. First, where the power of skilful means lies: 「無所有法性中學，入觀亦能集諸功德、教化眾生、淨佛世界，即是方便力」 tr. "training within the nature of dharmas that is without anything existent, entering contemplation, he is also able to gather all merits, teach and transform beings, and purify buddha-worlds; this is the power of skilful means"—it is not doing merit separately after leaving contemplation; it is being able to gather it while within contemplation. Second, the treatise-author himself brings out a sentence to make clear why it is so: 「所謂有、無二法，能一時行故，所謂畢竟空，集諸福德」 tr. "Namely, because the two dharmas of existence and non-existence can be practised at one time—namely, ultimate emptiness, and the gathering of all merit"—existence and non-existence are not two times, before and after; they go side by side at one time, and this is precisely where the skill lies. Third, when practising the six perfections, 「亦修治佛道」 tr. "he also cultivates and orders the Buddha path," and he practises 「如佛心，以畢竟空、無所有法」 tr. "like the Buddha's mind, by the dharma of ultimate emptiness and of being without anything existent," and so is able to fulfil the Buddha's ten powers and so on up to great kindness and great compassion. Fourth, sitting at the seat of awakening, using the wisdom associated with a single thought, he obtains the omniscience of all kinds, and here the treatise-author brings out a simile: 「如人夜失貫珠，電光暫現，即時還得故」 tr. "it is as a person who at night loses a string of pearls: the lightning flashes for a moment, and at once he obtains it back"—the one who lost the pearls from the first has his pearls; the lightning does not make the pearls; it only shines once, and at once they are obtained. This simile is placed most fittingly at the wisdom associated with a single thought: the omniscience of all kinds is not made by a single thought; what a single thought obtains is what was from the first there and not yet seen. At the end he concludes that the afflictions and the habitual residues are forever exhausted and no longer arise.
59. Having obtained Buddhahood, looking over the worlds of the ten directions with the Buddha-eye, among all things he does not even see a non-existent dharma, how much less an existent dharma; that the dharma of ultimate emptiness can break inversion and cause the bodhisattva to become a Buddha—even this matter is unfindable. The treatise-author continues by explaining what is seen after the fruit is obtained. Looking within all the worlds of the ten directions with the Buddha-eye, 「一切物尚不見無法，何況有法」 tr. "among all things he does not even see a non-existent dharma, how much less an existent dharma." Next he pushes one layer further: the dharma of ultimate emptiness can break inversion and cause the bodhisattva to become a Buddha, and yet 「是事尚不可得，何況凡夫顛倒有法」 tr. "even this matter is unfindable, how much less the inverted existent dharmas of ordinary people"—even the matter of ultimate emptiness, which can break inversion, is unfindable. This push is extremely crucial; it guards against people, after breaking their clinging, clinging again to that by which it was broken.
60. It should be known that all dharmas are of the mark of being without anything existent; this is called the bodhisattva's skilful means; even emptiness is unfindable, how much less existence; the bodhisattva should practise the prajñāpāramitā that is without anything existent. The treatise-author makes the conclusion of the two passages above: 「當知一切法無所有相」 tr. "it should be known that all dharmas are of the mark of being without anything existent," and marks its heading as 「菩薩方便」 tr. "the bodhisattva's skilful means"; again, with the sentence 「空尚不可得，何況有」 tr. "Even emptiness is unfindable, how much less existence," he blocks it off once more, and at the end he exhorts the bodhisattva to practise the prajñāpāramitā that is without anything existent. Here the four Chinese characters 「菩薩方便」 tr. "the bodhisattva's skilful means" are a heading the treatise-author marks himself, running through with the meaning set up in passage 58.
61. When practising the prajñā that is without anything existent, in giving, the thing given is empty, and the one who receives and the bodhisattva's mind are also without anything existent, and so on up to the one who obtains, the dharma obtained, and the place of obtaining being all without anything existent; the original nature of all dharmas is just so, not made by ordinary people nor made by the sages, because all dharmas are unmade and have no maker. The treatise-author, taking giving as the example, blocks everything off position by position: in giving he knows at once that the thing given is empty and without anything existent, and that the one who receives and the bodhisattva's mind are also without anything existent; and so on up to the one who obtains, the dharma obtained, and the place of obtaining of the omniscience of all kinds, of which even a non-existent dharma is not known, how much less an existent dharma. Next he sets down definitions for the three names—「得者，菩薩；得法，是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；用得法是菩薩道」 tr. "The one who obtains is the bodhisattva; the dharma obtained is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; that by which the dharma is obtained is the bodhisattva path"; each of the three names has what it points to, and they do not overlap. At the end he brings out the general cause: 「一切法本性爾，不以智慧故異」 tr. "The original nature of all dharmas is just so; it does not become different because of wisdom," and says that it is not made by ordinary people nor made by the sages, because all dharmas are unmade and have no maker. The two sides of makers named in this passage differ in wording from those named in passage 29 of the sūtra segment: the sūtra segment has ‘not made by the Buddha, not made by the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, nor made by any other person’; the treatise segment has ‘not made by ordinary people, nor made by the sages’—one blocks off starting from the side of the sages, the other starting from the side of ordinary people; both texts are kept, and neither may stand in for the other.
62. Subhūti's intent: if dharmas are all of the mark of being without anything existent, who knows that they are without anything existent? Therefore he asks: dharmas and the nature of dharmas being separated, how can a separated dharma know a separated dharma? The treatise-author supplies the thought in which Subhūti raises this question: 「若諸法都是無所有相，誰知是無所有？」 tr. "If all dharmas are of the mark of being without anything existent, who knows that they are without anything existent?" With this one supplement, the string of four-alternative blocking words of difficulty in passage 31 of the sūtra segment only then shows where it comes from—what is at issue is not existence and non-existence; it is where the knower is. The treatise-author then repeats the question of the sūtra text in full.
63. The Buddha answers that by reason of worldly convention the bodhisattva tells beings that it exists or does not exist, not by the highest meaning; if existence were really existent, non-existence too should have its reality; if existence is not real, how should non-existence be real? The treatise-author repeats the Buddha's answer and himself adds a piece of inference: 「若有是實有，無亦應有實。若有不實，無云何應實？」 tr. "If existence were really existent, then non-existence too should have its reality. If existence is not real, how should non-existence be real?" This inference is supporting evidence the treatise-author supplies for the sūtra text—if existence were real, then the non-existence set up in dependence on it should also be real; since existence is not real, how could non-existence alone be real? Existence and non-existence stand in dependence on each other, and so one may not cling one-sidedly to either as real. These words are very sharp; they are the one sentence of this passage most worth taking away.
64. Subhūti asks whether worldly convention and the highest meaning are different; the treatise-author explains that if they were different, this would break the nature of dharmas. The treatise-author repeats this question, and himself brings out a sentence of reason: 「若異，破壞法性故」 tr. "because, if they were different, this would break the nature of dharmas"—if the two truths were really different, the nature of dharmas would become two, and so they may not be different. This sentence is the treatise-author's paving of the road for the Buddha's answer in the next passage.
65. The Buddha answers that they are not different; the suchness of worldly convention is precisely the suchness of the highest meaning; because beings do not know this suchness, one tells them by worldly convention that it exists or does not exist. The treatise-author repeats the Buddha's answer: 「不異。世俗如即是第一義如。」 tr. "They are not different. The suchness of worldly convention is precisely the suchness of the highest meaning." And he follows it with: because beings do not know this suchness, one tells them by worldly convention that it exists or does not exist. At this point the 「誰知是無所有」 tr. "who knows that they are without anything existent" asked in passage 62 obtains its answer—what is known is not some separate thing outside the two truths; speaking of existence and speaking of non-existence is a setting-up made with respect to beings' not knowing.
66. Furthermore: beings have something they cling to within the five aggregates of clinging; in order that they may leave what they have and obtain being without anything existent, the bodhisattva says ‘without anything existent’; by reason of worldly dharmas he distinguishes dharmas; at the end he exhorts that one should train in the prajñāpāramitā that is without anything existent. The treatise-author, with 「復次」 tr. "furthermore," brings out the last passage himself, which is also the conclusion of the whole chapter. Beings have something they cling to within the five aggregates of clinging; in order to make these beings 「離所有、得無所有」 tr. "leave what they have and obtain being without anything existent," the bodhisattva says 「無所有」 tr. "without anything existent"; by reason of worldly dharmas he distinguishes dharmas, wishing to cause beings to know that this is without anything existent. At the end he gathers up the whole chapter in one sentence: 「如是，須菩提！菩薩應學無所有般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Like this, Subhūti, the bodhisattva should train in the prajñāpāramitā that is without anything existent." This conclusion locks with the difficulty at the head of the chapter from afar—that a tree planted in space can be planted is precisely because the existence and non-existence spoken of are all set up in order to cause beings to know being without anything existent, not by taking beings as real. It should also be noted that at this point the sūtra segment has 「五受眾」 tr. "the five aggregates of clinging (written wu shou zhong)" and the treatise segment has 「五受陰」 tr. "the five aggregates of clinging (written wu shou yin)"; the wording of the two places differs, each follows its own text, and they are not to be drawn together.
Do Not Misread
Do not read planting a tree in space as an impossible matter. The words Subhūti sets up are 「甚難」 tr. "very hard," not 「不能」 tr. "cannot"; and the Buddha's answer too takes up only its hardness and not its impossibility—right after 「諸菩薩摩訶薩所為甚難」 tr. "what the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas do is very hard" come the simile of planting a tree and the little-by-little practice of the six perfections. If it is read as impossible, then the later passages—accomplishing the Buddha-tree, benefiting beings, the sixfold weighing, the power of skilful means—all have nothing to attach to. Hard and impossible are separated only by one word, and yet the gates of practice are entirely different.
Do not read 「不識樹根、莖、枝、葉、華、果」 tr. "not recognising the tree's root, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruit" as ignorance. What is not recognised in the simile is the substance and nature of the tree; what is done is cherishing, guarding, and watering; what the bodhisattva does not find is the real dharma of beings; what he does is the little-by-little six perfections. The leaf-shade, flower-colour, and fruit that the treatise-author matches when explaining this simile each have their mark and function, and from this it can be seen that the intent of the simile is not to praise ignorance but to show that practice does not wait on taking hold of the real. If it is read as the practitioner being able to do without knowing dharmas, it runs exactly counter to the passages below—「學一切法如」 tr. "train in the suchness of all dharmas," 「善知眾生根」 tr. "know well the faculties of beings," 「知一切眾生業因緣」 tr. "know the causes and conditions of the deeds of all beings."
Do not read the three benefits of leaves, flowers, and fruit as three kinds of reward. What the three benefits speak of is freedom from the three evil destinies, birth in the good destinies of humans and gods, and obtaining the path-fruits of the three vehicles—all said with respect to the suffering and pleasure and the path-fruits of beings; they do not say that beings thereby become really existent; and what follows directly after the three benefits is exactly 「不得眾生實法，而度眾生令離我顛倒著」 tr. "does not find the real dharma of beings, and yet delivers beings, causing them to be free from clinging to self and to inversion." If the three benefits are read as there being a real being who receives three portions of real benefit, then the difficulty at the head of the chapter is not only unresolved but made heavier.
Do not read 「菩薩如佛」 tr. "the bodhisattva is as a Buddha" as the bodhisattva being identical with the Buddha. The sūtra text itself states the reason for it as 「以如相故」 tr. "by reason of the mark of suchness," and the treatise-author further sets up a distinction: 「不以我心貪貴菩薩故說言如佛，以得如故言如佛。」 tr. "It is not because my mind covets and prizes the bodhisattva that I say he is as a Buddha; it is because he obtains suchness that he is said to be as a Buddha." Moreover, the sixfold weighing in the latter half of this chapter states plainly that the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent does not come up to the one who has entered the position of dharmas, the one who has entered the position of dharmas does not come up to the one turned towards the Buddha path, and the one turned towards the Buddha path does not come up to the merit of the Buddha. Speaking with respect to suchness there is no difference; speaking with respect to position there is a gap; each of the two places has what it refers to. If they are mixed into one, the earlier passage becomes an exalting, and the later passage becomes self-contradiction.
Do not read the question whether the animals too have suchness as suchness having differences. The treatise-author's answer never says that the suchness in the body of an animal is inferior; it says only 「因緣未發故，不能利益眾生、不能行如至薩婆若故」 tr. "because the causes and conditions have not yet come forth, and because they cannot benefit beings and cannot practise suchness up to sarvajñā." The difference lies in being able to practise or not, not in whether suchness is present or its height. If it is read as suchness having grades, the sentence above, 「是諸如，如實無異」 tr. "these suchnesses are, in reality, without difference," has nowhere to be placed.
Do not read 「無法」 tr. "non-existent dharma" as there being nothing at all. The Buddha has already given this word its definition—「若法自性無是名無法」 tr. "if the self-nature of a dharma is non-existent, this is called a non-existent dharma"—and the treatise-author further adds a sentence, 「無所有名非法」 tr. "what is without anything existent is called not a dharma"; what is non-existent is self-nature, not the dharma-marks. Precisely because of this, the passages below can practise the six perfections, purify buddha-worlds, and bring beings to accomplishment within being without nature. If it is read as annihilation, then the passage on the power of skilful means cannot be established, and the treatise-author's 「有、無二法，能一時行」 tr. "the two dharmas of existence and non-existence can be practised at one time" also becomes idle discourse.
Do not read 「無想、無念」 tr. "without perception, without thought" and 「念為增上」 tr. "thought as its dominant condition" as contradicting each other. The treatise-author specially sets up a question and answer for this, and the answer is in two parts: 「諸法各各有力」 tr. "dharmas each have their own power" is the general rule, and after the Buddha obtains the omniscience of all kinds, 「不復思惟，無復難易遠近，所念皆得」 tr. "he no longer ponders, and no longer has any difference of hard and easy, far and near; whatever he keeps in mind he obtains" is said specifically of the Buddha's fruit. ‘Without thought’ says that its substance cannot be taken by perception and thought; ‘thought as its dominant condition’ speaks of the power relied on within this gate. The two statements each have what they refer to; it is neither necessary nor permissible to take one and discard the other.
Do not read the simile of obtaining the pearls by lightning as a sudden obtaining that needs no prior practice. The person in the simile from the first has his pearls and loses them in the night; the lightning flashes once and at once he obtains them back—the pearls are not made by the lightning. The treatise-author places this simile at 「坐道場，用一念相應慧，得一切種智」 tr. "sitting at the seat of awakening, using the wisdom associated with a single thought, he obtains the omniscience of all kinds," and before this sentence there have already passed the passages 「行六波羅蜜時，亦修治佛道」 tr. "when practising the six perfections, he also cultivates and orders the Buddha path" and 「行菩薩道時，具足是法」 tr. "when practising the bodhisattva path, he fulfils these dharmas." So what this simile shows is the suddenness of the last illumination, not a discarding of the gradualness of the prior practice.
Do not read the two truths being without difference as the two truths being without distinction. What the Buddha says is 「世諦如即是第一義諦如」 tr. "the suchness of worldly truth is precisely the suchness of the truth of the highest meaning"—what is the same lies in suchness, while speaking of existence and speaking of non-existence is still the setting-up of worldly truth, not the highest meaning. The treatise-author too himself brings out the sentence 「若異，破壞法性故」 tr. "because, if they were different, this would break the nature of dharmas," only to block off difference; he never says that the two truths can stand in for each other. If it is read as without distinction, then the sentence 「以世諦故示眾生若有、若無，非以第一義」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth one shows beings that it exists or does not exist, not by the highest meaning" becomes an empty setting-up.
Bearing on Practice
The first use is to take the difficulty at the head of the chapter as a self-examination in daily use. What the bodhisattva does is very hard, and the hardness lies in the one to be delivered being unfindable and yet being delivered. At the place of arousing the mind, the practitioner can make this one reflection: the mind I arouse today—is its object a really existent person who can be delivered, or is it not taking hold of his reality and yet not abandoning his suffering? If the former, then however diligent the practice, it is separated from the sūtra's meaning; if the latter, even if not yet pure, it is already on the path. This reflection need not wait until one has deep wisdom to be of use; the difficulty at the head of the chapter was from the first spoken to the person of the first mind.
The second use is that the simile of planting a tree can serve as the rhythm of the gate of practice. In the simile, what is done is only the two matters of cherishing and watering, and what is waited for is 「漸漸長大」 tr. "little by little it grows large." The sūtra segment uses 「漸漸」 tr. "little by little" in three places—little by little growing large, little by little practising the six perfections, little by little entering nirvāṇa without remainder by the dharmas of the three vehicles. Here the practitioner can spare himself a great deal of anxious haste: not recognising the substance of the tree, the tree grows of itself; not taking hold of the real dharma of beings, the six perfections are accomplished of themselves. What must be kept is not breaking off the watering.
The third use is that the sixfold weighing can serve as a medicine for two sides. The first three tiers compare those in a thousand lands who arouse the intent of the two vehicles, those in the three-thousand great-thousand world who abide on the ground of dry wisdom, and those who abide on the ground of the stage of nature and so on up to the pratyekabuddha ground, with the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent, and all fall short—this side cures self-belittling: one who has first aroused the mind and has not yet attained anything should not think that his practice has no weight. The latter three tiers have the one who has first aroused intent not coming up to the one who has entered the position of dharmas, the one who has entered the position of dharmas not coming up to the one turned towards the Buddha path, and the one turned towards the Buddha path not coming up to the Buddha—this side cures self-exalting: one who knows that his practice has weight should not think it already sufficient. One medicine taken two ways, chosen according to the sickness; if one takes only one of them, it becomes lopsided and withered.
The fourth use is that the power and function of the five faculties can serve as a self-examination faculty by faculty. The treatise-author gives each of the five faculties—faith, vigour, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom—one mark: when the faculty of faith obtains its power, one is certainly able to receive and uphold without doubt; by the power of vigour, though one has not yet seen the Dharma, one seeks the path with a single mind, not sparing body or life, without resting and without ceasing; by the power of mindfulness one constantly recollects one's teacher's teaching—when wholesome dharmas come one lets them in, when evil dharmas come one does not let them in, like a gatekeeper; by the power of concentration one collects the mind in one place and does not move, so as to help wisdom; by the power of wisdom one is able to contemplate the marks of dharmas as they really are. The five can serve as five questions, usable anywhere in the course of a day. One should also read it together with passage 41—the same five faculties become bodhisattva faculties in the body of a person of the great mind and become faculties of the Small Vehicle in the body of a person of small mind; so after examining the five faculties one must still ask one more question: where are these five faculties of mine turned?
The fifth use is that the fourfold pleasure can serve as what the person of the first mind keeps in mind. The four sentences the treatise-author brings out for the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent are exactly the thought to be held when the Buddha teaches him to bind his mind and keep sarvajñā in mind: though you give up small and mixed pleasures, you will obtain pure and great pleasure; giving up inverted, false, and deceptive pleasure, you obtain real pleasure; giving up the pleasure of bondage, you obtain the pleasure of liberation; giving up the pleasure of being good alone, you obtain the pleasure of being good in common with all beings. These four sentences are best memorised—at the time when one has first given up the pleasure of desire and not yet obtained the pleasure of the Dharma, a person most easily retreats, and what these four sentences give is exactly the support for that stretch of the middle road. The last one, reaching from self to others, above all must not be omitted.
The sixth use is that the power of skilful means can serve as the standard for contemplative practice and merit being not two. The treatise-author states plainly 「無所有法性中學，入觀亦能集諸功德、教化眾生、淨佛世界」 tr. "training within the nature of dharmas that is without anything existent, entering contemplation, he is also able to gather all merits, teach and transform beings, and purify buddha-worlds," and himself brings out the sentence 「有、無二法，能一時行」 tr. "the two dharmas of existence and non-existence can be practised at one time." Practitioners often suffer from two sicknesses: one, losing the contemplation of emptiness while doing merit; two, abandoning merit while cultivating the contemplation of emptiness. The medicine this passage gives is going side by side at one time—at the time of giving, knowing at once that the thing is empty, the receiver is empty, and one's own mind is empty, and yet the giving does not stop; this is precisely the power of skilful means spoken of in the sūtra. One can begin from the single gate of giving; since the treatise-author blocks everything off position by position with giving, the other practices too should each be inferred according to this.
The seventh use is that the sentence 「若有不實，無云何應實」 tr. "if existence is not real, how should non-existence be real" can serve as a knife for breaking clinging. After breaking existence, people most easily cling to non-existence, taking non-existence as real. These words of the treatise-author are only two sentences, yet they pull up the roots entirely: if existence were real, the non-existence set up in dependence on it should also be real; since existence is not real, how could non-existence alone be real? In daily use, whenever the thought ‘this truly does not exist’ arises, one can question oneself with this sentence; when these words are read together with passage 59, 「是事尚不可得，何況凡夫顛倒有法」 tr. "even this matter is unfindable, how much less the inverted existent dharmas of ordinary people," their thoroughness is seen still more.
Further Resonances
The backbone of this chapter is one section of sūtra text and one section of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins from Subhūti addressing the Buddha, exclaiming that prajñā is very deep, and setting up the difficulty that not finding beings and yet seeking awakening for the sake of beings is like planting a tree in space; the Buddha takes up the difficulty and, with the simile of planting a tree without recognising its root, trunk, branches, and leaves, makes clear that little by little practising the six perfections one obtains the omniscience of all kinds and accomplishes the Buddha-tree, and with leaves, flowers, and fruit benefits beings; he sets up three questions in turn to make clear that the leaves free beings from the three evil destinies, the flowers give birth among humans and gods and so on up to the abode of neither perception nor non-perception, and the fruit obtains the four fruits of the śramaṇa and so on up to the Buddha path and by the three vehicles enters nirvāṇa without remainder, and concludes with not finding the real dharma of beings and yet delivering beings, causing them to be free from clinging to self and to inversion. Next Subhūti praises the bodhisattva as being as a Buddha and himself states the causes and conditions of cutting off the seeds of the evil destinies; the Buddha approves it and further states that if the mind were not aroused, the buddhas of the three times, the worthies and sages, and the time of cutting off the three realms would all be absent, and says that by reason of suchness the Tathāgata and so on up to form and the conditioned and unconditioned natures are spoken of, and that because the suchnesses are without difference it is named suchness, exhorting training in suchness-prajñā. Next comes the sequence of training in suchness: from training in the suchness of all dharmas, fulfilment, obtaining mastery, knowing the faculties of beings, knowing the completeness of the faculties, knowing the causes and conditions of deeds, the fulfilment of the knowledge from vows, purifying the wisdom of the three times, greatly benefiting beings, purifying buddha-lands, obtaining the omniscience of all kinds, and turning the wheel of the Dharma, up to establishing beings in the three vehicles and causing them to enter nirvāṇa without remainder, concluding that one who wishes to obtain all merits should arouse the mind of awakening. Next Subhūti says that all the world should pay homage to one who practises as taught, and the Buddha approves it. Next he asks about the merit of the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent, and the Buddha compares it in three tiers with those in a thousand lands who arouse the intent of the two vehicles, those in the three-thousand great-thousand world who abide on the ground of dry wisdom, and those who abide on the ground of the stage of nature and so on up to the pratyekabuddha ground, and again compares in three tiers the one who has first aroused intent not coming up to the one who has entered the position of dharmas, the one who has entered the position of dharmas not coming up to the one turned towards the Buddha path, and the one turned towards the Buddha path not coming up to the merit of the Buddha. Next he asks what dharma the one of the first arousing of the mind should keep in mind; the Buddha answers that he should keep in mind the omniscience of all kinds, and answers that its object, dominant condition, practice, and mark are: the non-existent dharma as object, thought as dominant condition, quiescence as practice, the signless as mark. Next he asks whether, since the omniscience of all kinds is a non-existent dharma, form and so on up to the marks of the conditioned and the unconditioned are also non-existent dharmas; the Buddha answers that all are non-existent dharmas, giving as their causes and conditions that because self-nature is non-existent this is called a non-existent dharma, and that because they are born from the coming together of causes and conditions they are without self-nature. Next he asks how within being without nature one is able to practise the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, purify buddha-worlds, and bring beings to accomplishment; the Buddha answers that training in dharmas' being without nature is precisely the power of skilful means, and that practising the six perfections one cultivates and trains in the Buddha path and so on up to obtaining the omniscience of all kinds by the wisdom associated with a single thought, with the afflictions and their habitual residues forever exhausted, and concludes with this: looking over the three-thousand great-thousand world with the Buddha-eye, even a non-existent dharma is unfindable; in giving and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, the one who obtains, the dharma obtained, and the place of obtaining are all unfindable; the original nature of all dharmas is just so, and there is no maker. Last he asks how, since dharmas and the nature of dharmas are separated, a separated dharma can know of a separated dharma whether it exists or does not exist; the Buddha answers that by reason of worldly truth one shows that it exists or does not exist, not by the highest meaning; that the two truths are without difference, because the suchness of worldly truth is precisely the suchness of the truth of the highest meaning; and furthermore that for the sake of those who cling within the five aggregates of clinging one shows existence and shows non-existence, causing them to know the pure being without anything existent; concluding that one should practise prajñāpāramitā thus. Treatise ① explains following the text, beginning with 「釋曰」 tr. "explaining, it says": first it supplies the provenance of Subhūti's exclaiming that such a thing had never been, having heard that nothing to be attained is precisely attainment, and next glosses thing by thing the three natures and three benefits of the leaves, flowers, and fruit of the tree simile; next it repeats Subhūti's words of rejoicing and the causes and conditions the Buddha further states, and next, with ‘furthermore’, extends that because of obtaining the suchness of dharmas one is called Tathāgata and so on up to srota-āpanna, and sets up the distinction 「不以我心貪貴菩薩故說言如佛」 tr. "It is not because my mind covets and prizes the bodhisattva that I say he is as a Buddha"; next it sets up three rounds of question and answer—why the animals, though they too have suchness, are not named as a Buddha; why the Buddha answers, saying to keep in mind the omniscience of all kinds; and why, since all is ultimate emptiness, thought alone is said to be the dominant condition. In between it explains fulfilment as obtaining the real mark of all dharmas and being able by all kinds of gates to bring beings to understanding; explains the faculties as the five wholesome roots, faith and the rest, and speaks separately, faculty by faculty, of their power and function; sets up the judgement of the two kinds of obtaining the faculties; brings out the example of those whose sins of former lives are heavy and who, though they have obtained the five faculties, cannot be delivered; infers why the supernormal power of former lives and the knowledge from vows are necessary; gathers in the benefits of the purity of the wisdom of the three times and pushes all the way to establishing beings by the three vehicles and causing them to enter nirvāṇa without remainder; and gathers all this up as 「如是利益，皆從學如中來」 tr. "Such benefits as these all come from within training in suchness." Next it sets up a heading of other names for the omniscience of all kinds; brings out the pleasures of the fourfold giving-up and obtaining as what the one who has first aroused intent keeps in mind; explains thought as dominant with 「諸法各各有力」 tr. "dharmas each have their own power" as the general rule; explains training within the nature of dharmas that is without anything existent, with 「有、無二法，能一時行」 tr. "the two dharmas of existence and non-existence can be practised at one time," as skilful means; brings out the simile 「如人夜失貫珠，電光暫現，即時還得故」 tr. "it is as a person who at night loses a string of pearls: the lightning flashes for a moment, and at once he obtains it back" to match the wisdom associated with a single thought; blocks off that even the matter of ultimate emptiness being able to break inversion is unfindable; sets down definitions for the three names, the one who obtains, the dharma obtained, and the place of obtaining; and supplies the two pieces of inference 「若有不實，無云何應實」 tr. "if existence is not real, how should non-existence be real" and 「若異，破壞法性故」 tr. "because, if they were different, this would break the nature of dharmas." Last, with ‘furthermore’, it explains that for those who have something they cling to within the five aggregates of clinging one speaks of being without anything existent, and concludes that one should train in the prajñāpāramitā that is without anything existent.
Of the veins of meaning between this chapter and the chapters before and after, three lines can be seen. First, continuing from what precedes: the preceding chapter, "The Three Wisdoms", the Seventieth, spoke broadly of the differences of the three wisdoms and the three knowledges; this chapter continues its momentum and turns into practice—having known the wisdom to be trained in, it then asks how, since the beings to be delivered are unfindable, one is able to practise; so the difficulty at the head of the chapter is not a stove set up anew, but a question put from where the preceding chapter came down. Second, within the chapter it makes two turns of its own: the first half, by the tree simile, sets up ‘practice does not wait on taking hold of the real’; the latter half, by suchness and the two truths, sets up ‘speaking does not obstruct being without anything existent’; the two halves have as their pivot the section 「菩薩如佛」 tr. "the bodhisattva is as a Buddha"—since suchness pervades all dharmas, speaking of existence and speaking of non-existence are both within suchness, and so the questions of the latter half can all be settled. Third, handing on to what follows: this chapter concludes with 「應學無所有般若波羅蜜」 tr. "should train in the prajñāpāramitā that is without anything existent," and the next chapter, "The Bodhisattva's Practice", the Seventy-second, continues speaking precisely of the bodhisattva's practice; the two chapters stand in sequence; among the texts there is another that writes the next chapter's title as "Practice of the Path"; the differences of its wording and the fascicle divisions of the texts are detailed in the Apparatus layer.
Among the explanations of the ancient masters, one house can be recorded for this chapter. Jizang, in his Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, explaining this chapter, first sets up a major division, saying: 「此下第二明發心修行。此中有三：第一從此品竟六喻品，明自行；第二從四攝品以下，明化他行；第三從畢定品，明自他二行無不信皆不退。」 tr. "From here below, the second makes clear the arousing of the mind and the cultivating of practice. Within this there are three: the first, from this chapter to the end of the chapter on the Six Similes, makes clear one's own practice; the second, from the chapter on the Four Means of Gathering onward, makes clear the practice of transforming others; the third, from the chapter on Certainty, makes clear that in the two practices of self and others there is none without faith and all are non-retrogressing."—taking this chapter as the head of one great section that 「明發心修行」 tr. "makes clear the arousing of the mind and the cultivating of practice." Next he divides this chapter into seven, saying: 「初品中為七：第一明方便起心無所依著希有可歎；第二如佛歎；第三以體如同佛故勸學如，學如必須發心」 tr. "Within the first chapter there are seven: the first makes clear that arousing the mind by skilful means, with nothing relied on and nothing clung to, is rare and to be exclaimed at; the second is the praise of being as a Buddha; the third, because in substance suchness is the same as the Buddha, exhorts training in suchness, and training in suchness must require arousing the mind"—the division into seven broadly corresponds with the sequence of the sūtra segment of this treatise, while the names set up are Jizang's own sectional divisions, not the text of this treatise; they are recorded side by side without judgement. In explaining the chapter's name he sets up two questions. One asks about cause and fruit, saying: 「問：此云道樹，樹為是因樹因道？為果佛樹佛道？答：此語通也。言道是無上菩提道，樹亦是無上菩提樹也。」 tr. "Question: this is called the tree of the path—is the tree the tree of the cause, the path of the cause? Or is it the fruit, the Buddha-tree, the Buddha path? Answer: this phrase covers both. The path spoken of is the path of unsurpassed awakening, and the tree too is the tree of unsurpassed awakening." One asks about one's own practice and transforming others, saying: 「問：此道樹是自行，為是化他？答：具足二也。菩薩求佛道樹是行，以此華果答眾生，以此樹華菓是化他。」 tr. "Question: is this tree of the path one's own practice, or is it transforming others? Answer: it is complete in both. The bodhisattva's seeking the Buddha's tree of the path is practice; answering beings with these flowers and fruit—these flowers and fruit of the tree—is transforming others."—taking the one name, tree of the path, as covering both cause and fruit and both self and others; this and this treatise's speaking of transforming others by the three benefits of leaves, flowers, and fruit and of one's own practice by the little-by-little practice of the six perfections take a meaning that is close, while the words relied on differ; both are kept. He explains the difficulty of planting a tree in space, saying: 「有所得人見眾生是有，不知是空，空中度眾生，於其是難。」 tr. "The person with something to be attained sees beings as existent and does not know that they are empty; delivering beings within emptiness is, for him, hard."—taking the mind with something to be attained as that from which the difficulty arises, whereas this treatise only states the difficulty and does not mark the mind with something to be attained; this is Jizang's own explanation. He explains the Buddha's answer as complete in two matters, saying: 「須菩提但明眾生不可得，為眾生種樹，不明樹體有無。佛答則具二事：不識樹者，此明菩薩體樹不可得也。」 tr. "Subhūti only makes clear that beings are unfindable and that the tree is planted for the sake of beings; he does not make clear whether the substance of the tree exists or not. The Buddha's answer is complete in two matters: as for not recognising the tree, this makes clear that for the bodhisattva the substance of the tree is unfindable."—dividing what each side of the question and answer makes clear into one matter and two matters; this differs in what it refers to from this treatise's explaining of the simile solely with respect to the three benefits of leaves, flowers, and fruit; recorded side by side. He explains the benefit of the leaves, saying: 「葉陰涼，除三惡道熱」 tr. "the leaves' shade is cool, removing the heat of the three evil destinies," which accords with this treatise's two phrases 「如樹葉蔭，熱時涼樂」 tr. "as the shade of the tree's leaves, cool and pleasant in the time of heat" and 「得離三惡道熱苦」 tr. "obtain freedom from the hot suffering of the three evil destinies." He explains what is kept in mind at the first arousing, saying: 「當念何等法，第五、明始行所念也。」 tr. "What dharma should one keep in mind: the fifth, making clear what the beginner in practice keeps in mind." And again he says: 「般若深妙一無定相，故令始行標心佛心果也。」 tr. "Prajñā is deep and wondrous and wholly without fixed mark; therefore he has the beginner in practice set his mind on the Buddha-mind and its fruit."—taking prajñā's being without fixed mark as the reason why the Buddha has the beginner set his mind on the Buddha's fruit; this and the fourfold pleasure of giving-up and obtaining that this treatise brings out differ in their line of reasoning; both are kept. He explains thought as dominant, saying: 「種智雖畢竟淨而能知一切法，故云念為增上也。」 tr. "Though the omniscience of all kinds is ultimately pure, it is able to know all dharmas; therefore it is said that thought is dominant."—returning to the same place as this treatise's answer 「諸法各各有力」 tr. "dharmas each have their own power," while the simile and ground taken differ. He explains the passage on skilful means, saying: 「上云種智及一切法自性空，令問云：何等空中方便修行耶？」 tr. "Above it was said that the omniscience of all kinds and all dharmas are empty of self-nature; hence the question says: within what emptiness does one cultivate practice by skilful means?" And again he says: 「此文中略就檀一行中成熟眾生淨佛國土，餘行皆應爾也。」 tr. "In this text, briefly, it is within the single practice of giving that beings are brought to maturity and buddha-lands purified; all the other practices should be likewise."—taking the single practice of giving as the example to exemplify the other practices, which is the same method as this treatise's blocking everything off position by position with giving. He explains the name of the dharma obtained, saying: 「得法者得佛道，用得法是菩薩道也。」 tr. "The dharma obtained is the obtaining of the Buddha path; that by which the dharma is obtained is the bodhisattva path."—pointing to the same thing as this treatise's sentence 「得法，是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；用得法是菩薩道」 tr. "the dharma obtained is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; that by which the dharma is obtained is the bodhisattva path," with slightly different wording. He explains the last passage, saying: 「佛答：明第一義中未曾有不有，今隨俗故，云佛知無所有而為眾生說有不有也。」 tr. "The Buddha's answer: it makes clear that within the highest meaning there has never been existence or non-existence; now, because of following convention, it says that the Buddha knows what is without anything existent and for the sake of beings speaks of existence and non-existence."—explaining the two truths' not being different by there never having been existence or non-existence within the highest meaning, which returns to the same place as this treatise's 「世俗如即是第一義如」 tr. "the suchness of worldly convention is precisely the suchness of the highest meaning."
For the two houses of Huiying's Commentary and Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises, this chapter is 〔not found〕: in both books ‘Tree of the Path chapter’ and ‘Tree-Planting chapter’ both have zero hits, and the one single occurrence of the term ‘tree of the path’ in Huiying's book is words about the Buddha-land, unrelated to this chapter's title; the gap is recorded as it is, and it is not filled with text from elsewhere. Among the commentaries of the Tiantai house the term ‘tree of the path’ appears repeatedly, but always as the general usage of sitting under the tree of the path and attaining the path, not as a named citation of this chapter; this too is 〔not found〕. The variant names of the chapter title among the texts and the differences of chapter order, and the variant names of the corresponding chapter in the sūtra explained, are detailed in the Apparatus layer.
菩薩行品The Bodhisattva's Practice
全文五層 →Full five layers →菩薩行品：菩薩行何以只用一句為菩提行便答盡，佛何以要把行色空一路數到行有為性無為性纔說不作二，何義名佛何以要說到四遍，菩提義何以要說到九重而不定於一義，行六度而於諸法無得無失何以不是白行，既不為得失故出何以還能取六度乃至入菩薩位，不以二法故行何以是全品的樞紐，行二法者善根何以不得增益，為善根故行般若何以佛答不也，不為善根而又說未具足善根不能得一切種智何以不相違，般若既攝一切法何以還要更問菩薩行，身口意業皆名菩薩行之說何以被佛答揀出一個正字，阿羅漢辟支佛大菩薩亦知實義何以不名為佛，四名之異論主何以不自立說而並陳有人言，菩提是如不異何以要用轉轉有勝來說，諸家釋菩提之七說何以並存不判，論主重牒經文何以要與經文分看，夢中得財與栰喻何以說的是同一件事，二種陀羅尼與真名字二種無礙何以都在辨深淺，深心清淨何以繫在慈悲不捨救度上，良醫藥草瞻病人三事何以收全品之結
在問什麼
這一品問的是一個看似最平常的問題：菩薩所行的，究竟是什麼。前此諸品廣說般若之相、廣說學般若之法，所辨的多是所學之法；到了這一品，須菩提把問題挪到人身上——菩薩一生所作的那一件事，叫什麼。
佛的答語短得出人意外：「菩薩行者，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行，是名菩薩行。」不說所行之法，只說所向之處。這一答立刻引出第二問：既然是為菩提而行，那麼怎樣纔算為菩提行？於是佛纔開出一張極長的清單，自行色空一路數到行有為性、行無為性，而以一句收攏：「如阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不作二。」清單越長，末一句越重——所舉的百千法門，落處都在不作二。
須菩提由此追問兩個名字：何義名佛，何義名菩提。佛答名佛以四義，答菩提以九重。答得這樣繁，不是辭費：所問的是一個名所含的義，而義本無定相，故隨所對而異其說。這一段是本品義理上最厚的一節，論主釋它也用了最多的篇幅——先自設三番問答，再並陳諸家之說而不判。
其後全品轉入行門上的一組難處。既然行般若不為得失、增減、生滅、淨垢而出，那麼六波羅蜜乃至菩薩位如何取得？既然不以二法故行，那麼從初發意到後意，善根如何增益？既然善根要增益，那麼是不是為善根故行般若？佛的答語一步緊似一步：不以二法故行；行二法者善根不得增益；不為善根、亦不為非善根故行；而末後又說未供養諸佛、未具足善根、未得真知識者不能得一切種智。看似前後相牴，其實是同一件事的兩面——善根非所貴，而不可無。
末段佛開出一條實路：從初發意供養諸佛，聞持十二部經，誦利心觀而了達，得陀羅尼、起無礙智，種善根而為善根所護，得深心清淨，能淨佛國土、成就眾生，常不離真知識。論主於此逐句訓釋，並以良醫、藥草、瞻病人三事作結。全品自「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」起，至「親近善知識」止，說的是一件事的頭與尾——所向既定，則所依、所學、所伴皆從此定。
逐段解明
一、須菩提問何等是菩薩行。 品首是須菩提白佛。他不問菩薩如何學、不問菩薩得何果，只問「何等是菩薩行」。讀此一問要看清所問之處：前面諸品已廣說般若、廣說學，而「菩薩行」三字經中屢屢說到卻未曾界定。凡經中有一個常用而未定義之詞，後品往往即以此為問——本品之起，正是這樣的起法。他還加了一句來歷：「世尊說菩薩行」，表明所問不是自出，是就佛自己用過的語追問其義。
二、佛答為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行。 佛的答語只一句：「菩薩行者，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行，是名菩薩行。」此答之要在於它答的是『向』不是『事』。若答以六波羅蜜、以三十七品，便成一張事目表，而事目表不能分別菩薩與非菩薩——同樣布施持戒，向處不同則行不同。佛此答把分界立在所為之處，故下文須菩提必得再問一句「云何」，纔能把事目請出來。
三、須菩提續問云何為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行。 須菩提接得極準：既說為菩提而行，那麼「云何菩薩摩訶薩為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」。上一問問的是名，這一問問的是相。讀經時凡見同一事被問兩遍，先要分清兩遍所問不同——前問求其定義，後問求其行相；若把兩問看作重複，便會覺得佛下面那一長段是多出來的。
四、佛歷舉所行諸法而結以如菩提不作二。 佛應此問而開長列：行色空，行受、想、行、識空；行眼空乃至意，行色空乃至法；行眼界空乃至意識界；次行六波羅蜜；次行內空乃至無法有法空；次行四禪、四無量、四無色；次行四念處乃至八聖道分；次行三三昧；次行八背捨、九次第定；次行十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法、大慈大悲；次行淨佛國土、成就眾生；次行諸辯才、行文字入無文字、行諸陀羅尼門；末行有為性、行無為性。所列自五陰十二入十八界起，經六度、諸空、諸定、道品、諸三昧，至佛地功德與化他之事，而以有為無為一對收盡。道品之首曰四念處，本論他處自列其目與其觀：「身念處，受、心、法念處，是為四念處」，而「觀身不淨，觀受是苦，觀心無常，觀法無我」——身念處者觀此身非淨而破淨倒，受念處者觀諸受是苦而破樂倒，心念處者觀此心念念不住而破常倒，法念處者觀諸法無主宰而破我倒，故本論明言「破是四顛倒故，說是四念處」。四觀所對之倒各異，而其於本段之用則一：菩薩行此四觀，不於能觀之心與所觀之身受心法間作二，亦不於淨不淨、苦不苦之相上更立一異，纔合末句之判；若四觀一一取相而成二，則雖遍行四念處，仍不名菩提行。列既如此之廣，末句纔是判語：「如阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不作二。」讀此段當把重量放在末句——所行之法不論多少，只要於其上不作二，即是菩提行；若於其上作二，縱使一一行遍，仍不名為菩提行。
五、須菩提問何義故名佛。 經文至此轉入名義。須菩提問：「世尊說言佛，何義故名佛？」此問與第一問同一體例——就佛自己所常用之名，追其所以。要注意他問的是「何義」不是『何相』：不問佛有何等相好功德，問的是這一個名字依什麼義而立。名依義立，義明則名不虛，這是本經辨名的一貫作法。
六、佛以四義答名佛。 佛答凡四遍：知諸法實義故名為佛；復次，得諸法實相故名為佛；復次，通達實義故名為佛；復次，如實知一切法故名為佛。四遍所說貌似重複，其實一義比一義寬——初就『知義』說，次就『得相』說，三就『通達』說，四就『遍知一切法』說。此處先不必急著分判四者之異，因為論主下文自設一問專辨此事；讀者此時只須記住：佛之名不依神力、不依身相而立，依的是於法上的知。
七、須菩提問何義故名菩提。 須菩提再問：「何義故名菩提？」佛既以知法立佛名，則所知之法是什麼，便成下一問。此問與上問是一對：上問人之名，此問法之名；人之名依法而立，法之名又依何而立，便是本品義理最深的一節。
八、佛以九重答菩提義。 佛之答語一重一重推出，可逐一數之：其一、空義是菩提義；其二、如義；其三、法性義；其四、實際義；其五、名相言說是菩提義；其六、菩提實義不可壞、不可分別；其七、諸法實相不誑不異；其八、是菩提為諸佛所有故名菩提；其九、諸佛正遍知故名為菩提。『九重』之說是為便於數點而立的今語，經文自身未出其數。九重之中，前四就法之體說，第五轉就言說說，第六第七就其不可破壞不誑異說，第八第九就佛說。最可玩味的是第五重——前四重皆說空、說如，忽然說「名相言說是菩提義」，正是要人不於空上更作一個離言之執。
九、須菩提問行六度乃至一切種智於諸法何得何失。 名義既明，須菩提轉問行門：若菩薩為這菩提而行六波羅蜜乃至一切種智，「於諸法何得何失、何增何減、何生何滅、何垢何淨」。四對八問一氣問下，問的都是一件事：所行既依畢竟空之菩提，那麼在法上究竟發生了什麼。此問問得極實在——修行人最切身的疑，正在此處。
十、佛答無得無失乃至無垢無淨。 佛答亦以四對還之：無得無失、無增無減、無生無滅、無垢無淨，並自出所以：「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，不為得失、增減、生滅、淨垢故出。」要看清這個『不為……故出』——不是說行般若之後諸法無得無失，是說般若本不為這些事而興起。所問在果，所答在因；答在因處，則果上之疑自然落空。
十一、須菩提問既不為得失故出云何能取諸法乃至入菩薩位。 須菩提循此再難：既然不為得失乃至不為淨垢故出，那麼菩薩怎樣行般若而「能取」六波羅蜜、諸空、諸定、道品、三解脫門、十力四無所畏乃至十八不共法大慈大悲，怎樣行菩薩十地，怎樣過聲聞辟支佛地入菩薩位中。此難問得極有力：修行是一路有所取、有所過、有所入之事，而般若既不為得失而出，取與過與入便無所安立。全品最緊的一個結，在此處打上。
十二、佛答不以二法故行。 佛解此結只用一句：「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，不以二法故行檀波羅蜜」乃至「不以二法乃至行一切種智」。不說取、不說不取，只換一個下手處——行是照行，但不以二法。所謂二法，即能取所取、得與不得之對。此一句是全品的樞紐：上文「不作二」是說所向，此處「不以二法故行」是說能行；向與行兩處皆不作二，取與過與入便都不成問題。
十三、須菩提問不以二法云何從初發意乃至後意善根增益。 結解而復生一結。須菩提問：若不以二法故行六度乃至一切種智，那麼菩薩「從初發意乃至後意云何善根增益」。此問尤其貼近行人——不作二則無所增，無所增則初發心與後心無別，那麼一生修行到底積了什麼。問得越實，答語越須分明。
十四、佛答行二法者不增益、行不二法者眾惡不能壞。 佛的答語把問題整個翻轉：「若行二法者，善根不得增益」，並出其所以——「一切凡夫皆依二法，不得增益善根」；反之菩薩行不二法，從初發意乃至後意，於其中間增益善根。再由此推出一串不可壞：一切世間天人阿修羅無能伏、無能壞其善根令墮二乘地，諸眾惡不善法不能制菩薩令不能行檀波羅蜜增益善根，乃至般若波羅蜜亦如是。讀此段須知佛並未否認增益，佛所否認的是依二法而求增益。凡夫之所以不得增益，正因其所依是二；善根之所以不可壞，正因其所依是不二。
十五、須菩提問菩薩為善根故行般若不。 既說善根增益，須菩提便順勢一問：「菩薩摩訶薩為善根故行般若波羅蜜不？」此問是上一答留下的縫。凡聽法而能順著答語再追一步者，多能問出此類問題——所增益者既是善根，則行般若之目的莫非為此。
十六、佛答不也，並出未供養諸佛等三事。 佛答得斬截：「不也！」並雙遮兩邊——亦不為善根故行，亦不為非善根故行。隨即說出所以：「菩薩摩訶薩法，未供養諸佛、未具足善根、未得真知識，不能得一切種智。」此處極易看成前後相違：既不為善根，何以又說未具足善根者不能得一切種智。要分清兩層——所遮的是以善根為所為之目的，所立的是善根為必備之因緣。不為它而行，不等於可以無它。
十七、須菩提問云何供養諸佛具足善根得真知識能得一切種智。 須菩提就佛所出的三事再問其行法：「云何菩薩摩訶薩供養諸佛、具足善根、得真知識能得一切種智？」此問把全品自義理拉回實事，也為下一段長答開路。經文至此，問的已不是名義、不是二不二，是一條可走的路。
十八、佛答自初發意供養諸佛至常不離真知識。 佛答成一條次第：從初發意供養諸佛；於諸佛所聞十二部經，自修妬路乃至憂波提舍，聞、持、誦利、心觀、了達；了達故得陀羅尼，得陀羅尼故能起無礙智，起無礙智故所生之處乃至薩婆若終不忘失是法；又於諸佛所種善根，為善根所護故終不墮惡道諸難；以此善根因緣故得深心清淨，得深心清淨故能淨佛國土、成就眾生；以善根所護故常不離真知識，所謂諸佛、諸菩薩摩訶薩及諸聲聞中能讚歎佛法眾者。末結三事：「應供養諸佛、種善根、親近善知識。」這一段每一句都以前句為因，環環相生；讀者可逐環自檢所缺在何處，而不必求其全。
十九、釋曰，承上品般若之問而起本品菩薩行之問。 論主起釋，先安本品於前後之間：上品中須菩提問佛「經常說般若波羅蜜，何以故名般若波羅蜜？」佛以種種因緣答；因此事故，此品中復問世尊「經常說菩薩行，何等是菩薩行？」兩問同一體例——皆就佛所常用之語追其所以，故本品非別起爐灶，是上品問法之續。凡讀論見其開首先敘上品，即知論主要人把兩品作一段看。
二十、問曰，般若既攝一切法何以更問。 論主隨即自設一問：若般若波羅蜜中攝一切法，又般若即是菩薩行，何以故更問。此問問得極好——它把讀者心中未必說得出的疑代為說出：既然般若無所不攝，菩薩行自在其中，須菩提此問豈非多餘。論主設問之處，往往即是讀者易滑過而實有礙處。
廿一、答曰，菩薩道與般若之異同。 論主答以兩面：「一切菩薩道名菩薩行，悉遍知諸法實相智慧名般若波羅蜜，是為異」；而「若般若經、菩薩行等共相攝，無異」。就所指之寬狹說則有異——菩薩道是一切所行，般若是遍知實相之智；就相攝說則無異——智在行中，行不離智。答語兩存而不偏取一邊，這是本論辨名的常法：先與之分，再與之合，分合俱得，名相之爭自息。
廿二、有人言身口意業諸有所作皆名菩薩行。 論主更出一說：有人言菩薩行者，菩薩身、口、意業諸有所作，皆名菩薩行。並指出此說正是須菩提發問之由：以是事故，須菩提但欲分別「菩薩正行」故問。此一說在世間最為通行：凡菩薩所作即是菩薩行。論主不先破它，只說須菩提之問即為分別一個『正』字。讀論至此當留心：有人言在本論中有時是異解並陳，有時是為引出下文之揀別而設，此處屬後者。
廿三、佛答揀出菩薩正行。 論主接經文之答而牒佛答云：「菩薩行者，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提諸善行，是名菩薩正行。」並自出揀別——菩薩之不善、無記及著心行善法，非菩薩行；但以悲心故及空智慧，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行，是名菩薩行。此揀別分三重：不善不入，無記不入，著心而行之善亦不入；所存者唯悲心與空智慧所發之行。前一說所以不足，正因它把三重皆收在內。讀此可得一個檢法：所作是否菩薩行，不看事相，看其心是不善、是無記、是著心之善，還是悲與空。
廿四、何等是清淨行，不分別空實有為無為。 論主自問「何等是清淨行」而自答：所謂色空行，受、想、行、識空行，乃至有為性、無為性空行；於是諸法不分別是空、是實，乃至是有為、是無為，如阿耨多羅三藐三菩提滅戲論不二相，是名菩薩行；並加一句「無能壞者，亦無過失」。此節是經中長列與末句的縮寫：長列縮為『色空行乃至有為性無為性空行』，末句「不作二」釋為「不分別是空、是實」。要緊的是「不分別是空」五字——連空亦不作一邊，纔是滅戲論；若守住一個空而與實對立，仍是二法。
廿五、須菩提聞菩薩行已歡喜而問佛義。 論主補出經文所無的一層情態：「須菩提聞是菩薩行已，歡喜問」，並把他所問的來歷說明——「菩薩行果報得作佛；經常言佛，何等是佛義？」由行推果，由果之名而問其義，問路便清楚了。論主於經文轉折處常補一句心境或來歷，讀者可藉以看出前後兩問的接榫，不至於把一連串問答讀成散列。
廿六、佛答知諸法實義故名為佛。 論主引經文之首答：「知諸法實義故名為佛。」四答之中先舉第一答而下文專為它設難。這是論主處理長列的常法——不逐句敷衍，取其一句立為標的，難之、釋之，餘句自明。
廿七、問曰，阿羅漢辟支佛大菩薩亦知實義何故不名佛。 論主設難：若知諸法實義即名為佛，則阿羅漢、辟支佛及大菩薩亦知諸法實義，何故不名為佛。此難極切：三乘聖人皆有見實之智，若以知實義立佛名，佛名便不獨。難能立得住，答纔有著落。
廿八、答曰，然燈喻與二種不能。 論主答有三節。其一、引前文已說之「然燈喻」，而出其義：「於凡夫為實，於佛不為實」——同一燈明，望暗者為明，望日者為暗；三乘所知之實，望凡夫為實，望佛則未為實。其二、出所以不實之由：「以煩惱習所覆故，不名為實」。其三、出所以不名正智實義之由：「不能得一切種智、斷一切法中疑悔故」。末云「如上分別」，指其詳在前文。此答不否認三乘知實，只辨其所知之分齊；讀者於此當學一個分寸——同一個詞在不同人身上所指的深淺可以相去甚遠。
廿九、問曰，四名有何異。 論主再設一問，直取經中四答而比之：「知諸法實義、得諸法實相、通達實義、一切法如實知，是四有何異？」此問即第六段所留之疑，論主至此纔正面提出。凡讀經見一義被說到四遍而措辭各別，此問是必須問的——不問則四遍成了重複之辭。
三十、答曰，論主不自立說而引諸家。 論主之答只起一個「答曰」，隨即並陳諸家之言，自己不立一說。此一處最見本論體例：於名相分齊之細處，論主往往並錄而不判，把揀擇留給讀者與後人。讀論遇此，不必以為論主含糊；原文明標兩家「有人言」——一言「義無異，名字異」，一言「有差別」——而兩說之揀擇，論主未下，本帙亦誌錄不判。
卅一、有人言義無異名字異。 第一說最簡：「義無異，名字異。」四遍所詮同一義，所異者唯在名。此說的好處是不增分別——經中四答本是隨語而轉，不必一一坐實為四個階次。若持此說，則第六段所列四遍當作同一義之四種說法讀。
卅二、有人言有差別，義即諸法實相法相常住。 第二說立差別：「義名諸法實相，不生不滅，法相常住，如涅槃」；知是義故名為佛；於是義中常覺悟無錯謬；於是義以種種名相法令眾生解第一實義；是故四無礙中別說義無礙、法無礙。此說把「義」與「法」分成兩事——義是所詮之實相，法是能詮之名相；並以四無礙中義無礙、法無礙之別作證。證據取自佛法中現成的分類，不是自造，這是本論引證的常式。
卅三、有人雖得實義而不能通達之二因緣。 論主續釋第三答「通達實義」：有人雖得諸法實義而不能通達，有二因緣——一者煩惱未盡，二者未得一切智。次以人配之：須陀洹、斯陀含、阿那含未斷煩惱故不能通達；阿羅漢、辟支佛、大菩薩煩惱雖盡而未得一切種智故不能通達。是故說「通達實義故名為佛」。此段與第廿八段相發：彼處以煩惱習與不得一切種智為二由，此處即以之分屬前三果與後三人。得與通達之別，於是有了可指的人與可指的障。
卅四、如實知一切法者總上三事。 論主釋第四答：「如實知一切法者，總上三事亦義、亦法」，一切法若有若無種種了了知故；並引「如一切種智義中說」以證——亦知寂滅相，亦知有為相。四答至此收攏：第四答不是第四件事，是前三事之總。若配第卅一段之第一說，則四者名異義同；若配第卅二段之第二說，則前三各有分齊而第四總之。
卅五、復次，菩提名智，佛名智者。 論主更出一義：「菩提名智，佛名智者。得是智故，名為智者。」一句話把上下兩問接成一事——上問名佛，此問名菩提，而佛與菩提之別只在智與智者。此語極簡而甚有用：讀者若在前面四答九重之中覺得頭緒紛然，持此一句便可提綱——所辨的自始至終只是一個智，與得此智的人。
卅六、須菩提問何等是菩提。 論主牒經中之問：「世尊！何等是菩提？」此下是論主釋菩提義之長節，凡九重經文與七說有人言皆屬其中。牒問之句雖短，卻是分節之標——讀論宜以此類牒問句為段落之界。
卅七、佛答空如法性實際，並判三學三無學二無學與唯佛。 論主先牒經答「空、如、法性、實際，名為菩提」，隨即自釋：空三昧相應實相智慧緣如、法性、實際，菩提名實智慧。次立四重簡別——三學道人未斷煩惱，雖有智慧不名為菩提；三無學人無明永盡無餘故，智慧名菩提；二無學人不得一切智正遍知諸法故，不得名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；唯佛一人智慧，名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。四重自下而上，一重比一重狹。此段最要緊的是它給「菩提」與「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」劃了界：前者三無學人之智慧即得其名，後者唯佛。讀經見二名混用處，可持此界自辨。
卅八、復次，名相語言文字故名菩提。 論主牒經中第五重。此一重最易被略過，因為它與空、如、法性、實際貌似相反。其實不反：菩提若全不可說，則諸佛無由為人說；既說之而人得解，則名相語言文字亦是菩提之義所在。讀此一句可解一種常見之滯——以為說得出的都不是，於是廢言而自以為深。
卅九、菩提實義不可分別破壞。 論主牒經中第六重：菩提實義不可分別破壞。此句與上句一對：上句許其可說，此句明其所說者不可壞。可說故有教，不可壞故有所歸。兩句並讀，纔不至於偏。
四十、復次，菩提是如不異常不虛誑——轉轉有勝之理。 論主牒第七重並廣其說：菩提是如、不異、常不虛誑；何以故——一切眾生智慧轉轉有勝，至佛更無勝者；諸法亦轉轉有勝，先者虛妄，後者真實，至菩提更無實者；是故菩提名為實。此一節的說法很特別：不從體上直說其實，從一條上升的序列說——愈後愈勝，勝至無可更勝處，那個無可更勝者就是實。持此可解「實」之一字：實不是與虛對立的另一物，是虛妄層層剝盡處。
四一、復次，佛與菩提之互訓。 論主牒第八第九重而以互訓收之：「如得菩提故名為佛，今以佛得故名菩提。」經中第八重說菩提為諸佛所有故名菩提，第九重說諸佛正遍知故名為菩提，正是此意。兩名互相為訓，看似循環，其實是說二者本非兩物——離佛無所謂菩提，離菩提無所謂佛。此與第卅五段智與智者之說是同一義的兩種說法。
四二、有人言盡智知生永盡是名菩提。 自此以下，論主並陳諸家釋菩提之說，逐說不判。第一說取盡智：知生永盡，是名菩提。所立之義在一個『盡』字——生死之因已盡，於此而知，即是菩提。此說貼近聲聞法中現成之名，是諸說中最樸實的一說。
四三、有人言盡智無生智名菩提。 第二說於盡智之外更加無生智。盡智知已盡，無生智知不復生；一約既往，一約未來。比之第一說多出一重——不但知所盡，且知其不更生。二說相次而立，讀者可見諸家立義之際，往往以增一重為進。
四四、有人言無礙解脫名菩提。 第三說取無礙解脫，並自出所以：「得是解脫，於一切法皆通達。」前二說就智說，此說就解脫說；而其所以能稱菩提，仍歸到通達一切法。可見諸說雖取名不同，其判準未離『於法無礙』一義。
四五、有人言四無礙智是菩提。 第四說取四無礙智，並逐一為之界說：佛知諸法實相，是「義無礙」；知諸法名相分別，是名「法無礙」；分別種種語言使眾生得解，是名「辭無礙」；有所說法教化無窮無盡，是名「樂說無礙」；以四無礙具足利益眾生故名菩提。四者之中，前二對內——知實相、知名相；後二對外——能以語言令人解、能無盡而說。此說之所以立菩提於四無礙，理由在末句「具足利益眾生」：菩提不止是自知，兼含能使人知。
四六、有人言十力四無所畏等無量佛法盡名菩提。 第五說最寬：佛十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法、大慈大悲、一切種智，如是無量佛法，盡名菩提；何以故——「以智慧大故，諸法皆名菩提」。前數說各取一法，此說則收佛地一切功德。其理由仍在智慧：因智慧大，故凡由此智慧所成之法皆得菩提之名。讀此可知本論諸說之寬狹，多由所取之判準寬狹而來。
四七、有人言真菩提名佛無漏十智。 第六說最細：真菩提名佛無漏十智；此十智相應之受、想、行、識，身業、口業及心不相應諸行，皆名菩提；所以者，「共緣、共生、共相佐助故」。此說以十智為主體，而把與之同起、同緣、共相助成者一併收入。其立義之法與第五說相反——第五說自功德之大立名，此說自相應共起立名。二說並列，可見同一名下取徑之多。
四八、復有人言菩提義無量無邊——轉輪聖王寶藏喻。 末一說總前諸說而歸於不可盡：菩提義無量無邊，唯佛能遍知，餘人知其少分；譬如轉輪聖王寶藏中諸寶，無能分別知其價者，聖王出寶賜人，正可知其所得者。此喻極妙：寶藏之寶非不可知，只是無人能盡知其價；王取寶賜人，受者所能知的只是自己手中那一分。此說繫於「復有人言」，是一家之言，非論主自署之統判；論主於此仍只並陳，不判諸說優劣。
四九、論主重牒須菩提更問畢竟空中增益何善根。 自此論主轉入重牒經文。他說「此中，須菩提問佛菩提相已，更問世尊」，所牒者即第九段之問，而措辭與經文不同——經文作「於諸法何得何失」云云，論主牒作「若菩提畢竟空不壞相，菩薩行六波羅蜜諸法，增益何等善根」。讀此處要分清兩件事：經文是經文，論主之牒是論主據其義而述。二者不可互相代替，也不可因措辭有異而疑其一誤。
五十、重牒佛答於一切法無所增益何況善根。 論主牒佛之答：「若菩薩行是菩提實相，於一切法無所增益，何況善根！何以故？般若波羅蜜不為得失乃至垢淨故出，畢竟清淨故。」此牒把經中「無得無失」一段的理由提到前面來——所以無增益，正因般若本不為此而出，且畢竟清淨。「何況善根」四字是論主牒語中的加重之筆：一切法尚且無所增益，善根自不待言。
五一、佛可其意。 論主只用四字：「佛可其意。」此類短句在論中是節與節之間的關節，標明上一問答已了、下一問將起。讀者見此等短句不必以為無義——它是論主為長段所作的斷句，失了它，下文的「復更問」便無所承。
五二、復更問若無增減云何取諸菩薩行。 論主牒第十一段之難：「若無增減，云何菩薩行般若取檀波羅蜜等諸菩薩行？」經中此問歷舉六度、諸空、諸定、道品、解脫門、十力乃至菩薩十地與過二乘地，論主牒之則以「檀波羅蜜等諸菩薩行」一語總收。此是論主行文之常——經文開列處，論釋往往總約；讀者若要見其全，仍當回經文本身數之。
五三、重牒佛答不以二法故行而加畢竟空和合共行。 論主牒佛答「菩薩雖行是法，不以二法故行」，隨即加一句自己的話：「畢竟空和合共行，是故不應難。」這一句是論主為佛答補出的理由——行與畢竟空並非二事相礙，而是和合共行，故所難不成。讀論當能分出何處是牒經、何處是論主自語：牒經者引其文，自語者出其所以。
五四、復問若不行二法云何增長善根。 論主牒第十三段之問：「世尊！若菩薩不行二法，云何從初發意乃至後心增長善根？」與經文相較，經作「後意」，論牒作「後心」——兩處實文並錄，其所由不判。
五五、重牒佛答行二法即顛倒——夢中得財喻。 論主牒佛答「若人行二法，即是顛倒，不能增長善根」，並自出一喻：「如人夢中雖大得財，竟無所得；覺已所得多少，真名為得。」喻中兩重對照極分明——夢中所得雖大而實無，覺後所得雖少而是真。以之配二法與不二法：依二法而計增益，是夢中之大得；行不二法而善根自益，是覺後之真得。此喻是論主自出，不見於經文，卻把佛答之意說得最切。
五六、佛語須菩提一段之重牒與論主釋餘惡。 論主續牒佛語：「一切凡人皆著二法故，不能增益善根。菩薩行諸法實相，所謂不二法，從初發心來乃至後心，增益善根，無有錯謬。是故菩薩，一切天、人、阿修羅無能壞其善根、令墮二乘，及餘眾惡亦不能壞。」牒畢即釋末句中一詞——「餘惡者，慳貪等煩惱，破檀波羅蜜諸善法等」。論主釋經多如此：不逐句釋，只取其中未定之詞而定之。此處所定的是「餘惡」二字，定了它，這一段便無剩義。
五七、復問菩薩為善根故行般若耶。 論主牒第十五段之問：「世尊！菩薩為善根故行般若耶？」經文本作「菩薩摩訶薩為善根故行般若波羅蜜不」，論牒從簡。此問在經中是順勢一問，在論中卻是下面兩番問答的起點——論主牒之，正為引出自設之難。
五八、重牒佛答不為善不為不善故行般若。 論主牒佛答：「不為善、不為不善故行般若。」雙遮兩邊。牒至此而止，不即釋之——因為所要難的正在這一句，故留與下文之問曰。論主於將難之處往往先原原本本牒出其文，使難有所著。
五九、問曰，不為不善根故行可爾云何不為善根故行。 論主設難，且難得偏：他承認一半，只難另一半——「不為不善根故行般若」，此可爾；所難者是「不為善根故行」。不為不善而行，人人皆解；不為善而行，則與常情相反。此種『半承半難』之問法在本論中屢見，其好處是把難處收得極窄，答語因此不必旁涉。
六十、答曰，為辦事故行不以為貴——栰喻經。 論主答曰：「此中佛意：貴阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故，雖行諸善根，為辦事故行，不以為貴。」次引《栰喻經》為證：「善法尚應捨，何況不善法！」次自釋其義：善根是助佛道法；若人不為栰故渡，為到彼岸故渡。答語三節相扣——先出佛意之所貴，次引經證，末以栰喻明其位次。栰之為物非不可貴，只是所貴不在栰而在彼岸；善根亦然。所遮者是以助道之法為所歸，非遮其行。
六一、此中佛說因緣，雖種善根不以為貴。 論主續引經中所出之因緣：「菩薩未供養諸佛、未得真知識，不能得一切種智」，並結云：是故雖種善根，不以為貴，但為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故。此一結把第十六段所留的相違之疑正面解開——善根是必經之事，故不可無；所貴在菩提，故不以善根自足。二語並存，行門上纔站得穩。
六二、須菩提重問云何雖不為善根而能供養諸佛。 論主牒第十七段之問，措辭作：「云何菩薩雖不為善根，而能供養諸佛乃至得一切種智？」與經文相較，論牒把「雖不為善根」一語明白提在前頭，使問意更顯——所疑者正在不為與能得之間。論主牒經時常作此種提挈，讀者可藉以把握經問之要害。
六三、重牒佛答從初發心供養諸佛，並釋聞持誦利心觀了達與二種陀羅尼。 論主牒佛答「菩薩從初發心已來，供養諸佛」，繼以「如經中說」四字帶過其餘，隨即逐詞訓釋。其一、釋何以只說佛：「供養佛大故，但說佛，當知已供養辟支佛乃至住乾慧地。」其二、釋受持之由：凡人為聞法故從其聞說十二部經，以不能常得師故皆當受持。其三、釋誦利之由：以喜忘故，誦讀令利。其四、釋心觀：「常繫心經卷，次第憶念。」其五、釋了達與得陀羅尼之次第：先以語言宣義，後得了達，即得陀羅尼。其六、分陀羅尼為二：一者聞持陀羅尼，二者得諸法實相陀羅尼；並各出其因——讀誦修習常念故得聞持，通達義故得實相。經文只是一串動詞，論主逐一為之出所以，於是這一串成了可行之次第。
六四、住二陀羅尼門能生無礙智具足四無礙智。 論主接上文：「住是二陀羅尼門中，能生無礙智；為眾生說法故，具足四無礙智。」此句把第四五段所引的四無礙智接回行門——彼處四無礙是釋菩提之一說，此處四無礙是菩薩所具之德。同一名而位次不同，讀者當隨文而定其分齊，不可以此處之四無礙即彼處之菩提。
六五、問曰，菩薩有無礙智與佛何異。 論主設難：若菩薩有無礙智，與佛何異。此難與第廿七段同一機杼——凡以一德立佛名者，他人有此德則佛名不獨。本論於名相之獨與共處，屢設此類難，讀者見其一即可推其餘。
六六、答曰，真無礙與名字無礙。 論主答以二分：「無礙有二種：一、真無礙，二、名字無礙。此中除佛無礙，餘者隨菩薩所得無礙。」真無礙唯佛，菩薩所得者隨其分而稱無礙之名。此答與第廿八段「於凡夫為實，於佛不為實」是同一分寸——不否認菩薩有無礙，只定其為隨分之名。同名而分齊有異，是本論解此類難的通法。
六七、讀誦故所生之處不忘失、煩惱折薄。 論主釋經中「所生處，乃至薩婆若，終不忘失是法」一句：是菩薩讀經等因緣故，所生之處乃至得一切種智終不忘失；何以故——「深入讀誦諸法故，煩惱折薄」。此處給了一個具體的因果：忘失之由在煩惱，煩惱之薄由於深入讀誦；故不忘失不是記性之事，是煩惱厚薄之事。這一轉極有用——它把一件看似屬於根器的事，轉成可以下手之處。
六八、為善根所護故不墮惡道——盲人有目者將護喻。 論主釋經中「為是善根所護，終不墮惡道諸難」，並出喻：「如盲人為有目者所將護故，終不墜落溝壑。」喻中所取的不是盲人自能見，是有目者在旁。善根之護持亦然——非謂行人已無墮落之可能，是有所護故不墜。持此喻可免兩失：既不因自見未開而自棄，亦不因有護而自以為已能見。
六九、集善根福德故得深心清淨。 論主釋「得深心清淨」，並為深心清淨出其相：「慈愛一切眾生，雖怨賊中人亦不加惡，所謂奪命等。」定義不從心體上說，從待人處說——於怨賊亦不加害，即是深心清淨之驗。本論釋內心之德，常以其於境上之相為證，這樣纔有可檢之處。
七十、復次，智慧福德大集故煩惱微少。 論主更出一因：「智慧、福德大集故，煩惱微少，不能遍覆菩薩善心。」此語措辭極有分寸——不說煩惱已斷，說其微少而不能遍覆。菩薩位中煩惱未盡而善心不被覆，正是此段所立之相。讀者於自身用之，亦當取此分寸：不必待煩惱全無纔算有進，但看其能否覆卻善心。
七一、復次，深心之相與能教化眾生得淨佛世界。 論主再釋深心，分兩面：於眾生中得慈悲心、不捨心、救度心；於諸法中得無常、苦、空、無我、畢竟空心；乃至於佛不生佛想、涅槃想，是名深心清淨。次出其用：深心清淨故能教化眾生；何以故——煩惱薄故不起高心、我心、瞋心，故眾生愛樂、信受其語；教化眾生故得淨佛世界。末引《毘摩羅詰．佛國品》為證：「眾生淨故，世界清淨。」此節把經中「能淨佛國土、成就眾生」一句的次第補全——自深心而不起三心，自不起三心而人肯受語，自受語而眾生淨，自眾生淨而世界淨。淨土之成，因此落在待人之際。
七二、為善根所護故終不離善知識。 論主釋經末「常不離真知識」，並為善知識立名與相：「善知識者，諸佛、大菩薩、阿羅漢」；復略說其相——「能讚歎三寶者」。前者舉其極，後者出其可驗之相。相之所以立得這樣寬，是為使人於現前得以取用：不必皆遇諸佛大菩薩，凡能讚歎三寶者即於此分中。反過來說，不讚歎三寶者雖親不名善知識，擇友之準亦在此。
七三、結勸供養諸佛種善根親近善知識——良醫藥草瞻病人喻。 論主以經末三事作結，並出一喻：如病人應求良醫藥草；佛為良醫，諸善根為藥草，瞻病人為善知識；病者具此事故病得除差，菩薩亦如是，滅諸煩惱故能利益眾生。喻中三物配三事，井然可數：佛所以為良醫，以其知病知藥；善根所以為藥草，以其能對治；善知識所以為瞻病人，以其在旁不捨。全品自「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」起，至此以一個病人求愈之喻收結——所向雖在無上菩提，下手處卻只是求醫、服藥、有人照看這樣平實的三件事。
不要讀錯
不要把「不作二」「不以二法故行」讀成不許有所行。經文所列的行相自行色空一路排到行有為性、行無為性，不曾刪去一項；佛所加的只是末一句判語。論主釋清淨行時說得更明白——「於是諸法不分別是空、是實」，所遮的是分別，不是所行之法。若讀成行既不二則諸法可廢，便與第十八段所出的供養諸佛、聞持十二部經、種善根、親近善知識一條實路正相違背。
不要把四種名佛之釋讀成四個階位。論主為此四名專設一問，而所答者是並陳二說：一說「義無異，名字異」，一說有差別而以四無礙中義無礙、法無礙之別為證；論主自己並未斷其一。四名之下又有「如實知一切法者，總上三事」一句，明其第四是總非別。若逕把四名排成由淺至深的四級，則第一說無所安立，而論主並陳之意亦失。
不要把「於諸法無得無失、無增無減」讀成修行無所增益。佛自出其所以——「不為得失、增減、生滅、淨垢故出」，所遮的是行般若之動機，不是行般若之效。緊接其後，佛又正面說菩薩行不二法「從初發意乃至後意，於其中間增益善根」，且天人阿修羅及眾惡皆不能壞。兩段並讀可知：依二法而求增益者不得增益，不依二法者善根自益。若只取前段而廢後段，便會把一個對治執取之語讀成廢行之語。
不要把諸家「有人言」讀成論主自立之說。論主釋菩提義處連舉諸說——盡智、盡智無生智、無礙解脫、四無礙智、佛地無量法、無漏十智，末以「菩提義無量無邊，唯佛能遍知，餘人知其少分」總收，並出轉輪聖王寶藏之喻。「餘人知其少分」一語仍在末說「復有人言」之內，是該家之言，不是論主對前諸說所下之通斷。讀者若取其一說而以為論主之定論，即失並錄之意。
不要把「不為善根故行般若」讀成不必種善根。同一段經文之中，佛既說不為善根亦不為非善根故行，又說「未供養諸佛、未具足善根、未得真知識，不能得一切種智」；論主釋之云雖行諸善根「為辦事故行，不以為貴」，並引《栰喻經》「善法尚應捨，何況不善法！」而自釋——「若人不為栰故渡，為到彼岸故渡」。渡者仍須乘栰，只是所求不在栰。所遮者是以善根為所歸，非遮其行。
不要把「菩薩行」讀成菩薩的一切所作。論主先出一說——「菩薩身、口、意業諸有所作，皆名菩薩行」，而隨即以佛答揀之：菩薩之不善、無記及著心行善法，非菩薩行；唯以悲心及空智慧為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行者，纔名菩薩行。可見「菩薩正行」之正字是有所簡別的。若讀成凡菩薩所作即是菩薩行，則本品開端一問便無所為而發。
修行作用
第一件受用，是把「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」立作日用的準頭。佛答菩薩行不舉事目，只指所向；論主揀別亦不在事相，在心是不善、是無記、是著心之善，還是悲與空。行人於每日所作之上可加一問：此事我所為者何。答得出所向在菩提，則布施持戒讀誦作務皆是菩薩行；答不出或答在名利，則事雖是善，於此品所說之行猶未相應。
第二件受用，是把諸家釋菩提之說作一組自照之鏡而不擇一而立。盡智者照其生死之因已盡未盡，盡智無生智者照其更生之勢有無，無礙解脫者照其於法通達與否，四無礙智者照其能否使人得解，佛地無量法者照其所成之德，無漏十智者照其心行之相應。末說又云唯佛遍知、餘人各知少分。行人持此六照自檢，所得雖是少分，卻是自己手中真實的那一分——正如寶藏之寶，王賜而後可知其所得者。
第三件受用，是把「不以二法故行」用在六度之上。經中所難者是既不為得失故出，云何能取六度乃至入菩薩位；佛答只換一個下手處——照行而不以二法。行人布施時不作能施所施之計，持戒時不作持者所持之計，乃至讀經作務皆然。論主又補一句「畢竟空和合共行」，正是說二者不相礙。此一著最可於日用中試：同一件善事，作時心中有沒有一個在計較得失的自己，自己最清楚。
第四件受用，是把夢中得財喻與栰喻合看，以定所貴。夢中得財喻說的是所得——依二法而計者，所得雖大而實無；覺後所得雖少而真。栰喻說的是所貴——渡者仍須乘栰，而所貴在彼岸。兩喻合起來便是一條行門上的分寸：於善根不可不行，於善根不可自足；不行則無栰可乘，自足則終不到岸。行人遇修行有所成就而心生自得時，可即取此二喻自照。
第五件受用，是把善知識之相與三事喻用作擇友與自處之準。論主為善知識出一個極平實的驗相——「能讚歎三寶者」；又以良醫、藥草、瞻病人配佛、善根、善知識。行人依此可作三事之檢：所依之醫是否為佛，所服之藥是否為善根，在旁照看者是否能讚歎三寶。三者具足，則如經所說病得除差。反過來，若身邊之人雖親而常毀三寶，依此品之判，便不在善知識之數，親疏之際當自有分。
承衍
本品的骨幹，是一段經文與一段論釋。經①自須菩提問何等是菩薩行起，佛答為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行是名菩薩行；次須菩提問云何為菩提行，佛乃歷舉行色空、行受想行識空，行眼空乃至意，行眼界空乃至意識界，行六波羅蜜，行內空乃至無法有法空，行四禪四無量四無色，行四念處乃至八聖道分，行三三昧，行八背捨九次第定，行十力四無所畏四無礙智十八不共法大慈大悲，行淨佛國土成就眾生，行諸辯才、行文字入無文字、行諸陀羅尼門，行有為性行無為性，而結以如阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不作二；次問何義故名佛，佛答以知諸法實義、得諸法實相、通達實義、如實知一切法四遍；次問何義故名菩提，佛答以空義如義法性義實際義、名相言說、不可壞不可分別、諸法實相不誑不異、諸佛所有、諸佛正遍知；次問行六波羅蜜乃至一切種智於諸法何得何失何增何減何生何滅何垢何淨，佛答無得無失乃至無垢無淨而出般若不為得失增減生滅淨垢故出之由；次問既不為此故出云何能取六度諸空諸定道品解脫門十力乃至菩薩十地與過二乘地入菩薩位，佛答不以二法故行；次問不以二法云何從初發意乃至後意善根增益，佛答行二法者不得增益、一切凡夫皆依二法、菩薩行不二法故於其中間增益善根而天人阿修羅及眾惡不能壞；次問為善根故行般若不，佛答不也而雙遮善與非善，並出未供養諸佛未具足善根未得真知識不能得一切種智之由；末問云何供養諸佛具足善根得真知識能得一切種智，佛答自初發意供養諸佛、聞持十二部經誦利心觀了達而得陀羅尼起無礙智、種善根為善根所護不墮惡道、得深心清淨能淨佛國土成就眾生、常不離真知識，結以應供養諸佛種善根親近善知識。論①以釋曰隨文而釋：先敘上品之問而起本品之問，次設問答辨般若與菩薩行之異同，次出有人言身口意業諸有所作皆名菩薩行而以佛答揀出正行，次釋清淨行之不分別是空是實；次隨須菩提之歡喜而入名義一節，設三番問答——阿羅漢辟支佛大菩薩亦知實義何故不名佛而答以然燈喻與煩惱習所覆、不得一切種智二由，知實義得實相通達實義如實知四者何異而並陳二說不判，並釋不能通達之二因緣與如實知一切法之總上三事；次出菩提名智佛名智者，牒經中菩提九重而各為之釋，並判三學三無學二無學與唯佛一人之分齊；次並陳諸家釋菩提之說——盡智、盡智無生智、無礙解脫、四無礙智、佛地無量法、無漏十智，末以菩提義無量無邊唯佛遍知餘人知其少分與轉輪聖王寶藏喻總收；次逐節重牒經中問答而各附論主之語——無所增益何況善根、佛可其意、畢竟空和合共行、夢中得財喻、餘惡者慳貪等煩惱；次設問答辨不為善根故行之義而引《栰喻經》與栰渡之喻，並釋此中佛說因緣；末隨經文釋行門次第——供養佛大故但說佛、受持誦利心觀之由、二種陀羅尼、四無礙智、真無礙與名字無礙之辨、讀誦故煩惱折薄、盲人有目者將護喻、深心清淨之相、智慧福德大集故煩惱不能遍覆、深心之二面與眾生淨故世界清淨之引證、善知識之名與相，結以良醫藥草瞻病人三事喻。
本品與前後諸品的義脈，可見者有三線。其一、承前：論主起釋第一句即對上品，謂上品中須菩提問何以故名般若波羅蜜而佛種種因緣答，因此事故此品復問何等是菩薩行；兩問同一體例，故本品之起是上品問法之續，非別立一端。其二、品內自成兩轉：前轉自「何等是菩薩行」轉入名義之辨，樞紐在須菩提聞菩薩行已歡喜而問佛義；後轉自名義之辨轉回行門之難，樞紐在「若菩提畢竟空不壞相」一問。兩轉之間，「不作二」與「不以二法故行」一語兩用，前者說所向，後者說能行。其三、垂後：本品結於供養諸佛、種善根、親近善知識，而所以不以善根為貴之義已於此品說定；次品即以種善根為題，讀者可合觀二品，以見不為善根而又不可無善根之相續。
古德之釋與諸本之異，本品可誌者三事。其一、品題兩造：本帙底本作「菩薩行品第七十二」，而宮本別稱「道行品」，品次仍作第七十二；聖本、石本則品次皆較底本少一位，石本又於品名之外別繫經名。所釋之經本身，其章題亦作「道行品」，而經之他本多作「菩薩行品」，與本論底本、宮本之兩造恰成交錯。吉藏《大品經義疏》卷首總目與其釋文標題並作「道行品第七十二」，與本論宮本、經之底本同用一名。異名兩造並錄不判，其諸本異讀之全帳詳考據層。其二、吉藏於本品有實釋一段，自其釋題起至次品題前止，所釋以佛意為主而語極簡，其逐字可誌者五。釋品題之立名，云「今云道行品者，上譬說得名，今法說為因也。」——以上品譬說、本品法說分兩名之所從，與本品之起繫於上品之問同一意。判般若與菩薩行之通別，云「若是菩薩行，具實方便二慧，則知般若別，菩薩行通也。」——所分之界與論主「一切菩薩道名菩薩行」一答不同：論以道與慧分，吉藏以二慧之具不具分，兩家並錄不判。釋佛義四句之末句，云「第四句總上三法，謂知義亦知有知無，故云一切也。」——與論之「總上三事亦義、亦法」同歸，而所舉之三事小異。釋菩提，云「第三義外即名相為菩提，第四義內絕念想為菩提，第五舉人釋法。」——以外內人三面科經之九重，與論側十則有人言之並陳異其體例。釋不為善根故行，云「如百論為除惡善行，若入道則須捨善也。」——以入道須捨善為說，正與論引《栰喻經》「善法尚應捨，何況不善法！」及栰渡之配同意。其逐字之引與本論所釋之異同，詳考據層。其三、今檢天台一系之《摩訶止觀》《止觀輔行傳弘決》《妙法蓮華經玄義》《法華玄義釋籤》，以及慧影《大智度論疏》、均正《大乘四論玄義》，皆未見引及本品之品題，其於本品「空義是菩提義」「知諸法實義故名為佛」「不以二法故行檀波羅蜜」諸句亦未見逐字之引。此品所繫古德之證甚薄，與本論他品之厚者不同，據實誌之而不作推論。
The Bodhisattva's Practice: Why the Bodhisattva's Practice Is Answered in Full with the One Sentence of Practice for the Sake of Awakening; Why the Buddha Must Count All the Way from Practising Form Being Empty to Practising the Conditioned Nature and the Unconditioned Nature before Saying That He Makes No Two; Why the Meaning by Which One Is Named Buddha Must Be Spoken Four Times; Why the Meaning of Awakening Must Be Spoken in Nine Layers and Is Not Fixed in One Meaning; Why Practising the Six Perfections with No Gain and No Loss within Dharmas Is Not Practising for Nothing; Why, since It Comes Forth Not for the Sake of Gain and Loss, One Can Still Take Up the Six Perfections and So On up to Entering the Bodhisattva's Position; Why Practising Not by Reason of Two Dharmas Is the Pivot of the Whole Chapter; Why for One Who Practises Two Dharmas the Roots of Goodness Do Not Increase; Why, Asked Whether One Practises Prajñā for the Sake of the Roots of Goodness, the Buddha Answers ‘No’; Why Not Practising for the Sake of the Roots of Goodness and Yet Saying That One Who Has Not Fulfilled the Roots of Goodness Cannot Obtain the Omniscience of All Kinds Do Not Contradict Each Other; Why, since Prajñā Gathers All Dharmas, One Must Still Ask Further about the Bodhisattva's Practice; Why the Saying That the Deeds of Body, Speech, and Mind Are All Named the Bodhisattva's Practice Has the One Word ‘Right’ Sifted Out of It by the Buddha's Answer; Why Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, and Great Bodhisattvas, Who Also Know the Real Meaning, Are Not Named Buddha; Why, on the Difference of the Four Names, the Treatise-Author Does Not Set Up a Saying of His Own but Sets Out ‘Someone Says’ Side by Side; Why Awakening Being Suchness and Not Different Must Be Spoken of by Surpassing in Turn, One above Another; Why the Seven Sayings of the Various Houses Explaining Awakening Are Kept Together without Judgement; Why the Treatise-Author's Taking Up Again of the Sūtra Text Must Be Read Apart from the Sūtra Text; Why Obtaining Wealth in a Dream and the Raft Simile Speak of One and the Same Matter; Why the Two Kinds of Dhāraṇī and the Two Kinds of Unobstructedness, True and in Name, Both Lie in Distinguishing Depth and Shallowness; Why the Purity of the Deep Mind Is Tied to Compassion, Not Abandoning, and Rescuing and Delivering; Why the Three Things of the Good Physician, the Medicinal Herbs, and the One Who Tends the Sick Gather In the Conclusion of the Whole Chapter
What Is Being Asked
What this chapter asks is a question that looks the most ordinary of all: what, in the end, is it that the bodhisattva practises. The chapters before this one spoke broadly of the marks of prajñā and broadly of the method of training in prajñā, and what they distinguished was mostly the dharmas trained in; in this chapter Subhūti moves the question onto the person—the one matter the bodhisattva does through his whole life, what is it called.
The Buddha's answer is surprisingly short: 「菩薩行者，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行，是名菩薩行。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's practice is practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; this is named the bodhisattva's practice." He does not speak of the dharmas practised; he speaks only of the place faced toward. This answer at once draws out a second question: since it is practice for the sake of awakening, then how does it count as practice for the sake of awakening? Only then does the Buddha open out an extremely long list, counting all the way from practising form being empty to practising the conditioned nature and practising the unconditioned nature, and gathering it in with one sentence: 「如阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不作二。」 tr. "Just as with anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he makes no two." The longer the list, the weightier the last sentence—the hundreds and thousands of Dharma gates listed all come to rest in making no two.
From this Subhūti presses on with two names: by reason of what meaning one is named Buddha, and by reason of what meaning it is named awakening. The Buddha answers the naming of the Buddha with four meanings, and answers awakening with nine layers. That the answers are so many is not a waste of words: what is asked is the meaning contained in a name, and meaning is from the first without fixed mark, so the saying differs according to what it faces. This passage is the thickest section of the chapter in doctrine, and the treatise-author too spends the most space on explaining it—first setting up three rounds of question and answer himself, then setting out the sayings of the various houses side by side without judgement.
After this the whole chapter turns into a set of difficulties on the gate of practice. Since practising prajñā comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, increase and decrease, arising and ceasing, purity and stain, then how are the six perfections and so on up to the bodhisattva's position to be taken up? Since one practises not by reason of two dharmas, then from the first arousing of intent to the last intent, how do the roots of goodness increase? Since the roots of goodness are to increase, then does one practise prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness? The Buddha's answers come one step tighter than the last: one practises not by reason of two dharmas; for one who practises two dharmas the roots of goodness do not increase; one practises neither for the sake of the roots of goodness nor for the sake of what is not the roots of goodness; and at the end he further says that one who has not made offerings to the buddhas, has not fulfilled the roots of goodness, and has not obtained true friends cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds. It looks as though earlier and later resist each other, but in fact these are two faces of the same matter—the roots of goodness are not what is prized, and yet one cannot be without them.
In the last passage the Buddha opens out a real road: from the first arousing of intent one makes offerings to the buddhas, hears and retains the twelve divisions of the scriptures, recites until fluent, contemplates in the mind, and penetrates clearly, obtains dhāraṇī and gives rise to unobstructed knowledge, plants roots of goodness and is protected by the roots of goodness, obtains the purity of the deep mind, is able to purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment, and is never apart from true friends. Here the treatise-author glosses sentence by sentence, and concludes with the three things of the good physician, the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick. The whole chapter, beginning from 「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」 tr. "practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" and ending at 「親近善知識」 tr. "keep close to good friends," speaks of the head and tail of one matter—once what one faces toward is settled, what one relies on, what one trains in, and whom one keeps company with are all settled from it.
Passage by Passage
1. Subhūti asks what the bodhisattva's practice is. At the head of the chapter Subhūti addresses the Buddha. He does not ask how the bodhisattva trains, nor what fruit the bodhisattva obtains; he asks only 「何等是菩薩行」 tr. "what is the bodhisattva's practice." In reading this question one must see clearly where it asks: the chapters before have spoken broadly of prajñā and broadly of training, and the three Chinese characters 「菩薩行」 tr. "the bodhisattva's practice" are spoken of again and again in the sūtra and yet have never been defined. Whenever there is a term in the sūtra that is in constant use and yet undefined, a later chapter often makes it a question—the arising of this chapter is precisely such an arising. He also adds a sentence of origin: 「世尊說菩薩行」 tr. "The World-Honored One speaks of the bodhisattva's practice," showing that what is asked does not come from himself; he is pressing for the meaning of words the Buddha himself has used.
2. The Buddha answers that it is practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The Buddha's answer is only one sentence: 「菩薩行者，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行，是名菩薩行。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's practice is practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; this is named the bodhisattva's practice." The key of this answer is that what it answers is ‘what it faces toward’ and not ‘what is done’. Had he answered with the six perfections or with the thirty-seven limbs of the path, it would become a table of items, and a table of items cannot distinguish the bodhisattva from the one who is not a bodhisattva—the same giving and keeping of precepts, if what they face toward differs, are different practices. With this answer the Buddha sets the dividing line at the place it is done for, so below Subhūti must ask once more 「云何」 tr. "how" before the items can be invited out.
3. Subhūti goes on to ask how it is practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Subhūti takes it up with the utmost precision: since it is said to be practice for the sake of awakening, then 「云何菩薩摩訶薩為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." The previous question asked about the name; this question asks about the marks. Whenever in reading the sūtra one sees the same matter asked twice, one must first distinguish that the two askings ask different things—the former seeks its definition, the latter seeks the marks of its practice; if the two questions are seen as a repetition, one will feel that the long passage the Buddha gives below is something extra.
4. The Buddha lists throughout the dharmas practised and concludes with making no two, as with awakening. In response to this question the Buddha opens a long list: practising form being empty, practising feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness being empty; practising the eye being empty and so on up to the mind, practising forms being empty and so on up to dharmas; practising the eye element being empty and so on up to the mind-consciousness element; next practising the six perfections; next practising inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; next practising the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions; next practising the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path; next practising the three samādhi; next practising the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions; next practising the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion; next practising purifying buddha-lands and bringing beings to accomplishment; next practising all the eloquences, practising letters entering into what is without letters, and practising all the dhāraṇī gates; last practising the conditioned nature and practising the unconditioned nature. What is listed begins from the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, and the eighteen elements, passes through the six perfections, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, and the samādhis, and reaches the merits of the Buddha ground and the matters of transforming others, and with the one pair of the conditioned and the unconditioned gathers everything in. The first of the limbs of the path is called the four foundations of mindfulness; elsewhere this treatise itself lists its items and its contemplations: 「身念處，受、心、法念處，是為四念處」 tr. "the foundation of mindfulness of the body, and the foundations of mindfulness of feeling, of mind, and of dharmas—these are the four foundations of mindfulness," and 「觀身不淨，觀受是苦，觀心無常，觀法無我」 tr. "contemplate the body as impure, contemplate feeling as suffering, contemplate mind as impermanent, contemplate dharmas as non-self"—the foundation of mindfulness of the body contemplates this body as not pure and breaks the inversion of purity; the foundation of mindfulness of feeling contemplates the feelings as suffering and breaks the inversion of pleasure; the foundation of mindfulness of mind contemplates this mind as not abiding from thought to thought and breaks the inversion of permanence; the foundation of mindfulness of dharmas contemplates dharmas as without a master and breaks the inversion of self; therefore this treatise says plainly, 「破是四顛倒故，說是四念處」 tr. "because they break these four inversions, these four foundations of mindfulness are spoken of." The inversions that the four contemplations face each differ, and yet their use in this passage is one: the bodhisattva practising these four contemplations makes no two between the contemplating mind and the contemplated body, feeling, mind, and dharmas, nor does he further set up a difference upon the marks of pure and impure, suffering and not suffering—only so does he accord with the judgement of the last sentence; if the four contemplations each grasp at marks and so become two, then, though he practises the four foundations of mindfulness throughout, it is still not named practice for the sake of awakening. The list being as broad as this, the last sentence is the judgement: 「如阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不作二。」 tr. "Just as with anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he makes no two." In reading this passage the weight should be put on the last sentence—no matter how many or how few the dharmas practised, so long as one makes no two upon them, it is practice for the sake of awakening; if one makes two upon them, even if one practises each and every one throughout, it is still not named practice for the sake of awakening.
5. Subhūti asks by reason of what meaning one is named Buddha. Here the sūtra text turns into the meaning of names. Subhūti asks: 「世尊說言佛，何義故名佛？」 tr. "The World-Honored One speaks of the Buddha; by reason of what meaning is one named Buddha?" This question is of the same form as the first question—taking a name the Buddha himself constantly uses and pressing for its reason. Note that what he asks is 「何義」 tr. "what meaning" and not ‘what marks’: he does not ask what marks and minor signs or merits the Buddha has; he asks on what meaning this one name is set up. A name is set up upon a meaning; when the meaning is clear the name is not empty—this is the consistent method of this sūtra in distinguishing names.
6. The Buddha answers the naming of the Buddha with four meanings. The Buddha's answer goes four times: because he knows the real meaning of all dharmas he is named Buddha; furthermore, because he obtains the real mark of all dharmas he is named Buddha; furthermore, because he penetrates the real meaning he is named Buddha; furthermore, because he knows all dharmas as they really are he is named Buddha. What the four times say looks repetitive, but in fact each meaning is wider than the one before—the first speaks in terms of ‘knowing the meaning’, the second in terms of ‘obtaining the mark’, the third in terms of ‘penetrating’, the fourth in terms of ‘knowing all dharmas throughout’. Here one need not yet hurry to distinguish how the four differ, because the treatise-author below sets up a question specially to distinguish this; at this point the reader need only remember: the name of Buddha is set up not on supernormal power and not on the bodily marks, but on knowing with regard to dharmas.
7. Subhūti asks by reason of what meaning it is named awakening. Subhūti asks again: 「何義故名菩提？」 tr. "By reason of what meaning is it named awakening?" Since the Buddha has set up the name of Buddha by knowing dharmas, what the dharma known is becomes the next question. This question and the previous one are a pair: the previous asks the name of the person, this asks the name of the dharma; the name of the person is set up upon the dharma, and upon what in turn the name of the dharma is set up is the deepest section of this chapter in doctrine.
8. The Buddha answers the meaning of awakening in nine layers. The Buddha's answer pushes out layer upon layer, and can be counted one by one: first, the meaning of emptiness is the meaning of awakening; second, the meaning of suchness; third, the meaning of the nature of dharmas; fourth, the meaning of the limit of reality; fifth, names, marks, and verbal expression are the meaning of awakening; sixth, the real meaning of awakening is indestructible and indiscriminable; seventh, the real mark of all dharmas is not deceptive and not different; eighth, this awakening is what the buddhas possess, therefore it is named awakening; ninth, it is the buddhas' right and complete knowing, therefore it is named awakening. The saying ‘nine layers’ is present-day wording set up for convenience in counting; the sūtra text itself does not give the number. Of the nine layers, the first four speak in terms of the substance of dharmas, the fifth turns to speak in terms of verbal expression, the sixth and seventh speak in terms of its being unbreakable and indestructible, not deceptive and not different, and the eighth and ninth speak in terms of the Buddha. Most worth savouring is the fifth layer—the first four layers all speak of emptiness and of suchness, and suddenly it says 「名相言說是菩提義」 tr. "names, marks, and verbal expression are the meaning of awakening," precisely so that one does not, upon emptiness, form one further clinging to what is apart from words.
9. Subhūti asks what is gained and what is lost within dharmas in practising the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. The meaning of the names being clear, Subhūti turns to ask about the gate of practice: if the bodhisattva for the sake of this awakening practises the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, 「於諸法何得何失、何增何減、何生何滅、何垢何淨」 tr. "within dharmas what is gained, what is lost, what is increased, what is decreased, what arises, what ceases, what is stained, what is purified." Four pairs and eight questions are asked in one breath, and what they ask is all one matter: since what is practised relies on the awakening that is ultimate emptiness, then what in the end happens upon dharmas. This question is asked in an extremely down-to-earth way—the doubt that touches the practitioner most closely lies precisely here.
10. The Buddha answers no gain and no loss and so on up to no stain and no purity. The Buddha too answers with four pairs: no gain and no loss, no increase and no decrease, non-arising and non-ceasing, no stain and no purity, and himself gives the reason: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜，不為得失、增減、生滅、淨垢故出。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, it is not for the sake of gain and loss, increase and decrease, arising and ceasing, purity and stain that he comes forth." One must see clearly this ‘not for the sake of … that he comes forth’—it does not say that after prajñā is practised there is no gain and no loss within dharmas; it says that prajñā from the first does not arise for the sake of these matters. What is asked lies in the fruit; what is answered lies in the cause; the answer being at the place of the cause, the doubt about the fruit naturally falls empty.
11. Subhūti asks how, since it comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, one can take up dharmas and so on up to entering the bodhisattva's position. Following this, Subhūti raises a difficulty again: since it comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss and so on up to not for the sake of purity and stain, then how does the bodhisattva practise prajñā and yet 「能取」 tr. "is able to take up" the six perfections, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, the three gates of liberation, the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas and great kindness and great compassion; how does he practise the ten grounds of the bodhisattva; how does he pass beyond the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha grounds and enter into the bodhisattva's position. This difficulty is asked with great force: practice is all along a matter of having something taken up, something passed beyond, something entered; and since prajñā comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, taking up, passing beyond, and entering have nowhere to be set up. The tightest knot of the whole chapter is tied here.
12. The Buddha answers that one practises not by reason of two dharmas. The Buddha unties this knot with only one sentence: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，不以二法故行檀波羅蜜」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, it is not by reason of two dharmas that he practises dānapāramitā" and so on up to 「不以二法乃至行一切種智」 tr. "not by reason of two dharmas, and so on up to, practises the omniscience of all kinds." He does not speak of taking up, nor of not taking up; he only changes the place where one sets one's hand—practice is practised as before, but not by reason of two dharmas. What are called two dharmas are the pairs of the taker and the taken, of obtaining and not obtaining. This one sentence is the pivot of the whole chapter: 「不作二」 tr. "makes no two" above speaks of what one faces toward; 「不以二法故行」 tr. "practises not by reason of two dharmas" here speaks of the one who practises; when in both places, facing toward and practising, one makes no two, taking up, passing beyond, and entering all cease to be a problem.
13. Subhūti asks how, not by reason of two dharmas, the roots of goodness increase from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent. The knot untied, another knot arises. Subhūti asks: if one practises the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds not by reason of two dharmas, then for the bodhisattva 「從初發意乃至後意云何善根增益」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent, how do the roots of goodness increase." This question comes especially close to the practitioner—making no two, there is nothing increased; nothing being increased, the first arousing of the mind and the last mind are without difference; then what, in the end, has a whole life of practice accumulated. The more real the question, the more clearly the answer must be distinguished.
14. The Buddha answers that for one who practises two dharmas there is no increase, and that the many evils cannot break one who practises the dharma of non-duality. The Buddha's answer turns the question wholly over: 「若行二法者，善根不得增益」 tr. "For one who practises two dharmas, the roots of goodness do not increase," and he gives the reason—「一切凡夫皆依二法，不得增益善根」 tr. "All ordinary people rely on two dharmas and do not increase the roots of goodness"; conversely, the bodhisattva practises the dharma of non-duality, and from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent, in between, he increases the roots of goodness. From this he further draws out a string of things that cannot break him: none among all the world's gods, humans, and asuras can subdue him, none can break his roots of goodness and cause him to fall to the grounds of the two vehicles; the many evil, unwholesome dharmas cannot overpower the bodhisattva and cause him to be unable to practise dānapāramitā and increase the roots of goodness, and so on up to prajñāpāramitā, which is likewise so. In reading this passage one must know that the Buddha has not denied increase; what the Buddha denies is seeking increase by relying on two dharmas. The reason ordinary people do not obtain increase is precisely that what they rely on is two; the reason the roots of goodness cannot be broken is precisely that what they rely on is non-duality.
15. Subhūti asks whether the bodhisattva practises prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness. Since the increase of the roots of goodness has been spoken of, Subhūti asks a question following the momentum: 「菩薩摩訶薩為善根故行般若波羅蜜不？」 tr. "Does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the roots of goodness?" This question is the seam left by the previous answer. Whoever, listening to the Dharma, can follow the answer and press one step further will usually ask questions of this kind—since what is increased is the roots of goodness, then is not the aim of practising prajñā this?
16. The Buddha answers ‘No,’ and brings out the three matters such as not having made offerings to the buddhas. The Buddha answers decisively: 「不也！」 tr. "No!" and blocks both sides together—one practises neither for the sake of the roots of goodness nor for the sake of what is not the roots of goodness. He at once states the reason: 「菩薩摩訶薩法，未供養諸佛、未具足善根、未得真知識，不能得一切種智。」 tr. "It is the dharma of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva that, never having made offerings to the buddhas, never having fulfilled the roots of goodness, never having obtained true friends, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds." Here it is extremely easy to see a contradiction between earlier and later: since it is not for the sake of the roots of goodness, why is it further said that one who has not fulfilled the roots of goodness cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds? Two layers must be distinguished—what is blocked is taking the roots of goodness as the aim one acts for; what is set up is the roots of goodness as a cause and condition one must have. Not practising for its sake is not the same as being able to do without it.
17. Subhūti asks how one makes offerings to the buddhas, fulfils the roots of goodness, and obtains true friends so as to be able to obtain the omniscience of all kinds. Taking up the three matters the Buddha has brought out, Subhūti asks again about the method of practising them: 「云何菩薩摩訶薩供養諸佛、具足善根、得真知識能得一切種智？」 tr. "How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva make offerings to the buddhas, fulfil the roots of goodness, and obtain true friends, so as to be able to obtain the omniscience of all kinds?" This question pulls the whole chapter back from doctrine to real matters, and also opens the way for the long answer of the next passage. By this point in the sūtra text, what is asked is no longer the meaning of names, no longer two and not two; it is a road that can be walked.
18. The Buddha answers from making offerings to the buddhas from the first arousing of intent up to never being apart from true friends. The Buddha's answer forms a sequence: from the first arousing of intent one makes offerings to the buddhas; in the presence of the buddhas one hears the twelve divisions of the scriptures, from sūtra and so on up to upadeśa—hearing, retaining, reciting until fluent, contemplating in the mind, penetrating clearly; because one penetrates them one obtains dhāraṇī; because one obtains dhāraṇī one is able to give rise to unobstructed knowledge; because one gives rise to unobstructed knowledge, wherever one is born, and so on up to sarvajñā (omniscience), one never forgets this Dharma; also in the presence of the buddhas one plants roots of goodness, and because one is protected by the roots of goodness one never falls into the evil destinies and the difficulties; because of the causes and conditions of these roots of goodness one obtains the purity of the deep mind; because one obtains the purity of the deep mind one is able to purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment; because one is protected by the roots of goodness one is never apart from true friends, namely the buddhas, the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, and those among the śrāvakas who are able to praise the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha. At the end it concludes with three matters: 「應供養諸佛、種善根、親近善知識。」 tr. "should make offerings to the buddhas, plant roots of goodness, and keep close to good friends." In this passage every sentence takes the sentence before as its cause, link giving rise to link; the reader can examine himself link by link to see where what he lacks lies, and need not demand that it all be complete.
19. The explanation says: the question on prajñā in the previous chapter gives rise to this chapter's question on the bodhisattva's practice. The treatise-author begins his explanation by first setting this chapter in place between what comes before and after: in the previous chapter Subhūti asked the Buddha, 「經常說般若波羅蜜，何以故名般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "The sūtras constantly speak of prajñāpāramitā; why is it named prajñāpāramitā?" and the Buddha answered by all kinds of causes and conditions; because of this matter, in this chapter he again asks the World-Honored One, 「經常說菩薩行，何等是菩薩行？」 tr. "The sūtras constantly speak of the bodhisattva's practice; what is the bodhisattva's practice?" The two questions are of the same form—both take words the Buddha constantly uses and press for their reason; so this chapter does not set up a new stove; it is the continuation of the previous chapter's way of asking. Whenever in reading the treatise one sees that at its opening it first relates the previous chapter, one knows that the treatise-author wants the two chapters to be read as one section.
20. Question: since prajñā gathers all dharmas, why ask further? The treatise-author at once sets up a question himself: if all dharmas are gathered within prajñāpāramitā, and moreover prajñā is precisely the bodhisattva's practice, why ask further? This question is asked extremely well—it speaks on the reader's behalf a doubt that the reader may not be able to put into words: since prajñā gathers everything, and the bodhisattva's practice is of itself within it, is not Subhūti's question superfluous? The places where the treatise-author sets up questions are often precisely the places a reader easily slides past and that really hold an obstruction.
21. Answer: the sameness and difference of the bodhisattva path and prajñā. The treatise-author answers with two faces: 「一切菩薩道名菩薩行，悉遍知諸法實相智慧名般若波羅蜜，是為異」 tr. "The whole of the bodhisattva path is named the bodhisattva's practice; the wisdom that knows throughout the real mark of all dharmas is named prajñāpāramitā; this is the difference"; and 「若般若經、菩薩行等共相攝，無異」 tr. "if it is said that the Prajñā Sūtra and the bodhisattva's practice and so on contain one another, there is no difference." Speaking of the breadth and narrowness of what is referred to, there is a difference—the bodhisattva path is all that is practised, prajñā is the knowledge that knows the real mark throughout; speaking of containing one another, there is no difference—the knowledge is within the practice, and the practice is not apart from the knowledge. The answer keeps both and does not take one side alone; this is the constant method of this treatise in distinguishing names: first grant their separation, then grant their union; when separation and union are both had, the dispute over names and marks ceases of itself.
22. Someone says that whatever is done by deeds of body, speech, and mind is all named the bodhisattva's practice. The treatise-author further brings out a saying: someone says that the bodhisattva's practice is whatever is done by the bodhisattva's deeds of body, speech, and mind; all of it is named the bodhisattva's practice. And he points out that this saying is precisely the reason for Subhūti's question: because of this matter, Subhūti wished only to distinguish 「菩薩正行」 tr. "the bodhisattva's right practice," and therefore asked. This saying is the most current in the world: whatever a bodhisattva does is the bodhisattva's practice. The treatise-author does not first refute it; he says only that Subhūti's question is in order to distinguish the one word ‘right’. In reading the treatise at this point one should take care: ‘someone says’ in this treatise is sometimes a setting out of different understandings side by side, and sometimes set up in order to draw out the sifting below; here it belongs to the latter.
23. The Buddha's answer sifts out the bodhisattva's right practice. The treatise-author takes up the answer in the sūtra text and repeats the Buddha's answer, saying: 「菩薩行者，為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提諸善行，是名菩薩正行。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's practice is the wholesome practices for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; this is named the bodhisattva's right practice." And he himself gives the sifting—the bodhisattva's unwholesome, his indeterminate, and his wholesome dharmas practised with a clinging mind are not the bodhisattva's practice; only by reason of the mind of compassion and by the wisdom of emptiness, practising for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi—this is named the bodhisattva's practice. This sifting is in three layers: the unwholesome does not enter, the indeterminate does not enter, and the good practised with a clinging mind does not enter either; what is kept is only the practice issuing from the mind of compassion and the wisdom of emptiness. The reason the earlier saying is insufficient is precisely that it gathers all three layers inside. Reading this, one can obtain a way of checking: whether what is done is the bodhisattva's practice is seen not by the appearance of the deed but by whether the mind is unwholesome, indeterminate, good with a clinging mind, or compassion and emptiness.
24. What is pure practice: not discriminating empty and real, conditioned and unconditioned. The treatise-author himself asks 「何等是清淨行」 tr. "what is pure practice" and himself answers: namely the practice of form being empty, the practice of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness being empty, and so on up to the practice of the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature being empty; upon these dharmas he does not discriminate that this is empty or this is real, and so on up to that this is conditioned or this is unconditioned; like anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the extinguishing of idle discourse, the mark of non-duality—this is named the bodhisattva's practice; and he adds a sentence: 「無能壞者，亦無過失」 tr. "No one can break it, and it is also without fault." This section is an abridgement of the long list in the sūtra and its last sentence: the long list is abridged into ‘the practice of form being empty and so on up to the practice of the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature being empty’, and the last sentence 「不作二」 tr. "makes no two" is explained as 「不分別是空、是實」 tr. "does not discriminate that this is empty or this is real." What matters is the five Chinese characters 「不分別是空」 tr. "does not discriminate that this is empty"—not making even emptiness into one side is only then the extinguishing of idle discourse; if one holds fast to an emptiness set against the real, it is still two dharmas.
25. Subhūti, having heard of the bodhisattva's practice, rejoices and asks about the meaning of Buddha. The treatise-author supplies a layer of feeling that the sūtra text does not have: 「須菩提聞是菩薩行已，歡喜問」 tr. "Subhūti, having heard of this bodhisattva's practice, rejoiced and asked," and explains where what he asked came from—「菩薩行果報得作佛；經常言佛，何等是佛義？」 tr. "The retribution of the bodhisattva's practice is to become a Buddha; the sūtras constantly speak of the Buddha; what is the meaning of Buddha?" From the practice he infers the fruit, and from the name of the fruit he asks its meaning; so the path of the questioning becomes clear. At the turning points of the sūtra text the treatise-author often supplies a sentence of state of mind or of origin, and by it the reader can see the joint between the two questions before and after, and not read a string of questions and answers as a scattered list.
26. The Buddha answers that because he knows the real meaning of all dharmas he is named Buddha. The treatise-author cites the first answer of the sūtra text: 「知諸法實義故名為佛。」 tr. "Because he knows the real meaning of all dharmas, he is named Buddha." Of the four answers he first raises the first, and below sets up a difficulty specially for it. This is the treatise-author's constant method of handling a long list—he does not elaborate sentence by sentence; he takes one sentence of it and sets it up as the target, raises a difficulty against it, explains it, and the remaining sentences become clear of themselves.
27. Question: arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and great bodhisattvas also know the real meaning; why are they not named Buddha? The treatise-author sets up a difficulty: if knowing the real meaning of all dharmas is being named Buddha, then arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and great bodhisattvas also know the real meaning of all dharmas; why are they not named Buddha? This difficulty is extremely pointed: the sages of the three vehicles all have the knowledge that sees the real; if the name of Buddha is set up by knowing the real meaning, the name of Buddha is not his alone. Only when the difficulty can stand does the answer have somewhere to land.
28. Answer: the simile of lighting a lamp, and the two kinds of being unable. The treatise-author's answer has three sections. First, he cites 「然燈喻」 tr. "the simile of lighting a lamp" already spoken in the earlier text, and brings out its meaning: 「於凡夫為實，於佛不為實」 tr. "for the ordinary person it counts as real; for the Buddha it does not count as real"—the same lamplight, set against darkness, is light; set against the sun, is dark; the real known by the three vehicles, set against the ordinary person, is real, and set against the Buddha is not yet real. Second, he gives the reason why it is not real: 「以煩惱習所覆故，不名為實」 tr. "because they are covered by the afflictions and their habitual residues, it is not named real." Third, he gives the reason why it is not named the real meaning of right knowledge: 「不能得一切種智、斷一切法中疑悔故」 tr. "because they cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds and cannot cut off doubt and regret within all dharmas." At the end he says 「如上分別」 tr. "as was distinguished above," pointing out that the details are in the earlier text. This answer does not deny that the three vehicles know the real; it only distinguishes the extent of what they know. Here the reader should learn a sense of measure—the depth that one and the same word refers to in different people can be far apart.
29. Question: what difference is there among the four names? The treatise-author sets up a question again, taking the four answers in the sūtra directly and comparing them: 「知諸法實義、得諸法實相、通達實義、一切法如實知，是四有何異？」 tr. "Knowing the real meaning of all dharmas, obtaining the real mark of all dharmas, penetrating the real meaning, and knowing all dharmas as they really are—what difference is there among these four?" This question is the doubt left over from passage 6, which only here does the treatise-author raise head-on. Whenever in reading the sūtra one sees one meaning spoken four times with different wording, this question must be asked—if it is not asked, the four times become repetitive words.
30. Answer: the treatise-author does not set up a saying of his own but cites the various houses. The treatise-author's answer opens with only an 「答曰」 tr. "Answer," and at once sets out the words of the various houses side by side, setting up no saying of his own. This one place shows most clearly the form of this treatise: on the fine points of the extent of names and marks, the treatise-author often records them side by side and does not judge, leaving the choosing to the reader and to later people. Meeting this in reading the treatise, one need not take the treatise-author to be vague; the original text plainly marks two houses with 「有人言」 tr. "someone says"—one saying 「義無異，名字異」 tr. "there is no difference in meaning; the names differ," the other saying 「有差別」 tr. "there is a difference"—and the choice between the two sayings the treatise-author does not make, and this collection too records it without judgement.
31. Someone says: there is no difference in meaning; the names differ. The first saying is the simplest: 「義無異，名字異。」 tr. "There is no difference in meaning; the names differ." What the four times express is one meaning; what differs lies only in the names. The merit of this saying is that it does not add discrimination—the four answers in the sūtra originally turn with the words, and need not each be fixed as four stages. If one holds this saying, then the four times listed in passage 6 should be read as four ways of speaking of one meaning.
32. Someone says: there is a difference; the meaning is the real mark of all dharmas, the mark of dharmas constantly abiding. The second saying sets up a difference: 「義名諸法實相，不生不滅，法相常住，如涅槃」 tr. "the meaning is the real mark of all dharmas, unarisen and unceasing, the mark of dharmas constantly abiding, like nirvāṇa"; because he knows this meaning he is named Buddha; within this meaning he is constantly awake, without error; concerning this meaning, by dharmas of all kinds of names and marks he causes beings to understand the foremost real meaning; therefore among the four unobstructed knowledges the unobstructed knowledge of meaning and the unobstructed knowledge of dharmas are spoken of separately. This saying divides 「義」 tr. "meaning" and 「法」 tr. "dharma" into two matters—meaning is the real mark that is expressed, dharma is the names and marks that express it; and it takes as proof the distinction between the unobstructed knowledge of meaning and the unobstructed knowledge of dharmas among the four unobstructed knowledges. The proof is taken from a classification ready to hand within the Buddhadharma, not made up by himself; this is the usual form of this treatise's citing of proof.
33. The two causes and conditions by which some, though they have obtained the real meaning, cannot penetrate it. The treatise-author goes on to explain the third answer, 「通達實義」 tr. "penetrating the real meaning": there are those who, though they have obtained the real meaning of all dharmas, cannot penetrate it; there are two causes and conditions—first, the afflictions are not yet exhausted; second, they have not yet obtained omniscience. Next he matches persons to them: the srota-āpanna, the sakṛdāgāmin, and the anāgāmin, because they have not yet cut off the afflictions, cannot penetrate it; the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, and the great bodhisattva, though their afflictions are already exhausted, because they have not yet obtained the omniscience of all kinds, cannot penetrate it. Therefore it is said: 「通達實義故名為佛」 tr. "because he penetrates the real meaning, he is named Buddha." This passage and passage 28 illuminate each other: there, the afflictions and their habitual residues and not obtaining the omniscience of all kinds are the two reasons; here, they are assigned to the first three fruits and the latter three persons. The difference between obtaining and penetrating thereby has persons that can be pointed to and obstructions that can be pointed to.
34. Knowing all dharmas as they really are gathers up the three matters above. The treatise-author explains the fourth answer: 「如實知一切法者，總上三事亦義、亦法」 tr. "Knowing all dharmas as they really are gathers up the three matters above; it is both meaning and dharma," because all dharmas, whether existent or non-existent, he knows clearly in all their kinds; and he cites 「如一切種智義中說」 tr. "as is said within the meaning of the omniscience of all kinds" as proof—he knows both the mark of quiescence and the mark of the conditioned. Here the four answers are gathered in: the fourth answer is not a fourth matter; it is the gathering of the first three matters. If matched with the first saying in passage 31, the four differ in name and are the same in meaning; if matched with the second saying in passage 32, the first three each have their extent and the fourth gathers them.
35. Furthermore, awakening is named knowledge; the Buddha is named the knower. The treatise-author further brings out a meaning: 「菩提名智，佛名智者。得是智故，名為智者。」 tr. "Awakening is named knowledge; the Buddha is named the knower. Because he obtains this knowledge, he is named the knower." One sentence joins the questions above and below into one matter—the question above was the naming of the Buddha, this question is the naming of awakening, and the difference between the Buddha and awakening lies only in knowledge and the knower. This saying is extremely simple and very useful: if, among the four answers and nine layers before, the reader feels the threads to be in confusion, holding this one sentence he can grasp the main line—what is distinguished from beginning to end is only one knowledge, and the person who obtains this knowledge.
36. Subhūti asks what awakening is. The treatise-author repeats the question in the sūtra: 「世尊！何等是菩提？」 tr. "World-Honored One! What is awakening?" Below this is the treatise-author's long section explaining the meaning of awakening; the nine layers of the sūtra text and the seven sayings of ‘someone says’ all belong within it. Though the sentence repeating the question is short, it is the marker of a division into sections—in reading the treatise it is fitting to take such sentences repeating a question as the boundaries of passages.
37. The Buddha answers emptiness, suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality, and judges the three in training, the three beyond training, the two beyond training, and the Buddha alone. The treatise-author first repeats the sūtra's answer, 「空、如、法性、實際，名為菩提」 tr. "emptiness, suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality are named awakening," and at once explains it himself: the wisdom of the real mark associated with the emptiness samādhi takes suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality as its object; awakening is named real wisdom. Next he sets up a fourfold distinction—the people of the three in training on the path have not yet cut off the afflictions; though they have wisdom, it is not named awakening; the three persons beyond training, because ignorance is forever exhausted without remainder, have wisdom that is named awakening; the two persons beyond training, because they do not obtain omniscience and do not rightly and completely know all dharmas, cannot be named anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; only the wisdom of the Buddha alone is named anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The four layers go from below upward, each layer narrower than the one before. What matters most in this passage is that it draws a boundary between 「菩提」 tr. "awakening" and 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi": the former is obtained as a name already by the wisdom of the three persons beyond training; the latter belongs to the Buddha alone. When in reading the sūtra one sees places where the two names are used interchangeably, one can hold to this boundary and distinguish for oneself.
38. Furthermore, by reason of names, marks, speech, and letters it is named awakening. The treatise-author repeats the fifth layer in the sūtra. This one layer is the most easily skipped over, because it seems the opposite of emptiness, suchness, the nature of dharmas, and the limit of reality. In fact it is not the opposite: if awakening could not be spoken at all, the buddhas would have no way of speaking it for people; since it is spoken and people obtain understanding, names, marks, speech, and letters too are where the meaning of awakening lies. Reading this one sentence can dissolve a common sticking-point—thinking that whatever can be spoken is not it, and so discarding words and taking oneself to be deep.
39. The real meaning of awakening cannot be discriminated or broken. The treatise-author repeats the sixth layer in the sūtra: the real meaning of awakening cannot be discriminated or broken. This sentence and the sentence above are a pair: the sentence above grants that it can be spoken, this sentence makes clear that what is spoken cannot be broken. Because it can be spoken there is teaching; because it cannot be broken there is somewhere to return to. Only when the two sentences are read together does one not lean to one side.
40. Furthermore, awakening is suchness, not different, constantly not false and deceptive—the principle of surpassing in turn, one above another. The treatise-author repeats the seventh layer and broadens what it says: awakening is suchness, is not different, is constantly not false and deceptive; why—the wisdom of all beings surpasses in turn, one above another, and at the Buddha there is none more surpassing; dharmas too surpass in turn, one above another, the earlier being false and the later true, and at awakening there is nothing more real; therefore awakening is named real. The way this section speaks is very particular: it does not speak directly of the real from the substance; it speaks from a rising series—the later the more surpassing, surpassing up to the place where nothing can surpass further, and that which nothing can surpass further is the real. Holding to this, one can understand the one Chinese character 「實」 tr. "real": the real is not another thing set against the false; it is the place where the false is peeled away layer by layer to the end.
41. Furthermore, the mutual glossing of the Buddha and awakening. The treatise-author repeats the eighth and ninth layers and gathers them in by mutual glossing: 「如得菩提故名為佛，今以佛得故名菩提。」 tr. "As he is named Buddha because he obtains awakening, so now it is named awakening because the Buddha obtains it." The eighth layer in the sūtra says that awakening is what the buddhas possess, therefore it is named awakening; the ninth layer says that it is the buddhas' right and complete knowing, therefore it is named awakening—this is precisely the intent. The two names gloss each other; it seems circular, but in fact it says that the two are from the first not two things—apart from the Buddha there is nothing called awakening, apart from awakening there is nothing called the Buddha. This and the saying of knowledge and the knower in passage 35 are two ways of speaking of the same meaning.
42. Someone says: the knowledge of exhaustion knows that birth is forever exhausted; this is named awakening. From here onward, the treatise-author sets out side by side the sayings of the various houses explaining awakening, saying by saying, without judgement. The first saying takes the knowledge of exhaustion: knowing that birth is forever exhausted, this is named awakening. The meaning it sets up lies in the one word ‘exhausted’—the cause of birth and death is already exhausted, and knowing this is awakening. This saying stays close to a name ready to hand in the śrāvaka dharma, and is the plainest of the sayings.
43. Someone says: the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising are named awakening. The second saying adds the knowledge of non-arising to the knowledge of exhaustion. The knowledge of exhaustion knows what is already exhausted; the knowledge of non-arising knows that it will not arise again; one is in terms of the past, one in terms of the future. Compared with the first saying it adds one layer—not only knowing what is exhausted, but also knowing that it will not arise again. The two sayings are set up one after the other, and the reader can see that when the houses set up meanings they often take adding one layer as advancing.
44. Someone says: unobstructed liberation is named awakening. The third saying takes unobstructed liberation, and itself gives the reason: 「得是解脫，於一切法皆通達。」 tr. "Obtaining this liberation, one penetrates all dharmas." The first two sayings speak in terms of knowledge; this saying speaks in terms of liberation; and the reason it can be called awakening still comes back to penetrating all dharmas. It can be seen that though the sayings take different names, their criterion has not left the one meaning ‘unobstructed with regard to dharmas’.
45. Someone says: the four unobstructed knowledges are awakening. The fourth saying takes the four unobstructed knowledges, and defines them one by one: the Buddha knows the real mark of all dharmas—this is 「義無礙」 tr. "the unobstructed knowledge of meaning"; he knows the names, marks, and distinctions of all dharmas—this is named 「法無礙」 tr. "the unobstructed knowledge of dharmas"; he distinguishes all kinds of speech, causing beings to obtain understanding—this is named 「辭無礙」 tr. "the unobstructed knowledge of expression"; whatever Dharma he speaks to teach and transform is endless and inexhaustible—this is named 「樂說無礙」 tr. "the unobstructed knowledge of delight in speaking"; because he benefits beings with the four unobstructed knowledges complete, it is named awakening. Of the four, the first two face inward—knowing the real mark, knowing names and marks; the latter two face outward—being able with speech to make people understand, being able to speak without end. The reason this saying sets up awakening in the four unobstructed knowledges lies in the last sentence, 「具足利益眾生」 tr. "benefits beings with them complete": awakening is not only knowing oneself; it also includes being able to make others know.
46. Someone says: the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha, such as the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, are all named awakening. The fifth saying is the widest: the ten powers of the Buddha, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, great kindness and great compassion, and the omniscience of all kinds—such immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha are all named awakening; why—「以智慧大故，諸法皆名菩提」 tr. "because the wisdom is great, all dharmas are named awakening." The several sayings before each take one dharma; this saying gathers all the merits of the Buddha ground. Its reason still lies in wisdom: because the wisdom is great, every dharma accomplished by this wisdom obtains the name of awakening. Reading this, one can know that the breadth and narrowness of the sayings in this treatise mostly come from the breadth and narrowness of the criterion they take.
47. Someone says: true awakening is named the Buddha's ten knowledges without outflows. The sixth saying is the finest: true awakening is named the Buddha's ten knowledges without outflows; the feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness associated with these ten knowledges, the deeds of body and deeds of speech, and the constructions not associated with mind are all named awakening; the reason is 「共緣、共生、共相佐助故」 tr. "because they share the object, arise together, and aid one another." This saying takes the ten knowledges as the main body, and gathers in together what arises with them, shares their object with them, and aids in accomplishing with them. Its method of setting up the meaning is the opposite of the fifth saying—the fifth saying sets up the name from the greatness of the merits; this saying sets up the name from being associated and arising together. The two sayings set side by side show how many routes there are under one and the same name.
48. Again someone says: the meaning of awakening is immeasurable and boundless—the simile of the treasury of a wheel-turning sage king. The last saying gathers the sayings before and brings them back to the inexhaustible: the meaning of awakening is immeasurable and boundless; only the Buddha can know it throughout, and the rest know a small share of it; it is as with the jewels in the treasury of a wheel-turning sage king: there is no one who can distinguish and know their worth; when the sage king takes out jewels and bestows them on a person, that person can rightly know what he has obtained. This simile is most wonderful: it is not that the jewels in the treasury cannot be known; it is only that no one can know their worth completely; when the king takes a jewel and bestows it on a person, what the receiver can know is only that one share in his own hand. This saying is tied to 「復有人言」 tr. "again someone says"; it is the words of one house, not a general judgement signed by the treatise-author himself; here the treatise-author still only sets them side by side and does not judge the superiority or inferiority of the sayings.
49. The treatise-author takes up again Subhūti's further question of what roots of goodness are increased within ultimate emptiness. From here the treatise-author turns to taking up the sūtra text again. He says, 「此中，須菩提問佛菩提相已，更問世尊」 tr. "Here, Subhūti, having finished asking the Buddha about the mark of awakening, further asks the World-Honored One"; what he takes up is the question of passage 9, and yet the wording differs from the sūtra text—the sūtra text reads 「於諸法何得何失」 tr. "within dharmas what is gained, what is lost" and so on, while the treatise-author's taking up reads 「若菩提畢竟空不壞相，菩薩行六波羅蜜諸法，增益何等善根」 tr. "if awakening is ultimately empty, of indestructible mark, then when the bodhisattva practises the six perfections and all dharmas, what roots of goodness does he increase." In reading this place two matters must be distinguished: the sūtra text is the sūtra text, and the treatise-author's taking up is the treatise-author's relating according to its meaning. The two cannot stand in for each other, nor should one suspect one of them of error because their wording differs.
50. Taking up again the Buddha's answer: he increases nothing within all dharmas, how much less the roots of goodness. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer: 「若菩薩行是菩提實相，於一切法無所增益，何況善根！何以故？般若波羅蜜不為得失乃至垢淨故出，畢竟清淨故。」 tr. "If the bodhisattva practises this real mark of awakening, he increases nothing within all dharmas, how much less the roots of goodness! Why? Prajñāpāramitā comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss and so on up to stain and purity, because it is ultimately pure." This taking up brings forward the reason of the passage of 「無得無失」 tr. "no gain and no loss" in the sūtra—the reason there is no increase is precisely that prajñā from the first does not come forth for this, and moreover is ultimately pure. The four Chinese characters 「何況善根」 tr. "how much less the roots of goodness" are an added stroke of emphasis in the treatise-author's taking up: if even within all dharmas nothing is increased, the roots of goodness need no saying.
51. The Buddha approved his meaning. The treatise-author uses only four Chinese characters: 「佛可其意。」 tr. "The Buddha approved his meaning." Short sentences of this kind are, in the treatise, the joints between section and section, marking that the previous question and answer are finished and the next question is about to arise. When the reader sees such short sentences he need not take them to be without meaning—it is a break the treatise-author makes for a long passage; without it, the 「復更問」 tr. "again he further asks" below would have nothing to follow on from.
52. Again he further asks: if there is no increase and decrease, how does one take up the practices of the bodhisattva? The treatise-author takes up the difficulty of passage 11: 「若無增減，云何菩薩行般若取檀波羅蜜等諸菩薩行？」 tr. "If there is no increase and decrease, how does the bodhisattva practise prajñā and take up dānapāramitā and the other practices of the bodhisattva?" In the sūtra this question lists throughout the six perfections, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, the gates of liberation, and the ten powers, and so on up to the ten grounds of the bodhisattva and passing beyond the grounds of the two vehicles; the treatise-author, taking it up, gathers it all with the single phrase 「檀波羅蜜等諸菩薩行」 tr. "dānapāramitā and the other practices of the bodhisattva." This is the treatise-author's usual way of writing—where the sūtra text lists things out, the treatise's explanation often sums them up; if the reader wishes to see them in full, he should still go back to the sūtra text itself and count them.
53. Taking up again the Buddha's answer that one practises not by reason of two dharmas, with ultimate emptiness, in coming together, practising along with them added. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, 「菩薩雖行是法，不以二法故行」 tr. "Though the bodhisattva practises these dharmas, he does not practise them by reason of two dharmas," and at once adds a sentence of his own: 「畢竟空和合共行，是故不應難。」 tr. "Ultimate emptiness, in coming together, practises along with them; therefore this should not be taken as a difficulty." This sentence is the reason the treatise-author supplies for the Buddha's answer—practice and ultimate emptiness are not two matters obstructing each other; they come together and practise along with each other, so the difficulty raised does not hold. In reading the treatise one should be able to tell where it takes up the sūtra and where it is the treatise-author's own words: where it takes up the sūtra it cites the text; where it is his own words it gives the reason.
54. Again he asks: if one does not practise two dharmas, how does one grow the roots of goodness? The treatise-author takes up the question of passage 13: 「世尊！若菩薩不行二法，云何從初發意乃至後心增長善根？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If the bodhisattva does not practise two dharmas, how, from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last mind, does he grow the roots of goodness?" Compared with the sūtra text, the sūtra reads 「後意」 tr. "the last intent," while the treatise's taking up reads 「後心」 tr. "the last mind"—the actual wording of the two places is recorded side by side, and the reason for it is not judged.
55. Taking up again the Buddha's answer that practising two dharmas is precisely inversion—the simile of obtaining wealth in a dream. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, 「若人行二法，即是顛倒，不能增長善根」 tr. "If a person practises two dharmas, this is precisely inversion; he cannot grow the roots of goodness," and himself gives a simile: 「如人夢中雖大得財，竟無所得；覺已所得多少，真名為得。」 tr. "It is as a person who in a dream, though he obtains great wealth, in the end has obtained nothing; how much he obtains after waking—this is truly named obtaining." The twofold contrast in the simile is extremely clear—what is obtained in the dream, though great, is really nothing; what is obtained after waking, though little, is true. Matching it with two dharmas and the dharma of non-duality: reckoning increase by relying on two dharmas is the great obtaining in a dream; the roots of goodness increasing of themselves by practising the dharma of non-duality is the true obtaining after waking. This simile is the treatise-author's own, not found in the sūtra text, and yet it speaks the intent of the Buddha's answer most aptly.
56. Taking up again the passage of the Buddha's words to Subhūti, and the treatise-author's explanation of the remaining evils. The treatise-author goes on to take up the Buddha's words: 「一切凡人皆著二法故，不能增益善根。菩薩行諸法實相，所謂不二法，從初發心來乃至後心，增益善根，無有錯謬。是故菩薩，一切天、人、阿修羅無能壞其善根、令墮二乘，及餘眾惡亦不能壞。」 tr. "Because all ordinary people cling to two dharmas, they cannot increase the roots of goodness. The bodhisattva practises the real mark of all dharmas, namely the dharma of non-duality; from the first arousing of the mind and so on up to the last mind he increases the roots of goodness, without error. Therefore, as for the bodhisattva, none among all gods, humans, and asuras can break his roots of goodness and cause him to fall into the two vehicles, and the remaining many evils also cannot break them." Having taken it up, he at once explains one term in the last sentence—「餘惡者，慳貪等煩惱，破檀波羅蜜諸善法等」 tr. "the remaining evils are the afflictions such as stinginess and greed, which break dānapāramitā and the other wholesome dharmas." The treatise-author mostly explains the sūtra like this: he does not explain sentence by sentence; he only takes a term in it that is not yet fixed and fixes it. What is fixed here is the two Chinese characters 「餘惡」 tr. "the remaining evils"; once it is fixed, this passage has no meaning left over.
57. Again he asks: does the bodhisattva practise prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness? The treatise-author takes up the question of passage 15: 「世尊！菩薩為善根故行般若耶？」 tr. "World-Honored One! Does the bodhisattva practise prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness?" The sūtra text originally reads 「菩薩摩訶薩為善根故行般若波羅蜜不」 tr. "Does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the roots of goodness," and the treatise's taking up is simpler. In the sūtra this question is one asked following the momentum; in the treatise it is the starting point of the two rounds of question and answer below—the treatise-author takes it up precisely in order to draw out the difficulty he himself sets up.
58. Taking up again the Buddha's answer that one practises prajñā neither for the sake of the good nor for the sake of the not-good. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer: 「不為善、不為不善故行般若。」 tr. "He practises prajñā neither for the sake of the good nor for the sake of the not-good." Both sides are blocked. The taking up stops here and does not at once explain it—because what is to be made a difficulty is precisely this sentence, so it is left for the question below. At a place he is about to make a difficulty, the treatise-author often first takes up the text in full, so that the difficulty has something to attach to.
59. Question: practising not for the sake of roots that are not good may be so; how can one practise not for the sake of the roots of goodness? The treatise-author sets up a difficulty, and sets it up one-sidedly: he grants one half and makes a difficulty only of the other half—「不為不善根故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā not for the sake of roots that are not good" may be so; what is made a difficulty is 「不為善根故行」 tr. "practising not for the sake of the roots of goodness." Practising not for the sake of the not-good, everyone understands; practising not for the sake of the good runs against ordinary feeling. This ‘half granting, half making a difficulty’ way of asking is seen repeatedly in this treatise, and its merit is that it gathers the difficulty into an extremely narrow place, so that the answer need not touch on side matters.
60. Answer: one practises in order to accomplish the task and does not take them as prized—the Raft Simile Sūtra. The treatise-author answers: 「此中佛意：貴阿耨多羅三藐三菩提故，雖行諸善根，為辦事故行，不以為貴。」 tr. "Here the Buddha's intent is: because he prizes anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, though he practises the roots of goodness, he practises them in order to accomplish the task, and does not take them as prized." Next he cites the Raft Simile Sūtra as proof: 「善法尚應捨，何況不善法！」 tr. "Even wholesome dharmas should be given up, how much more unwholesome dharmas!" Next he himself explains its meaning: the roots of goodness are dharmas that aid the Buddha path; if a person crosses, it is not for the sake of the raft that he crosses; it is in order to reach the other shore that he crosses. The three sections of the answer lock into one another—first bringing out what the Buddha's intent prizes, next citing the sūtra as proof, last making clear their rank by the simile of the raft. It is not that the raft as a thing cannot be prized; only, what is prized lies not in the raft but in the other shore; the roots of goodness are likewise. What is blocked is taking the dharmas that aid the path as where one returns to, not blocking their practice.
61. Here the Buddha states the causes and conditions: though one plants roots of goodness, one does not take them as prized. The treatise-author goes on to cite the causes and conditions brought out in the sūtra: 「菩薩未供養諸佛、未得真知識，不能得一切種智」 tr. "If the bodhisattva has not made offerings to the buddhas and has not obtained true friends, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds," and concludes: therefore, though he plants roots of goodness, he does not take them as prized; it is only for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This conclusion unties head-on the doubt of contradiction left by passage 16—the roots of goodness are a matter one must pass through, so one cannot be without them; what is prized lies in awakening, so one does not rest content with the roots of goodness. Only when the two statements stand together does one stand firm in the gate of practice.
62. Subhūti asks again how, though not for the sake of the roots of goodness, one is able to make offerings to the buddhas. The treatise-author takes up the question of passage 17, worded as: 「云何菩薩雖不為善根，而能供養諸佛乃至得一切種智？」 tr. "How is it that the bodhisattva, though not for the sake of the roots of goodness, is able to make offerings to the buddhas and so on up to obtain the omniscience of all kinds?" Compared with the sūtra text, the treatise's taking up raises the phrase 「雖不為善根」 tr. "though not for the sake of the roots of goodness" plainly to the front, so that the intent of the question shows more clearly—what is doubted lies precisely between not being for the sake of and being able to obtain. When the treatise-author takes up the sūtra he often makes this kind of lifting-out, and by it the reader can grasp the crux of the sūtra's question.
63. Taking up again the Buddha's answer of making offerings to the buddhas from the first arousing of the mind, and explaining hearing, retaining, reciting until fluent, contemplating in the mind, and penetrating clearly, and the two kinds of dhāraṇī. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, 「菩薩從初發心已來，供養諸佛」 tr. "the bodhisattva, ever since the first arousing of the mind, makes offerings to the buddhas," passes over the rest with the four Chinese characters 「如經中說」 tr. "as is said in the sūtra," and at once glosses term by term. First, he explains why only the Buddha is spoken of: 「供養佛大故，但說佛，當知已供養辟支佛乃至住乾慧地。」 tr. "Because making offerings to the Buddha is the greatest, only the Buddha is spoken of; it should be known that he has already made offerings to pratyekabuddhas and so on up to people abiding in the ground of dry wisdom." Second, he explains the reason for receiving and retaining: the ordinary person, for the sake of hearing the Dharma, hears the twelve divisions of the scriptures from them, and because he cannot always obtain a teacher he should receive and retain them all. Third, he explains the reason for reciting until fluent: because they are easily forgotten, he recites and reads them until they are fluent. Fourth, he explains contemplating in the mind: 「常繫心經卷，次第憶念。」 tr. "Constantly binding the mind to the sūtra scrolls and recollecting them in sequence." Fifth, he explains the sequence of penetrating clearly and obtaining dhāraṇī: first he proclaims the meaning in words, later he comes to penetrate it, and then he obtains dhāraṇī. Sixth, he divides dhāraṇī into two: first, the dhāraṇī of hearing and retaining; second, the dhāraṇī of obtaining the real mark of all dharmas; and gives the cause of each—because of reading, reciting, cultivating, and constantly recollecting, he obtains hearing and retaining; because of penetrating the meaning, he obtains the real mark. The sūtra text is only a string of verbs; the treatise-author gives the reason for each one, and thereby this string becomes a sequence that can be practised.
64. Abiding within the two dhāraṇī gates, one is able to give rise to unobstructed knowledge and fulfil the four unobstructed knowledges. The treatise-author continues from the text above: 「住是二陀羅尼門中，能生無礙智；為眾生說法故，具足四無礙智。」 tr. "Abiding within these two dhāraṇī gates, he is able to give rise to unobstructed knowledge; because he speaks the Dharma for beings, he fulfils the four unobstructed knowledges." This sentence connects the four unobstructed knowledges cited in passage 45 back to the gate of practice—there, the four unobstructed knowledges were one saying explaining awakening; here, the four unobstructed knowledges are a virtue the bodhisattva possesses. The same name has a different rank, and the reader should fix its extent according to the text, and must not take the four unobstructed knowledges here to be the awakening there.
65. Question: if the bodhisattva has unobstructed knowledge, what difference is there from the Buddha? The treatise-author sets up a difficulty: if the bodhisattva has unobstructed knowledge, what difference is there from the Buddha? This difficulty is woven on the same loom as passage 27—whenever the name of Buddha is set up by one virtue, if others have this virtue then the name of Buddha is not his alone. Where names and marks are exclusive or shared, this treatise repeatedly sets up difficulties of this kind; when the reader sees one, he can infer the rest.
66. Answer: true unobstructedness and unobstructedness in name. The treatise-author answers with a twofold division: 「無礙有二種：一、真無礙，二、名字無礙。此中除佛無礙，餘者隨菩薩所得無礙。」 tr. "Unobstructedness is of two kinds: first, true unobstructedness; second, unobstructedness in name. Here, setting aside the unobstructedness of the Buddha, the rest is the unobstructedness according to what the bodhisattva has obtained." True unobstructedness belongs to the Buddha alone; what the bodhisattva obtains is given the name of unobstructedness according to his share. This answer is of the same sense of measure as 「於凡夫為實，於佛不為實」 tr. "for the ordinary person it counts as real; for the Buddha it does not count as real" in passage 28—it does not deny that the bodhisattva has unobstructedness; it only fixes it as a name according to share. The same name with a different extent is this treatise's general method of resolving difficulties of this kind.
67. Because of reading and reciting, wherever he is born he does not forget, and the afflictions are broken down and thinned. The treatise-author explains the sentence in the sūtra 「所生處，乃至薩婆若，終不忘失是法」 tr. "wherever he is born, and so on up to sarvajñā, he never forgets this Dharma": because of the causes and conditions of this bodhisattva's reading the sūtras and so on, wherever he is born, and so on up to obtaining the omniscience of all kinds, he never forgets; why—「深入讀誦諸法故，煩惱折薄」 tr. "because he deeply enters into reading and reciting all dharmas, the afflictions are broken down and thinned." Here a concrete cause and effect is given: the reason for forgetting lies in the afflictions, and the thinning of the afflictions comes from deeply entering into reading and reciting; so not forgetting is not a matter of memory; it is a matter of the thickness or thinness of the afflictions. This turn is extremely useful—it turns a matter that seems to belong to one's faculties into a place where one can set one's hand.
68. Because he is protected by the roots of goodness he does not fall into the evil destinies—the simile of the blind person guided and protected by one who has eyes. The treatise-author explains in the sūtra 「為是善根所護，終不墮惡道諸難」 tr. "protected by these roots of goodness, he never falls into the evil destinies and the difficulties," and gives a simile: 「如盲人為有目者所將護故，終不墜落溝壑。」 tr. "Just as a blind person, because he is guided and protected by one who has eyes, never falls into ditches and gullies." What the simile takes is not that the blind person can see by himself; it is that one who has eyes is at his side. The protection of the roots of goodness is likewise—it does not mean that the practitioner already has no possibility of falling; it is that, having protection, he does not fall. Holding this simile one can avoid two losses: neither giving oneself up because one's own seeing has not yet opened, nor, because one has protection, taking oneself to be already able to see.
69. Because he gathers roots of goodness and merit he obtains the purity of the deep mind. The treatise-author explains 「得深心清淨」 tr. "obtains the purity of the deep mind," and gives the mark of the purity of the deep mind: 「慈愛一切眾生，雖怨賊中人亦不加惡，所謂奪命等。」 tr. "Kind and loving toward all beings; even to a person among enemies and thieves he does no harm, namely taking their life and so on." The definition speaks not from the substance of the mind but from where one deals with people—doing no harm even to enemies and thieves is the proof of the purity of the deep mind. When this treatise explains an inner virtue it often takes its marks upon objects as proof; only so is there somewhere it can be checked.
70. Furthermore, because wisdom and merit are greatly gathered, the afflictions are slight and few. The treatise-author further gives a cause: 「智慧、福德大集故，煩惱微少，不能遍覆菩薩善心。」 tr. "Because wisdom and merit are greatly gathered, the afflictions are slight and few, and cannot cover the bodhisattva's wholesome mind throughout." The wording of this sentence has an extremely fine sense of measure—it does not say that the afflictions are already cut off; it says they are slight and few and cannot cover throughout. That in the bodhisattva's position the afflictions are not yet exhausted and yet the wholesome mind is not covered is precisely the mark this passage sets up. When the reader applies it to himself, he too should take this sense of measure: he need not wait until the afflictions are wholly absent before counting that he has advanced; he need only see whether they can cover his wholesome mind.
71. Furthermore, the marks of the deep mind, and being able to teach and transform beings and obtain the purifying of buddha-worlds. The treatise-author explains the deep mind again, in two faces: toward beings he obtains the mind of kindness and compassion, the mind that does not abandon, and the mind of rescuing and delivering; toward dharmas he obtains the mind of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, and ultimate emptiness; and so on up to, even toward the Buddha, he does not give rise to the thought of a Buddha or the thought of nirvāṇa; this is named the deep mind being pure. Next he gives its use: because the deep mind is pure he is able to teach and transform beings; why—because the afflictions are thin he does not give rise to a haughty mind, a mind of self, or a mind of hatred; therefore beings love and delight in him and believe and accept his words; because he teaches and transforms beings he obtains the purifying of buddha-worlds. At the end he cites the Vimalakīrti's "Buddha-Land" chapter as proof: 「眾生淨故，世界清淨。」 tr. "Because beings are pure, the world is pure." This section fills out the sequence of the sentence in the sūtra 「能淨佛國土、成就眾生」 tr. "is able to purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment"—from the deep mind to not giving rise to the three minds, from not giving rise to the three minds to people being willing to accept his words, from accepting his words to beings being pure, from beings being pure to the world being pure. The accomplishing of a pure land thereby comes down to the moment of dealing with people.
72. Because he is protected by the roots of goodness he is never apart from good friends. The treatise-author explains 「常不離真知識」 tr. "never apart from true friends" at the end of the sūtra, and sets up the name and the mark of the good friend: 「善知識者，諸佛、大菩薩、阿羅漢」 tr. "Good friends are the buddhas, the great bodhisattvas, and the arhats"; and further speaks briefly of its mark—「能讚歎三寶者」 tr. "a person who is able to praise the Three Jewels." The former raises its utmost; the latter gives a mark that can be verified. The reason the mark is set up so broadly is to let people make use of it in what is before them: one need not always meet buddhas and great bodhisattvas; anyone who can praise the Three Jewels is within this share. Conversely, one who does not praise the Three Jewels, however close, is not named a good friend; the standard for choosing friends also lies here.
73. Concluding exhortation to make offerings to the buddhas, plant roots of goodness, and keep close to good friends—the simile of the good physician, the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick. The treatise-author concludes with the three matters at the end of the sūtra, and gives a simile: as a sick person should seek a good physician and medicinal herbs; the Buddha is the good physician, the roots of goodness are the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick is the good friend; because the sick person is complete with these things the illness is cured; the bodhisattva is also like this: because he extinguishes all the afflictions, he is able to benefit beings. In the simile three things are matched with three matters, in good order and countable: the reason the Buddha is the good physician is that he knows the illness and knows the medicine; the reason the roots of goodness are the medicinal herbs is that they can counteract; the reason the good friend is the one who tends the sick is that he is at one's side and does not abandon one. The whole chapter, beginning from 「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」 tr. "practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi," here gathers to its close with a simile of a sick person seeking to be cured—though what one faces toward lies in unsurpassed awakening, the place one sets one's hand is only three such plain matters as seeking a physician, taking medicine, and having someone to look after one.
Do Not Misread
Do not read 「不作二」 tr. "makes no two" and 「不以二法故行」 tr. "practises not by reason of two dharmas" as not permitting anything to be practised. The marks of practice listed in the sūtra text are set out all the way from practising form being empty to practising the conditioned nature and practising the unconditioned nature, and not one item is deleted; what the Buddha adds is only the judgement of the last sentence. When the treatise-author explains pure practice he says it still more clearly—「於是諸法不分別是空、是實」 tr. "upon these dharmas he does not discriminate that this is empty or this is real"; what is blocked is discrimination, not the dharmas practised. If it is read as meaning that, since practice is non-dual, dharmas may be discarded, then it runs directly against the real road brought out in passage 18 of making offerings to the buddhas, hearing and retaining the twelve divisions of the scriptures, planting roots of goodness, and keeping close to good friends.
Do not read the four explanations of naming the Buddha as four stages. The treatise-author sets up a question specially for these four names, and what he answers is setting out two sayings side by side: one saying, 「義無異，名字異」 tr. "there is no difference in meaning; the names differ," the other saying that there is a difference and taking as proof the distinction between the unobstructed knowledge of meaning and the unobstructed knowledge of dharmas among the four unobstructed knowledges; the treatise-author himself has not decided for either. Under the four names there is further the sentence 「如實知一切法者，總上三事」 tr. "knowing all dharmas as they really are gathers up the three matters above," making clear that the fourth is a gathering and not a separate item. If one straightway arranges the four names into four grades from shallow to deep, then the first saying has nowhere to stand, and the treatise-author's intent in setting them side by side is lost too.
Do not read 「於諸法無得無失、無增無減」 tr. "within dharmas there is no gain and no loss, no increase and no decrease" as meaning that practice increases nothing. The Buddha himself gives the reason—「不為得失、增減、生滅、淨垢故出」 tr. "it is not for the sake of gain and loss, increase and decrease, arising and ceasing, purity and stain that he comes forth"; what is blocked is the motive of practising prajñā, not the effect of practising prajñā. Right after it the Buddha further says positively that the bodhisattva practises the dharma of non-duality, and 「從初發意乃至後意，於其中間增益善根」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent, in between, he increases the roots of goodness," and that gods, humans, asuras, and the many evils cannot break him. Reading the two passages together one can know: one who seeks increase by relying on two dharmas does not obtain increase; for one who does not rely on two dharmas the roots of goodness increase of themselves. If one takes only the former passage and discards the latter, one will read words that counteract grasping as words that discard practice.
Do not read the 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" of the various houses as sayings the treatise-author sets up himself. Where the treatise-author explains the meaning of awakening he raises the sayings one after another—the knowledge of exhaustion; the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising; unobstructed liberation; the four unobstructed knowledges; the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha ground; the ten knowledges without outflows—and at the end gathers them with 「菩提義無量無邊，唯佛能遍知，餘人知其少分」 tr. "the meaning of awakening is immeasurable and boundless; only the Buddha can know it throughout, and the rest know a small share of it," and gives the simile of the treasury of a wheel-turning sage king. The phrase 「餘人知其少分」 tr. "the rest know a small share of it" is still within the last saying's 「復有人言」 tr. "again someone says"; it is the words of that house, not a general ruling the treatise-author passes on the sayings before. If the reader takes one saying and regards it as the treatise-author's settled conclusion, the intent of recording them side by side is lost.
Do not read 「不為善根故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā not for the sake of the roots of goodness" as meaning that one need not plant roots of goodness. Within the same passage of sūtra text, the Buddha both says that one practises neither for the sake of the roots of goodness nor for the sake of what is not the roots of goodness, and says 「未供養諸佛、未具足善根、未得真知識，不能得一切種智」 tr. "never having made offerings to the buddhas, never having fulfilled the roots of goodness, never having obtained true friends, he cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds"; the treatise-author explains it by saying that though one practises the roots of goodness 「為辦事故行，不以為貴」 tr. "one practises them in order to accomplish the task, and does not take them as prized," and cites the Raft Simile Sūtra's 「善法尚應捨，何況不善法！」 tr. "Even wholesome dharmas should be given up, how much more unwholesome dharmas!" and himself explains—「若人不為栰故渡，為到彼岸故渡」 tr. "if a person crosses, it is not for the sake of the raft that he crosses; it is in order to reach the other shore that he crosses." The one who crosses must still ride the raft; it is only that what he seeks does not lie in the raft. What is blocked is taking the roots of goodness as where one returns to, not blocking their practice.
Do not read 「菩薩行」 tr. "the bodhisattva's practice" as everything the bodhisattva does. The treatise-author first brings out a saying—「菩薩身、口、意業諸有所作，皆名菩薩行」 tr. "whatever is done by the bodhisattva's deeds of body, speech, and mind is all named the bodhisattva's practice"—and at once sifts it with the Buddha's answer: the bodhisattva's unwholesome, indeterminate, and wholesome dharmas practised with a clinging mind are not the bodhisattva's practice; only practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi by the mind of compassion and the wisdom of emptiness is named the bodhisattva's practice. It can be seen that the word ‘right’ in 「菩薩正行」 tr. "the bodhisattva's right practice" is a sifting. If it is read as meaning that whatever a bodhisattva does is the bodhisattva's practice, then the question at the opening of this chapter would be asked for nothing.
Bearing on Practice
The first use is to set up 「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提行」 tr. "practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" as the aiming-point of daily use. The Buddha's answer on the bodhisattva's practice does not raise a list of items; it only points to what one faces toward; the treatise-author's sifting likewise lies not in the appearance of deeds but in whether the mind is unwholesome, indeterminate, good with a clinging mind, or compassion and emptiness. Upon what he does each day the practitioner can add one question: what am I doing this for. If he can answer that what he faces toward lies in awakening, then giving, keeping the precepts, reading and reciting, and work are all the bodhisattva's practice; if he cannot answer, or answers with fame and gain, then though the deed is good, it is not yet in accord with the practice this chapter speaks of.
The second use is to take the sayings of the various houses explaining awakening as a set of mirrors to look at oneself in, without choosing one and setting it up. The knowledge of exhaustion shows whether the cause of one's birth and death is exhausted or not; the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising show whether the momentum of further birth is present or not; unobstructed liberation shows whether one penetrates dharmas or not; the four unobstructed knowledges show whether one can make people understand; the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha ground show the virtues one has accomplished; the ten knowledges without outflows show the association of one's mind and its activities. The last saying further says that only the Buddha knows it throughout, and the rest each know a small share. Holding these six mirrors to examine himself, what the practitioner obtains, though a small share, is the real share in his own hand—just as with the jewels of the treasury, only after the king bestows them can one know what one has obtained.
The third use is to apply 「不以二法故行」 tr. "practises not by reason of two dharmas" to the six perfections. What is made a difficulty in the sūtra is how, since it comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, one can take up the six perfections and so on up to entering the bodhisattva's position; the Buddha's answer only changes the place where one sets one's hand—practise as before, but not by reason of two dharmas. When the practitioner gives, he does not make the reckoning of a giver and what is given; when he keeps the precepts, he does not make the reckoning of a keeper and what is kept; and so on up to reading the sūtras and doing work, it is all so. The treatise-author further adds a sentence, 「畢竟空和合共行」 tr. "ultimate emptiness, in coming together, practises along with them," saying precisely that the two do not obstruct each other. This one move can best be tried in daily use: in doing one and the same good deed, whether in the mind there is a self reckoning gain and loss, one knows best oneself.
The fourth use is to look at the simile of obtaining wealth in a dream and the raft simile together, so as to settle what is prized. The simile of obtaining wealth in a dream speaks of what is obtained—for one who reckons by relying on two dharmas, what is obtained, though great, is really nothing; what is obtained after waking, though little, is true. The raft simile speaks of what is prized—the one who crosses must still ride the raft, and what is prized lies in the other shore. The two similes together make one sense of measure on the gate of practice: toward the roots of goodness one may not fail to practise, and toward the roots of goodness one may not rest content; not practising, there is no raft to ride; resting content, one never reaches the shore. When the practitioner has some accomplishment in practice and self-satisfaction arises in the mind, he can at once take up these two similes to look at himself.
The fifth use is to take the mark of the good friend and the simile of the three things as a standard for choosing friends and for conducting oneself. The treatise-author gives for the good friend an extremely plain verifiable mark—「能讚歎三寶者」 tr. "a person who is able to praise the Three Jewels"; and further matches the good physician, the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick with the Buddha, the roots of goodness, and the good friend. By this the practitioner can make a check of three matters: whether the physician relied on is the Buddha, whether the medicine taken is the roots of goodness, whether the one at one's side looking after one is able to praise the Three Jewels. When the three are complete, then, as the sūtra says, the illness is cured. Conversely, if a person at one's side, though close, constantly disparages the Three Jewels, by this chapter's judgement he is not among the number of good friends, and in matters of closeness and distance one should have one's own measure.
Further Resonances
The backbone of this chapter is one section of sūtra text and one section of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins from Subhūti asking what the bodhisattva's practice is, and the Buddha answers that practice for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is named the bodhisattva's practice; next Subhūti asks how it is practice for the sake of awakening, and the Buddha then lists throughout practising form being empty, practising feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness being empty, practising the eye being empty and so on up to the mind, practising the eye element being empty and so on up to the mind-consciousness element, practising the six perfections, practising inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, practising the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions, practising the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, practising the three samādhi, practising the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions, practising the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion, practising purifying buddha-lands and bringing beings to accomplishment, practising all the eloquences, practising letters entering into what is without letters, practising all the dhāraṇī gates, practising the conditioned nature and practising the unconditioned nature, and concludes that, just as with anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he makes no two; next he asks by reason of what meaning one is named Buddha, and the Buddha answers four times: knowing the real meaning of all dharmas, obtaining the real mark of all dharmas, penetrating the real meaning, knowing all dharmas as they really are; next he asks by reason of what meaning it is named awakening, and the Buddha answers with the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of suchness, the meaning of the nature of dharmas, the meaning of the limit of reality, names, marks, and verbal expression, indestructible and indiscriminable, the real mark of all dharmas being not deceptive and not different, what the buddhas possess, and the buddhas' right and complete knowing; next he asks, in practising the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, what within dharmas is gained, lost, increased, decreased, arises, ceases, is stained, is purified, and the Buddha answers no gain and no loss and so on up to no stain and no purity, and brings out the reason that prajñā comes forth not for the sake of gain and loss, increase and decrease, arising and ceasing, purity and stain; next he asks how, since it comes forth not for the sake of these, one can take up the six perfections, the emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, the gates of liberation, and the ten powers, and so on up to the ten grounds of the bodhisattva and passing beyond the grounds of the two vehicles to enter the bodhisattva's position, and the Buddha answers that one practises not by reason of two dharmas; next he asks how, not by reason of two dharmas, the roots of goodness increase from the first arousing of intent and so on up to the last intent, and the Buddha answers that for one who practises two dharmas there is no increase, that all ordinary people rely on two dharmas, and that the bodhisattva, because he practises the dharma of non-duality, increases the roots of goodness in between, and gods, humans, asuras, and the many evils cannot break him; next he asks whether one practises prajñā for the sake of the roots of goodness, and the Buddha answers ‘No’ and blocks both the good and what is not the good, and brings out the reason that one who has not made offerings to the buddhas, has not fulfilled the roots of goodness, and has not obtained true friends cannot obtain the omniscience of all kinds; last he asks how one makes offerings to the buddhas, fulfils the roots of goodness, and obtains true friends so as to be able to obtain the omniscience of all kinds, and the Buddha answers: from the first arousing of intent making offerings to the buddhas, hearing and retaining the twelve divisions of the scriptures, reciting until fluent, contemplating in the mind, and penetrating clearly, and so obtaining dhāraṇī and giving rise to unobstructed knowledge, planting roots of goodness and being protected by the roots of goodness so as not to fall into the evil destinies, obtaining the purity of the deep mind and being able to purify buddha-lands and bring beings to accomplishment, never being apart from true friends; and concludes that one should make offerings to the buddhas, plant roots of goodness, and keep close to good friends. Treatise ① opens with its explanation and explains following the text: first it relates the question of the previous chapter and so raises this chapter's question; next it sets up a question and answer to distinguish the sameness and difference of prajñā and the bodhisattva's practice; next it brings out the ‘someone says’ that whatever is done by deeds of body, speech, and mind is all named the bodhisattva's practice, and sifts out the right practice by the Buddha's answer; next it explains pure practice's not discriminating that this is empty or this is real; next, following Subhūti's rejoicing, it enters the section on the meaning of names and sets up three rounds of question and answer—why arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and great bodhisattvas, who also know the real meaning, are not named Buddha, answered with the simile of lighting a lamp and the two reasons of being covered by the afflictions and their habitual residues and not obtaining the omniscience of all kinds; what difference there is among the four, knowing the real meaning, obtaining the real mark, penetrating the real meaning, and knowing as they really are, with two sayings set out side by side without judgement; and it explains the two causes and conditions of not being able to penetrate and knowing all dharmas as they really are gathering up the three matters above; next it brings out that awakening is named knowledge and the Buddha is named the knower, repeats the nine layers of awakening in the sūtra and explains each, and judges the extent of the three in training, the three beyond training, the two beyond training, and the Buddha alone; next it sets out side by side the sayings of the various houses explaining awakening—the knowledge of exhaustion; the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising; unobstructed liberation; the four unobstructed knowledges; the immeasurable dharmas of the Buddha ground; the ten knowledges without outflows—and at the end gathers them with the meaning of awakening being immeasurable and boundless, only the Buddha knowing it throughout and the rest knowing a small share, and the simile of the treasury of a wheel-turning sage king; next it takes up again, section by section, the questions and answers of the sūtra, each with the treatise-author's words attached—increasing nothing, how much less the roots of goodness; the Buddha approved his meaning; ultimate emptiness, in coming together, practising along with them; the simile of obtaining wealth in a dream; the remaining evils being the afflictions such as stinginess and greed; next it sets up a question and answer to distinguish the meaning of practising not for the sake of the roots of goodness, citing the Raft Simile Sūtra and the simile of crossing by raft, and explains the causes and conditions the Buddha states here; last, following the sūtra text, it explains the sequence of the gate of practice—only the Buddha being spoken of because making offerings to the Buddha is the greatest; the reasons for receiving and retaining, reciting until fluent, and contemplating in the mind; the two kinds of dhāraṇī; the four unobstructed knowledges; the distinction between true unobstructedness and unobstructedness in name; the afflictions being broken down and thinned because of reading and reciting; the simile of the blind person guided and protected by one who has eyes; the marks of the purity of the deep mind; the afflictions being unable to cover throughout because wisdom and merit are greatly gathered; the two faces of the deep mind and the cited proof that because beings are pure the world is pure; the name and the mark of the good friend; and it concludes with the simile of the three things of the good physician, the medicinal herbs, and the one who tends the sick.
The vein of meaning between this chapter and the chapters before and after it can be seen in three lines. First, inheriting from before: the very first sentence of the treatise-author's explanation faces the previous chapter, saying that in the previous chapter Subhūti asked why it is named prajñāpāramitā and the Buddha answered by all kinds of causes and conditions, and because of this matter in this chapter he again asks what the bodhisattva's practice is; the two questions are of the same form, so the arising of this chapter is the continuation of the previous chapter's way of asking, not the setting up of a separate thread. Second, within the chapter it makes two turns of itself: the first turn moves from 「何等是菩薩行」 tr. "what is the bodhisattva's practice" into the distinguishing of the meaning of names, its pivot being that Subhūti, having heard of the bodhisattva's practice, rejoices and asks about the meaning of Buddha; the second turn moves back from the distinguishing of the meaning of names to the difficulties of the gate of practice, its pivot being the question 「若菩提畢竟空不壞相」 tr. "if awakening is ultimately empty, of indestructible mark." Between the two turns, 「不作二」 tr. "makes no two" and 「不以二法故行」 tr. "practises not by reason of two dharmas" are one saying used in two ways: the former speaks of what one faces toward, the latter of the one who practises. Third, reaching to what follows: this chapter ends with making offerings to the buddhas, planting roots of goodness, and keeping close to good friends, and the meaning of why the roots of goodness are not taken as prized is already settled in this chapter; the next chapter takes planting roots of goodness as its title, and the reader can look at the two chapters together to see the continuity of not acting for the sake of the roots of goodness and yet not being able to be without the roots of goodness.
As for the explanations of the ancient masters and the differences among the editions, three matters can be recorded for this chapter. First, the chapter title has two forms: this collection's base text reads 「菩薩行品第七十二」 tr. "Chapter Seventy-Two, The Bodhisattva's Practice," while the Palace edition calls it otherwise 「道行品」 tr. "Practice of the Path," the chapter order still being seventy-second; the Shōgozō manuscript and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript both place the chapter one position earlier than the base text, and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript further attaches a sūtra name besides the chapter name. The sūtra explained itself also has the chapter heading 「道行品」 tr. "Practice of the Path," while the other editions of the sūtra mostly read 「菩薩行品」 tr. "The Bodhisattva's Practice," which crosses exactly with the two forms of this treatise's base text and Palace edition. Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, in its general table of contents at the head of the scroll and in the heading of its explanation, alike reads 「道行品第七十二」 tr. "Practice of the Path, Chapter Seventy-Two," using the same name as this treatise's Palace edition and the sūtra's base text. The two forms of the variant name are recorded side by side without judgement, and the full account of the variant readings of the editions is detailed in the Apparatus layer. Second, Jizang has a real explanation of this chapter in one passage, running from his explanation of the title up to before the title of the next chapter; what it explains centres on the Buddha's intent, and its words are extremely brief; five things in it can be recorded word for word. Explaining the setting of the chapter's name, he says 「今云道行品者，上譬說得名，今法說為因也。」 tr. "Now it is called the Practice of the Path chapter: above, the name was obtained by speaking in simile; now speaking in Dharma is the cause."—dividing where the two names come from by the previous chapter's speaking in simile and this chapter's speaking in Dharma, which is of the same intent as this chapter's arising being tied to the previous chapter's question. Judging the general and the particular of prajñā and the bodhisattva's practice, he says 「若是菩薩行，具實方便二慧，則知般若別，菩薩行通也。」 tr. "If it is the bodhisattva's practice, complete with the two wisdoms, the real and skilful means, then it is known that prajñā is particular and the bodhisattva's practice is general."—the dividing line drawn differs from the treatise-author's answer 「一切菩薩道名菩薩行」 tr. "the whole of the bodhisattva path is named the bodhisattva's practice": the treatise divides by path and wisdom, Jizang divides by whether the two wisdoms are complete or not; the two houses are recorded side by side without judgement. Explaining the last of the four sentences on the meaning of Buddha, he says 「第四句總上三法，謂知義亦知有知無，故云一切也。」 tr. "The fourth sentence gathers the three dharmas above, that is, knowing the meaning and also knowing existence and knowing non-existence; therefore it says ‘all’."—returning to the same place as the treatise's 「總上三事亦義、亦法」 tr. "gathers up the three matters above; it is both meaning and dharma," while the three matters raised differ slightly. Explaining awakening, he says 「第三義外即名相為菩提，第四義內絕念想為菩提，第五舉人釋法。」 tr. "The third: outwardly, names and marks themselves are awakening; the fourth: inwardly, the cutting off of thought and conception is awakening; the fifth raises the person to explain the dharma."—dividing the sūtra's nine layers by the three faces of outer, inner, and person, which differs in form from the treatise side's setting out side by side of ten instances of ‘someone says’. Explaining practising not for the sake of the roots of goodness, he says 「如百論為除惡善行，若入道則須捨善也。」 tr. "As in the Hundred Treatise, good practice is for the sake of removing evil; if one enters the path, one must give up the good."—taking entering the path as requiring the giving up of the good, which is of exactly the same intent as the treatise's citing of the Raft Simile Sūtra's 「善法尚應捨，何況不善法！」 tr. "Even wholesome dharmas should be given up, how much more unwholesome dharmas!" and its matching of crossing by raft. The word-for-word citations and their sameness and difference from what this treatise explains are detailed in the Apparatus layer. Third, on examining now the Tiantai line's Great Calming and Contemplation, Supporting Practice and Broad Resolution of Calming and Contemplation, Profound Meaning of the Lotus, and Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus, as well as Huiying's Commentary and Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises, none is found to cite the title of this chapter, nor are word-for-word citations found of this chapter's sentences such as 「空義是菩提義」 tr. "the meaning of emptiness is the meaning of awakening," 「知諸法實義故名為佛」 tr. "because he knows the real meaning of all dharmas, he is named Buddha," and 「不以二法故行檀波羅蜜」 tr. "it is not by reason of two dharmas that he practises dānapāramitā." The witness of the ancient masters attached to this chapter is very thin, unlike the thick ones of the other chapters of this treatise; it is recorded according to the facts, without drawing inferences.
種善根品Planting Roots of Goodness
全文五層 →Full five layers →種善根品：三事俱缺而問當得薩婆若不何以被論主判為麁問，佛何以不直答不得而答尚難得何況不，既已供養諸佛種善根得真知識何以猶難得一切種智，佛所答的四句缺失何以句句繫在方便力上，何等是方便力何以佛不下定義而以六波羅蜜逐一示之，檀尸羅二度何以獨說增益善根，入諸法實相無作無起相何以只在前二度與論末出現，羼提段何以說的是見諦思惟道不取四果而結以無生法忍，毘梨耶段何以說的是四禪四無量四無色，禪段何以說的是八背捨九次第定而止於不證，般若段何以不說不受世間果報而說不受果報，畢竟空中種與不種等無異之疑何以不是戲論，世諦中有福故得何以不是退一步說，乞食道人杖打餓狗何以是全品最切身的一喻，離方便之三相何以都作雖得而不成之句法，有心無心行檀何以不是兩種人而是一事之兩面，不生三想何以要從施物自相空說起，初發意菩薩自念先世不行深福德何以被論主特為拈出，餘五波羅蜜亦如是何以是一句真話而不是省筆
在問什麼
這一品問的是善根與得道之間那一段距離。前品說到行者當供養諸佛、種善根、親近善知識，話說到此本已圓滿；這一品一開口，須菩提卻把這三件事一齊拿掉來問：若不供養諸佛、不具足善根、不得真知識，還能得薩婆若嗎？問法之突兀，論主自己也標了出來，稱之為麁問。全品的力量就在這一問之後不肯落到兩邊：不落在『三事既無，必定不得』的斷語，也不落在『三事既有，自然可得』的安心。
佛的答語兩次都用同一個句法。第一次答：供養諸佛、種善根、得真知識，一切種智尚且難得，何況不供養、不種、不得！這句話沒有正面說「不得」，卻把「難」字安在已具三事的人身上——難處不在缺少，而在別處。須菩提隨即抓住這個『別處』再問：既已供養、已種、已得，何以還難得一切種智？佛這纔說出四句：遠離方便力，不從諸佛聞方便力，所種善根不具足，不常隨善知識教。四句之中，前兩句直說方便力，後兩句則是前兩句的果——善根之所以不具足、教誨之所以不常隨，根子仍在方便力上。全品的樞紐字，至此纔露出來。
於是有第三問：何等是方便力？此處最可留意的是佛的答法。佛不曾為方便力立一個界說，卻從檀波羅蜜起，一度一度地示現它的樣子：布施而不生施想受者想，持戒而不墮諸煩惱與二乘心，行見諦思惟道而不取四果，出入諸禪而不受果報，入八背捨九次第定而不證四果，學十力四無所畏乃至大慈大悲而於未得一切種智之間如是行。六段的內容各異，句骨卻是同一個——每段都有「何以故」，每段的答案都是同一組語——或作「觀一切法自相空」，或作「知諸法自相空」，或作「知諸禪定自相空」，而下接「無生，無定相，無所轉」。方便力不是六度之外另有一物，是行六度時那一分不取著的知見。
論段所釋，順著經文的縫隙走。論主先問須菩提何以作是麁問，出兩種有人言以明此問之所自來；次牒佛答，並補出一段經中未見的問答——畢竟空中無福無非福，何以但以福德故得？佛答以世諦中有福故得。論主接著出一喻：乞食的道人一家一家求食不得，見餓狗飢臥，以杖打之而說「我種種因緣，家家求食尚不能得，何況汝臥而望得！」喻雖粗，所破的正是那個以空為據而懶於修福的心。末後論主釋「離方便」之三相，釋有心無心行檀之二門，結於「無如是方便，菩薩雖供養諸佛、種善根、得真知識，尚不得，何況不供養！」，並以「餘五波羅蜜，亦如是」收全品。全品自問三事之可缺起，至答三事之不足止——所缺者從來不是善根，是種善根時的那一分方便。
逐段解明
一、須菩提設三事俱缺之問。 品首是須菩提白佛：菩薩摩訶薩若不供養諸佛、不具足善根、不得真知識，當得薩婆若不？三事並列而一齊否定，是本品全部議論的起點。讀者初見此問，多半覺得答案顯然——既不供養、不種、不得，如何能得？正因為答案看似顯然，這一問纔值得追究：須菩提是不知而問，還是為別人問？論主後文自會分說，此處只須先記住三事的名目與次第——供養諸佛在前，種善根居中，得真知識在後，一頭是所奉之境，一尾是所依之人，中間是自己所作之業。
二、佛以尚難何況之句答。 佛的答語不從「不得」立說，卻說：供養諸佛、種善根、得真知識，一切種智尚難得，何況不供養諸佛、不種善根、不得真知識！此句法有兩層用處。其一，它不否定三事之必要——若三事無關，佛不會把它放在「尚難得」的主語位上。其二，它把重量移到「難」字：既已具足三事而猶難，可見得一切種智另有所須。讀經遇到『尚……何況……』之句，應先看它的前項是什麼；前項所舉越是充分，後項所遮越是徹底，而真正的教誨往往藏在前項的那個「尚」字裡。
三、須菩提就難字再問。 須菩提果然就此再問：菩薩摩訶薩供養諸佛、種善根、得真知識，何以故難得一切種智？這一問是全品的轉軸。第一問問的是『缺了三事可不可以』，第二問問的是『有了三事何以還不夠』——問題的方向整個掉轉過來。前一問若答成了，只是釋疑；這一問答成了，纔是立教。經文在此不加任何鋪陳，兩問緊接，正見得須菩提之問不是泛問。
四、佛答四句缺失。 佛答：是菩薩摩訶薩遠離方便力，不從諸佛聞方便力，所種善根不具足，不常隨善知識教。四句宜逐句看。第一句「遠離方便力」是總，說行者自身與方便力之間有距離。第二句「不從諸佛聞方便力」說其所以遠離之由——方便力是從佛聞來的，不聞則無由得。第三句「所種善根不具足」，回應品題之「種善根」：善根非無，是不具足；不具足非因種得少，是因種時離了方便。第四句「不常隨善知識教」，回應前文之「得真知識」：知識非不得，是得而不常隨。四句與第一問所舉三事恰成對照——三事皆在，而每一事都成了半截，病不在有無，在成與不成。
五、須菩提三問何等是方便力。 至此須菩提問：世尊！何等是方便力，菩薩摩訶薩行是方便力，得一切種智？此段經文沒有再出「須菩提白佛言」之類的起說語，逕以「世尊」呼格接續，是承前一問而下的第三問。問中有兩節：一問方便力之體，二問行此方便力而得一切種智之事。佛以下六段所答，正是對這兩節的合答——不別立一個方便力之體，而於六度之行中示其相。讀此段當預存一個心理準備：底下所要聽的不是定義，是樣子。
六、檀波羅蜜段——布施而不生施想受者想。 佛答之首段說檀。其文有四節：一者「從初發意行檀波羅蜜，應薩婆若念」，說發心之所繫；二者布施於佛、辟支佛、聲聞、人、非人，「是時不生布施想、受者想」，說行時之所離；三者「何以故」下出其所以能不生想之由——「觀一切法自相空，無生，無定相，無所轉，入諸法實相，所謂一切法無作無起相」；四者以是方便力故增益善根，因增益善根故行檀波羅蜜、淨佛國土、成就眾生，布施不受世間果報，但欲救度一切眾生故。所施之境自佛以至非人，上下齊收，正是要顯示不生想者不揀對象。此段之「增益善根」兩見，是本品正面回答品題的第一處：善根之具足，不在所種之多，在種時有無方便。
七、尸羅波羅蜜段——持戒不墮諸煩惱與二乘心。 次段說尸羅，句骨與檀段全同，所異者在中間一節之內容。持戒時不墮婬怒癡中，不墮諸煩惱、纏縛及諸不善破道法——經文隨即開列：慳貪、破戒、瞋恚，懈怠、亂意、愚癡，慢、大慢、慢慢、我慢、增上慢、不如慢、邪慢，若聲聞心、若辟支佛心。此列宜逐項看其來歷：慳貪、破戒、瞋恚、懈怠、亂意、愚癡六者，正是六波羅蜜各自所對治之障；經所開列之慢、大慢、慢慢、我慢、增上慢、不如慢、邪慢七者，是自高之心的七種分齊，自粗至細；末後二心則不屬煩惱而屬所趣——聲聞心、辟支佛心於二乘為正，於菩薩則為墮。故此段所遮者三層：一層是惡，一層是慢，一層是小。三層俱不墮，纔是菩薩之持戒。其下「何以故」以至「持戒不受世間果報」，與檀段同文，可見二度所依之方便同是一事。
八、羼提波羅蜜段——行見諦思惟道而不取四果，是名無生法忍。 第三段標羼提，而所說之事是「方便力成就故，行見諦道、思惟道，亦不取須陀洹果、斯陀含、阿那含、阿羅漢果」。讀者至此易生疑：羼提是忍，何以說的是道與果？當就經文自身尋解。此段之末，佛自己下了名目：「須菩提！是名菩薩無生法忍。」可知此處所說之忍不是忍受違逆之忍，是於無生法中安忍不動之忍；而所謂安忍不動，其驗處正在「行是助道法，而過聲聞、辟支佛地」——行其道而不取其果，是忍之極難者。又此段之「何以故」下，只說「知諸法自相空，無生，無定相，無所轉」而止，不更說「入諸法實相，所謂一切法無作無起相」。前二度說到入實相，此後四度皆止於「無所轉」，是經文自身的分際，讀者不必代為補足。
九、毘梨耶波羅蜜段——入四禪四無量四無色而不受果報。 第四段標毘梨耶，所說是入初禪乃至第四禪，入四無量心、四無色定，雖出入諸禪而不受果報。此段有三事可留意。其一，經文於此段未出「應薩婆若念」一語，與檀、尸羅、羼提、禪四段不同。其二，所觀之境亦隨所行而轉——檀、尸羅二段作「觀一切法自相空」，羼提段作「知諸法自相空」，此段獨作「知諸禪定自相空」，所觀者正是自己所入之定。其三，此段說「淨佛國土，成就眾生」而不說「增益善根」；增益善根一語，經中唯檀、尸羅二段有之。精進而不受世間果報，但欲救度一切眾生故行毘梨耶波羅蜜——所謂精進之相，於此段全落在出入諸禪而不取其報上。
十、禪波羅蜜段——入八背捨九次第定而不證四果。 第五段標禪，說入八背捨、九次第定，亦不證須陀洹果乃至不證阿羅漢果，其下「何以故」仍作「知諸法自相空，無生，無定相，無所轉」而止。此段最短，然有一字之別須看清：羼提段作「不取」四果，此段作「不證」四果。取者從其果報而受之，證者於其境界而親得之；八背捨、九次第定是四果聖者所共行之定門，行此定而不證其果，其難更甚於不取。又此段不言不受果報、不言增益善根、不言淨佛國土成就眾生，語止於知空，是經文於此收束得極儉。
十一、般若波羅蜜段——學十力乃至大慈大悲，於未得之間應如是行。 第六段標般若，所學者是佛十力、四無所畏、四無礙智、十八不共法、大慈大悲——皆是佛地之法，非因中所有。故經文隨即出一段限量之語：「乃至未得一切種智，未淨佛國土，未成就眾生，於其中間應如是行。」「於其中間」四字是此段之眼：所學既是佛地之法，而身猶在未得之地，那一段中間的路怎麼走，正是般若所司。其下「何以故」仍以知諸法自相空四句為答，末句作「應如是行般若波羅蜜，不受果報」——不作「不受世間果報」。世間果報是三界之報，果報則通因果之報；措辭之別，經文自有分齊，錄之不強解。六段至此而畢，六度皆以同一知見為方便，而所離之事各隨其度。
十二、論主設問：何以作是麁問。 論段起首即問曰：須菩提何以故作是麁問——「不供養諸佛，不具足善根，不得真知識，當得薩婆若不」？論主逐字重牒經中之問而加一「麁」字，是論主對此問的判語。所謂麁，不是責其粗率無知，是說此問所舉之事太過直白——三事一齊拿掉而逕問可得與否，不留餘地。論主立此一問，正為引出下文兩種有人言：問之所以麁，是因為問中所含之疑本身就麁；不把那個疑說破，經文佛答之妙處便看不出來。
十三、有人言：畢竟空中種與不種等無異。 論主答曰之首，出第一說。有人言：若一切諸法無所有性、畢竟空，畢竟空中，種善根、不種善根等無異；若爾者，可不供養諸佛、不種善根、不得真知識，得薩婆若耶？此說之來歷，正是般若一系自身之教——諸法畢竟空是前諸品所廣說，並非外道之論。難處在於這一步推論：既然畢竟空中一切平等，種與不種既無二相，行與不行又何必分？此疑不可以粗心看過，它是學空者最容易踏上的一條路；論主把它放在第一，正見其常見。
十四、復有人疑言：得薩婆若更有種種門。 第二說與第一說不同科。前說之疑在理上——以空為據而疑行之無用；此說之疑在事上——得薩婆若既有種種門，或不必經由種善根這一門。論主以「復有人疑言」領起，末綴一句「是故問佛」，把兩說一齊收在須菩提發問的緣由上。可見論主釋此問，不判須菩提自有此疑，只說有此二種人之疑而須菩提為之發問。讀論至此，須菩提之問便不麁了：麁的是疑，不是問的人。
十五、論主牒佛答。 論主接著牒出佛答：若供養諸佛、種善根、得真知識，尚難得，何況不！此處所牒即經段第二節之文，然論主牒之而不更釋，是因為此答之義已於下文兩番問答中說盡。牒經之語與論主自說之語當分兩層看——凡論中作「佛答」「須菩提問」者，是論主重現經中對話以為論證，不是論主自立問答；下文數節皆當如此讀。
十六、須菩提難：畢竟空中無有福以非福。 此下一節是論段中最要緊的一處：論主出一段經文所無的問答。須菩提問：以畢竟空中無有福以非福，何以但以福德故得？此難比第十三段之有人言更進一步——前者疑的是行之無用，此處難的是佛答自身：佛既以福德（供養、種善根）為得之所由，而畢竟空中福與非福俱不可得，佛答豈不自相違？凡讀般若經論，遇此類『以空難有』之處，不可跳過，因為佛的答語往往就在此處把兩諦的分際說明白。
十七、佛答：以世諦中有福故得。 佛的答語只有一句：以世諦中有福故得。此句不是退讓，也不是權說。畢竟空是第一義中之語，有福有得是世諦中之事；第一義不壞世諦，故空中無福而世諦有福，兩語各有其位而不相奪。若把「世諦」二字讀成『姑且這麼說』，則此答便成了敷衍；若讀成『於世諦之分位上這件事確實如此』，纔是論主所取之義。下文論主釋此一節，正是順這一句而發。
十八、論主釋二人之意，並出乞食道人杖打餓狗喻。 論主於此自陳其釋：須菩提為眾生著無所有故問，佛以不著有法答，所謂「精進修福尚不可得，何況不修福！」——一問一答各有所對：問是為破眾生之著無，答是為不落於著有。兩邊都不著，纔是這一節的分寸。其下出喻：如受乞食道人，至一聚落，從一家至一家，乞食不得；見一餓狗飢臥，以杖打之言：「汝畜生無智，我種種因緣，家家求食尚不能得，何況汝臥而望得！」喻中三事相配——道人之勤求配精進修福，餓狗之飢臥配不修而望得，杖打之語配佛「尚不可得，何況不修」之答。喻雖出於俗事而極切身：學空之人若因空而廢行，正是那隻臥而望得的狗；此喻之刺，是對著門內人說的。
十九、須菩提問：有是因緣何故不得果報。 論主再出一番問答。須菩提問：世尊！有是供養諸佛等因緣，何故不得其果報？此問所承者是經段第三節須菩提之再問，而措辭轉為因果之語——因緣既具，果報何以不現。以因果之語問，正好逼出佛以「離方便」為答；因為若照常途因果而論，因具則果必至，今因具而果不至，必是別有所闕。
二十、佛答離方便故，並釋方便即般若與三種雖得不成之相。 佛答只四字：離方便故。論主隨即下一轉語：方便者，所謂般若波羅蜜。這一句是全品的定名之語——前文經中屢說方便力而未釋其名，論主至此以般若釋之，則六度段中那四句「知諸法自相空，無生，無定相，無所轉」的知見，正是般若之用，前後遂通為一事。其下論主以三句釋離方便之相：雖見諸佛色身，不以智慧眼見法身；雖少種善根，而不具足；雖得善知識，不親近諮受。三句同一句法，皆作『雖……而不……』，與經段佛答之四句缺失逐一相應——見色身而不見法身，即是不從諸佛聞方便力；少種而不具足，即是所種善根不具足；得而不親近諮受，即是不常隨善知識教。經之四句是佛所舉之病相，論之三句是論主所指之病根：病不在所遇不真，在能受者離了般若。
廿一、論主釋有心無心行檀之二門。 論主又引佛自說之因緣：菩薩從初發意，以有、無心行檀波羅蜜。此下分二門。有心者，所謂應薩婆若心布施，念諸佛種種無量功德，憐愍眾生故布施——此門之相是有所繫：繫於薩婆若、繫於佛德、繫於眾生。無心者，若施佛乃至凡人，不生三想，所謂施者、受者、財物——此門之相是無所著。二門看似相反，實為一事之兩面：有心者不是取著，是願行不斷；無心者不是漠然，是三想不生。論主更為「不生三想」出其所以然，逐層而下：施物等一切法自相空，從本已來常不生；無定相——若一、若異，若常、若無常等，是法自相空故；不可轉，安住如中故。「無定相」一節之二對，是就常人於施物上所起之計而破——或計其為一為異，或計其為常為無常，四計皆從自相不空來。末結：如是觀，即入諸法實相，所謂無作無起相；一切法無所能作，不生高心，無所悕望。「不生高心，無所悕望」八字是此段落到行人身上的話——施而自高、施而有望，正是三想未除之驗。
廿二、論主結方便力之四用。 上文既明有心無心之行，論主以一句總收：如是方便力故，能增益善根、離不善根，教化眾生、淨佛世界。此句宜與經段檀、尸羅二段對看。經中作『增益善根……淨佛國土，成就眾生』三事，論中作「增益善根、離不善根，教化眾生、淨佛世界」四事——多出一「離不善根」，並以增益與離為一對。善根之事至此纔說得圓滿：不只是種得多，還要種得具足；不只是增其善，還要離其不善。本品題為種善根，而全品真正說到「種」之成就處，正在這一句。
廿三、布施不受世間果報，及初發意菩薩之自念。 論主次說布施若多、若少，不受世間果報，但欲救度一切眾生故。其下特出一段初發意菩薩的心理：菩薩布施眾生有量有限，作是念——「我先世不行深福德，今不能廣施眾生。我今當深實多行檀波羅蜜，得是果報已，能具足利益，廣施無量眾生，若今世利，若後世利，若道德利。」這一段極可貴，因為它說的是力有未逮之人。上文所說皆是不受果報、不生三想之高行，讀者或疑此事非初心所能；論主便拈出這一念——所施雖有量有限，而所願無量，且自知其所以有限在先世福薄，故今當深行以求其能廣。末三利之次第亦當看：今世利、後世利、道德利，由淺入深而以道德為歸，可見所求之果報非為自受，是為施之能廣。
廿四、總結：無如是方便尚不得，何況不供養；餘五波羅蜜亦如是。 論主末段收全品：無如是方便，菩薩雖供養諸佛、種善根、得真知識，尚不得，何況不供養！此語與經段第二節佛答之句法全同，而所加者是「無如是方便」五字——經之「尚難得」至此乃明其所以難。次句「餘五波羅蜜，亦如是」，不是省筆。上文論主釋方便，唯就檀波羅蜜之有心無心說得詳盡；此句是明白告訴讀者：尸羅以下五度，其有心無心、其不生三想、其不受果報，一一皆如檀中所說，讀者當自推之。經段以六度逐一示方便，論段以一度詳釋而以此句通其餘五——經詳而論略，合之乃備。
不要讀錯
不要把須菩提的三事俱缺之問讀成須菩提自己不信因果。論主釋此問，明說是「須菩提為眾生著無所有故問」，並先出兩種有人言以明疑之所自來。問者所懷不必是自己之疑，經中發問往往是為眾生發問；若把此問讀成須菩提之惑，則佛答中「尚難得」三字所針對的對象便失了。
不要把「畢竟空中，種善根、不種善根等無異」讀成本論所破斥的邪見。論主既以「有人言」出之而不加呵責，又於下文以「世諦中有福故得」正面作答，可見此說所據之理（畢竟空）本身無誤，誤在推論的那一步——以第一義中之平等，取消世諦中之差別。讀般若論當守此分寸：所破者是取空之偏，不是空義本身。
不要把「以世諦中有福故得」讀成佛退了一步說方便話。兩諦各有其位，此答是就世諦之分位如實而說，非權設。若讀成權說，則下文乞食道人之喻便無所繫——論主出此喻，正是要說明『不修而望得』在世諦上確實不得，並非姑妄言之。
不要把六度段中的差異讀成經文的疏漏。檀、尸羅二段有「增益善根」而其下四段無，前二段說到「入諸法實相，所謂一切法無作無起相」而後四段止於「無所轉」，毘梨耶、般若二段未出「應薩婆若念」，羼提段作「不取」四果而禪段作「不證」四果，般若段作「不受果報」而不作「不受世間果報」——這些分際皆是經文自身之文，義疏只可據實錄之，不可代經補齊，更不可據他段之文改讀此段。
不要把羼提段讀錯了名相。此段標羼提波羅蜜而通篇說見諦道、思惟道與不取四果，末乃自結為「是名菩薩無生法忍」。所謂忍，在此不是忍受違逆之忍，是於無生法中安住不動之忍；其驗處即在「雖行是助道法，而過聲聞、辟支佛地」。若以世間忍辱之義讀此段，則全段所說與忍無涉，反成錯簡之疑。
不要把有心、無心讀成兩種菩薩或兩個階位。論主是釋佛自說之一句「以有、無心行檀波羅蜜」，二門同繫於一人之一行：有心者所繫是薩婆若、佛德與眾生，無心者所離是施者、受者、財物三想。若讀成有心者低而無心者高、先有心而後無心，則「念諸佛種種無量功德，憐愍眾生故布施」一節便無安放之處——那正是本論處處所讚之行。
不要把「餘五波羅蜜，亦如是」讀成論主略而不釋。此句是論主明示推例之法：檀中所說之有心無心、不生三想、不受世間果報，五度皆然。若讀成省筆，則本品所立之方便便只成了布施一門之事，與經段六度並舉之旨相違。
修行作用
第一件受用，是把「尚難得，何況不」當作日常的自照之句。佛兩次用此句法，前項所舉皆是供養諸佛、種善根、得真知識這樣充分的因緣。行人日中所作，若與前項相比尚且遠不及，則不必更問後項；若自覺已在前項之列，那個「尚」字正是提醒——具足因緣而猶難，難處在方便，當回頭看自己行時的知見，不是回頭再加行數。
第二件受用，是以佛所答的四句作行門的檢查次第。遠離方便力、不從諸佛聞方便力、所種善根不具足、不常隨善知識教——四句可倒過來自問：我於善知識之教是常隨還是偶隨？我所種之善根是具足還是半截？我所聞之法，是聞其事相還是聞到方便？我與方便力之間，是遠離還是相親？四問由粗入細，末一問答得出來，前三問自明。
第三件受用，是六度段的句骨可以逐度自驗。每一度的驗處都在「何以故」之下那一句知見，而所離之事各有其名：布施時有無施想受者想？持戒時有無墮入慳貪破戒等諸不善、諸慢與二乘心？行道品時有無暗取果證之念？出入諸禪時有無受其報味？入深定時有無證取之心？學佛地之法時，有無因未得而生退？六問各就其行而問，不必混作一問。
第四件受用，是那隻飢臥的狗可以作一面鏡子。論主的喻極不留情：勤求者尚不得，何況臥而望得。行人若讀般若久而行門日疏，動輒以「畢竟空」自解，便當把這一喻拈出來自照一次——所學之空若使人怠於修福，那個空必不是論主所說的空，因為論主說空的同一段文裡，正立著「精進修福尚不可得」一句。
第五件受用，是初發意菩薩那一念可以逕直取用。所施有量有限而不因此自沮，反自知先世福薄而發願深行——這一念最切於初學。日用中所能施者少、所能利者近，不必以此為愧，亦不必以此為足；依論主所出之三利次第，今世之利、後世之利、道德之利，把眼前一施繫在最後一項上，則有量有限之施亦是檀波羅蜜之行。
承衍
本品的骨幹，是一段經文與一段論釋。經①自須菩提白佛問菩薩摩訶薩若不供養諸佛、不具足善根、不得真知識當得薩婆若不起，佛答供養諸佛、種善根、得真知識而一切種智尚難得，何況不供養不種不得；須菩提再問既供養種植而得知識何以故難得一切種智，佛答遠離方便力、不從諸佛聞方便力、所種善根不具足、不常隨善知識教；須菩提三問何等是方便力而行之得一切種智，佛乃以六波羅蜜逐一示之——檀波羅蜜段說應薩婆若念而布施佛辟支佛聲聞人非人不生布施想受者想，以觀一切法自相空無生無定相無所轉入諸法實相無作無起相為由，增益善根、行檀、淨佛國土、成就眾生而不受世間果報；尸羅波羅蜜段說持戒不墮婬怒癡及諸煩惱纏縛與慳貪破戒瞋恚懈怠亂意愚癡諸慢乃至聲聞辟支佛心，其由與果同前；羼提波羅蜜段說方便力成就故行見諦道思惟道而不取四沙門果，雖行助道法而過二乘地，結為菩薩無生法忍；毘梨耶波羅蜜段說入四禪四無量心四無色定雖出入諸禪而不受果報，知諸禪定自相空而淨佛國土成就眾生；禪波羅蜜段說入八背捨九次第定而不證四沙門果；般若波羅蜜段說學佛十力四無所畏四無礙智十八不共法大慈大悲，乃至未得一切種智未淨佛國土未成就眾生於其中間應如是行，結以應如是行般若波羅蜜不受果報。論①以問曰領起：先問須菩提何以故作是麁問而逐字重牒其問，答中出二種有人言——一者以畢竟空中種與不種等無異而疑可不種善根得薩婆若，二者疑得薩婆若更有種種門而不須種善根，並結以是故問佛；次牒佛答尚難得何況不，出須菩提以畢竟空中無有福以非福為難，佛答以世諦中有福故得；次自陳須菩提為眾生著無所有故問而佛以不著有法答，出精進修福尚不可得何況不修福之語，並以乞食道人從一家至一家乞食不得而杖打飢臥餓狗為喻；次出須菩提問有是供養諸佛等因緣何故不得其果報，佛答離方便故，論主釋方便者所謂般若波羅蜜，並以雖見諸佛色身不以智慧眼見法身、雖少種善根而不具足、雖得善知識不親近諮受三句釋其相；次引佛自說因緣而分有心無心行檀二門，有心者應薩婆若心布施念諸佛功德憐愍眾生，無心者不生施者受者財物三想，並逐層釋施物自相空、常不生、無定相、不可轉安住如中而入諸法實相無作無起相，結以一切法無所能作不生高心無所悕望；次總收如是方便力故能增益善根離不善根教化眾生淨佛世界；次說布施若多若少不受世間果報，並出初發意菩薩布施有量有限而自念先世不行深福德、今當深實多行檀波羅蜜以廣施無量眾生而有今世利後世利道德利；末結無如是方便雖供養諸佛種善根得真知識尚不得何況不供養，並以餘五波羅蜜亦如是通其餘。
本品與前後諸品的義脈，可見者有三線。其一、承前：上品末段說菩薩當供養諸佛、種善根、常不離真知識，本品即以此三事為問端而反問其可缺與否，故本品之起是上品之結的翻案式追問，非別立一端；上品既說不為善根故行般若，本品復說無善根則不得，兩品合觀，乃見不為善根而又不可無善根之相續。其二、品內自成一轉：前半經文自問三事之可缺轉入方便力之六度示現，樞紐在須菩提「何等是方便力」一問；後半論文自釋麁問轉入有心無心之行，樞紐在論主「方便者，所謂般若波羅蜜」一語。兩轉之間，「方便」二字一為所問，一為所釋。其三、垂後：本品結於無方便則三事俱不成，次品乃以遍學為題——所種之善根既須方便而成，則所學之門亦當遍而後備，讀者可合觀二品。
古德之釋與諸本之異，本品可誌者三事。其一、品題四造：本帙底本作「種善根品第七十三」，宋本、元本易「種」為「眾」而作眾善根品，宮本別稱三善根品並倒其品序與品名之次，石本則於品名之外別繫經名而作善根方便品並自報其卷第；聖本、石本之品次又皆較底本少一位。所釋之經本身，其章題作三善品第七十三，與本論之種善根品不同名而義相通；宮本之異稱正與經之章題相近，其間或有兩部品名互涉之跡，如實誌錄而不強解其先後。異名諸造並錄不判，諸本異讀之全帳詳考據層。其二、吉藏《大品經義疏》於此品有續段，其立目沿所釋之經而作三善品第七十三，不用本論種善根品之名，可見其疏乃依經之品名體系而非依論之品名體系。其釋立名之由云：「此明供養諸佛、脩善根、植善知識，皆名為善，故云三善。」——正以經之三事釋三善之目，與本論以此三事為問端者所指同一。吉藏又自出一異名云：「亦三善根品，此品中論菩薩善根，故以目品。」——此名正與本帙宮本品題之三善根品相合，可見品名諸造之異不獨見於藏經校記，古德疏中亦自並存。至於佛答之句法，吉藏釋此云：「佛舉有破無，明行三多尚難得道，況不行耶？」——所謂舉有破無，即以三事具足猶難得道之語，破時眾執無之心。其所以如此，吉藏繫之於前品云：「上品是用無破有，故云不為善故行。時眾著無，故舉有破無。」——前品以無破有而說不為善根故行，本品反以有破無而說無善根則不得，一破一立，正是上列第一線之所在。末則以有所得無所得判方便之有無，吉藏云：「無方便有所得行三品多故難得道，有方便無所得行故易得道也。」——本論以般若訓方便，吉藏以有所得無所得判方便，二說並錄不判，其指可互參。其疏文所釋之詳略，詳考據層。其三、慧影《大智度論疏》現存之本止於前卷，未及本品，是闕釋而非未提；均正《大乘四論玄義》中「所種善根」一語出於其引《金剛般若經》燃燈佛前事而論有所得無所得之善，與本品無涉，不作承接；今檢天台一系之《摩訶止觀》《法華玄義》《法華玄義釋籤》，亦未見引及本品之品題。此品所繫古德之證甚薄，與本論他品之厚者不同，據實誌之而不作推論。
Planting Roots of Goodness: Why the Question Whether One Will Obtain Sarvajñā When All Three Matters Are Lacking Is Judged by the Treatise-Author a Coarse Question; Why the Buddha Does Not Answer Directly That One Does Not Obtain, but Answers That It Is Still Hard to Obtain, How Much More for One Who Does Not; Why, Having Already Made Offerings to the Buddhas, Planted Roots of Goodness, and Obtained True Friends, One Still Finds the Omniscience of All Kinds Hard to Obtain; Why the Four Lacks in the Buddha's Answer Are Bound, Phrase by Phrase, to the Power of Skilful Means; Why, as to What the Power of Skilful Means Is, the Buddha Gives No Definition but Shows It One by One through the Six Perfections; Why the Two Perfections of Dāna and Śīla Alone Speak of Increasing the Roots of Goodness; Why Entering the Real Mark of All Dharmas, the Mark of Being without Making and Non-rising, Appears Only in the First Two Perfections and at the End of the Treatise; Why the Kṣānti Passage Speaks of the Path of Seeing the Truths and the Path of Reflection and of Not Taking the Four Fruits, and Concludes with the Acceptance of the Non-arising of Dharmas; Why the Vīrya Passage Speaks of the Four Dhyānas, the Four Immeasurables, and the Four Formless Absorptions; Why the Dhyāna Passage Speaks of the Eight Liberations and the Nine Successive Absorptions and Stops at Not Realising; Why the Prajñā Passage Does Not Say That He Does Not Receive Worldly Retribution but Says That He Does Not Receive Retribution; Why the Doubt That within Ultimate Emptiness Planting and Not Planting Are Equal and without Difference Is Not Idle Discourse; Why Its Being Obtained Because within Worldly Truth There Is Merit Is Not a Step Backward in Speaking; Why the Man of the Path Begging for Food Who Strikes the Hungry Dog with His Staff Is the Simile Closest to One's Own Person in the Whole Chapter; Why the Three Marks of Being Apart from Skilful Means All Take the Syntax of Obtaining and yet Not Accomplishing; Why Practising Dāna with Mind and without Mind Is Not Two Kinds of People but Two Sides of One Matter; Why Not Giving Rise to the Three Thoughts Must Be Spoken of Starting from the Thing Given Being Empty of Specific Marks; Why the Bodhisattva of the First Arousing of Intent Reflecting That in Former Lives He Did Not Practise Deep Merit Is Specially Picked Out by the Treatise-Author; and Why the Remaining Five Perfections Being Also Like This Is a True Sentence and Not an Abbreviation
What Is Being Asked
What this chapter asks about is that stretch of distance between the roots of goodness and obtaining the path. The preceding chapter came to say that the practitioner should make offerings to the buddhas, plant roots of goodness, and keep close to the good friend, and at that point the words were already complete; yet as soon as this chapter opens its mouth, Subhūti takes these three matters away all together and asks: if one does not make offerings to the buddhas, does not fulfil the roots of goodness, and does not obtain true friends, can one still obtain sarvajñā? The abruptness of this way of asking the treatise-author himself marks out, calling it a coarse question. The force of the whole chapter lies in its refusing, after this question, to fall to either side: it does not fall into the verdict ‘since the three matters are absent, one certainly does not obtain’, nor into the reassurance ‘since the three matters are present, one naturally can obtain’.
The Buddha's answer uses the same syntax both times. The first time he answers: making offerings to the buddhas, planting roots of goodness, and obtaining true friends, the omniscience of all kinds is still hard to obtain, how much more not making offerings, not planting, not obtaining! This sentence does not say 「不得」 tr. "does not obtain" outright, yet it sets the word 「難」 tr. "hard" upon the person who already has the three matters—the hardness lies not in lacking, but elsewhere. Subhūti at once seizes this ‘elsewhere’ and asks again: having already made offerings, already planted, already obtained, why is the omniscience of all kinds still hard to obtain? Only then does the Buddha speak four phrases: far from the power of skilful means; not hearing the power of skilful means from the buddhas; the roots of goodness planted are not complete; not constantly following the teaching of the good friend. Of the four phrases, the first two speak directly of the power of skilful means, while the latter two are the fruit of the first two—the reason the roots of goodness are not complete and the reason the teaching is not constantly followed still has its root in the power of skilful means. The pivot-word of the whole chapter only now comes into view.
So there is a third question: what is the power of skilful means? What is most worth noticing here is the Buddha's way of answering. The Buddha never sets up a definition for the power of skilful means; instead, beginning from dānapāramitā, he shows its appearance perfection by perfection: giving without giving rise to the thought of giving or the thought of a recipient; keeping morality without falling into the afflictions or the minds of the two vehicles; practising the path of seeing the truths and the path of reflection without taking the four fruits; going in and out of the dhyānas without receiving the retribution; entering the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions without realising the four fruits; training in the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and so on up to great kindness and great compassion, and practising thus in the interval before obtaining the omniscience of all kinds. The content of the six passages differs, yet the bone of the sentences is one and the same—every passage has 「何以故」 tr. "Why?", and every passage's answer is the same set of words—now written 「觀一切法自相空」 tr. "he contemplates all dharmas as empty of specific marks," now 「知諸法自相空」 tr. "he knows all dharmas to be empty of specific marks," now 「知諸禪定自相空」 tr. "he knows the dhyānas and absorptions to be empty of specific marks," and then continuing 「無生，無定相，無所轉」 tr. "non-arising, without fixed mark, without anything turning." The power of skilful means is not some other thing outside the six perfections; it is that portion of knowing and seeing which does not grasp and cling at the time of practising the six perfections.
What the treatise section explains goes along the seams of the sūtra text. The treatise-author first asks why Subhūti asks so coarse a question, and brings out two views of what someone says to make clear where this question comes from; next he cites the Buddha's answer, and supplies a question and answer not seen in the sūtra—since within ultimate emptiness there is neither merit nor non-merit, why is it obtained only by reason of merit? The Buddha answers that because within worldly truth there is merit, it is obtained. The treatise-author then brings out a simile: a man of the path begging for food seeks food from one house to the next and obtains none, sees a hungry dog lying down starving, strikes it with his staff and says 「我種種因緣，家家求食尚不能得，何況汝臥而望得！」 tr. "I, with all kinds of causes and conditions, seek food from house to house and still cannot obtain it, how much less you, lying there and hoping to obtain it!" Though the simile is coarse, what it breaks is precisely the mind that takes emptiness as its ground and is lazy in cultivating merit. At the end the treatise-author explains the three marks of 「離方便」 tr. "being apart from skilful means," explains the two gates of practising dāna with mind and without mind, concludes with 「無如是方便，菩薩雖供養諸佛、種善根、得真知識，尚不得，何況不供養！」 tr. "Without such skilful means, though the bodhisattva makes offerings to the buddhas, plants roots of goodness, and obtains true friends, he still does not obtain it, how much less one who does not make offerings!", and with 「餘五波羅蜜，亦如是」 tr. "The remaining five perfections are also like this" gathers in the whole chapter. The whole chapter begins from asking whether the three matters may be lacking and ends at answering that the three matters are not enough—what is lacking has never been the roots of goodness; it is that portion of skilful means at the time of planting the roots of goodness.
Passage by Passage
1. Subhūti sets up the question in which all three matters are lacking. At the head of the chapter Subhūti addresses the Buddha: if a bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not make offerings to the buddhas, does not fulfil the roots of goodness, and does not obtain true friends, will he obtain sarvajñā? Three matters are set side by side and all negated together; this is the starting point of all the discussion of this chapter. A reader seeing this question for the first time mostly feels the answer is obvious—not making offerings, not planting, not obtaining, how could one obtain? Precisely because the answer seems obvious, this question is worth pursuing: does Subhūti ask because he does not know, or does he ask for the sake of others? The treatise-author will explain this himself later in the text; here one need only first remember the names and order of the three matters—making offerings to the buddhas comes first, planting roots of goodness stands in the middle, obtaining true friends comes last; at one end is the object one serves, at the other end the person one relies on, and in the middle is the deed one does oneself.
2. The Buddha answers with the sentence of still hard … how much more. The Buddha's answer does not take its stand on 「不得」 tr. "does not obtain"; instead he says: making offerings to the buddhas, planting roots of goodness, and obtaining true friends, the omniscience of all kinds is still hard to obtain, how much more not making offerings to the buddhas, not planting roots of goodness, not obtaining true friends! This syntax serves two purposes. First, it does not deny that the three matters are necessary—if the three matters were irrelevant, the Buddha would not put them in the subject position of 「尚難得」 tr. "is still hard to obtain." Second, it moves the weight onto the word 「難」 tr. "hard": since one already complete in the three matters still finds it hard, it can be seen that obtaining the omniscience of all kinds requires something else. When reading the sūtras and meeting a sentence of the form ‘still … how much more …’, one should first look at what its first member is; the fuller what is raised in the first member, the more thoroughly the second member is blocked, and the real teaching is often hidden in that word 「尚」 tr. "still" of the first member.
3. Subhūti asks again on the word hard. Subhūti does indeed ask again on this point: a bodhisattva-mahāsattva makes offerings to the buddhas, plants roots of goodness, and obtains true friends; why is the omniscience of all kinds hard to obtain? This question is the turning axle of the whole chapter. The first question asked ‘whether lacking the three matters will do’; the second question asks ‘why having the three matters is still not enough’—the direction of the question is turned completely round. If the earlier question were answered, it would only resolve a doubt; only when this question is answered is a teaching established. The sūtra text adds no elaboration here; the two questions follow closely on each other, which shows precisely that Subhūti's questions are not idle questions.
4. The Buddha answers with four phrases of lack. The Buddha answers: this bodhisattva-mahāsattva is far from the power of skilful means, does not hear the power of skilful means from the buddhas, the roots of goodness he plants are not complete, and he does not constantly follow the teaching of the good friend. The four phrases should be looked at one by one. The first phrase, 「遠離方便力」 tr. "far from the power of skilful means," is the general one, saying that there is a distance between the practitioner himself and the power of skilful means. The second phrase, 「不從諸佛聞方便力」 tr. "does not hear the power of skilful means from the buddhas," states the cause of his being far from it—the power of skilful means comes from hearing it from the buddhas; not hearing it, there is no way to obtain it. The third phrase, 「所種善根不具足」 tr. "the roots of goodness he plants are not complete," answers to the chapter title's 「種善根」 tr. "planting roots of goodness": the roots of goodness are not absent, they are not complete; and they are not complete not because little was planted, but because in planting he was apart from skilful means. The fourth phrase, 「不常隨善知識教」 tr. "does not constantly follow the teaching of the good friend," answers to the earlier 「得真知識」 tr. "obtains true friends": it is not that the friend is not obtained, but that, obtained, he is not constantly followed. The four phrases stand in exact contrast to the three matters raised in the first question—the three matters are all present, and yet each matter has become only half; the illness lies not in having or not having, but in accomplishing or not accomplishing.
5. Subhūti asks a third time what the power of skilful means is. At this point Subhūti asks: World-Honored One! What is the power of skilful means, such that a bodhisattva-mahāsattva practising this power of skilful means obtains the omniscience of all kinds? This piece of sūtra text no longer has an opening phrase of the kind 「須菩提白佛言」 tr. "Subhūti said to the Buddha"; it continues directly with the vocative 「世尊」 tr. "World-Honored One," and is the third question, coming down in continuation of the previous one. Within the question there are two parts: one asks about the substance of the power of skilful means; the other asks about the matter of practising this power of skilful means and obtaining the omniscience of all kinds. What the Buddha answers in the six passages below is precisely a joint answer to these two parts—he does not set up a separate substance of the power of skilful means, but shows its marks within the practice of the six perfections. Reading this passage, one should keep a readiness of mind in advance: what one is about to hear below is not a definition; it is an appearance.
6. The dānapāramitā passage—giving without giving rise to the thought of giving or the thought of a recipient. The first passage of the Buddha's answer speaks of dāna. Its text has four parts: first, 「從初發意行檀波羅蜜，應薩婆若念」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent he practises dānapāramitā, with a thought that accords with sarvajñā," stating what the arousing of the mind is tied to; second, giving to a Buddha, a pratyekabuddha, a śrāvaka, a human, a non-human, 「是時不生布施想、受者想」 tr. "at that time he does not give rise to the thought of giving or the thought of a recipient," stating what is parted from at the time of practice; third, after 「何以故」 tr. "Why?" it brings out the reason he is able not to give rise to the thoughts—「觀一切法自相空，無生，無定相，無所轉，入諸法實相，所謂一切法無作無起相」 tr. "he contemplates all dharmas as empty of specific marks, non-arising, without fixed mark, without anything turning, and enters the real mark of all dharmas, namely the mark of all dharmas without making and non-rising"; fourth, because of this power of skilful means he increases the roots of goodness, and because he increases the roots of goodness he practises dānapāramitā, purifies buddha-lands, and brings beings to accomplishment; giving, he does not receive worldly retribution, only for the sake of rescuing and delivering all beings. The objects given to, from a Buddha down to a non-human, are gathered in from top to bottom alike, precisely to show that one who does not give rise to the thoughts does not pick and choose among recipients. In this passage 「增益善根」 tr. "increases the roots of goodness" appears twice; this is the first place where this chapter answers its title head-on: the completeness of the roots of goodness lies not in how many are planted, but in whether there is skilful means at the time of planting.
7. The śīlapāramitā passage—keeping morality without falling into the afflictions or the minds of the two vehicles. The next passage speaks of śīla; the bone of its sentences is entirely the same as the dāna passage, and what differs is the content of the middle part. When keeping morality he does not fall into lust, anger, and delusion, nor into the afflictions, the entanglements and bonds, and the unwholesome dharmas that break the path—the sūtra text at once lists them: stinginess and greed, breaking morality, hatred, laziness, a scattered mind, folly and delusion; pride, great pride, pride upon pride, the pride of self, overweening pride, the pride of inferiority, wrong pride; whether the mind of a śrāvaka or the mind of a pratyekabuddha. In this list one should look at the provenance of each item: the six—stinginess and greed, breaking morality, hatred, laziness, a scattered mind, folly and delusion—are precisely the obstructions that each of the six perfections counteracts; the seven listed by the sūtra—pride, great pride, pride upon pride, the pride of self, overweening pride, the pride of inferiority, wrong pride—are the seven grades of the mind that exalts itself, from coarse to fine; the two minds at the end do not belong to the afflictions but to where one tends—the mind of a śrāvaka and the mind of a pratyekabuddha are right for the two vehicles, but for the bodhisattva they are a fall. So what this passage blocks has three layers: one layer is evil, one layer is pride, one layer is smallness. Only not falling into any of the three layers is the bodhisattva's keeping of morality. Below it, from 「何以故」 tr. "Why?" through 「持戒不受世間果報」 tr. "keeping morality, he does not receive worldly retribution," the text is the same as the dāna passage, which shows that the skilful means the two perfections rely on is one and the same matter.
8. The kṣāntipāramitā passage—practising the path of seeing the truths and the path of reflection without taking the four fruits; this is called the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. The third passage is headed kṣānti, yet what it speaks of is 「方便力成就故，行見諦道、思惟道，亦不取須陀洹果、斯陀含、阿那含、阿羅漢果」 tr. "because the power of skilful means is accomplished, he practises the path of seeing the truths and the path of reflection, and yet does not take the fruit of the srota-āpanna, the sakṛdāgāmin, the anāgāmin, or the fruit of the arhat." Reaching this point, a reader easily feels a doubt: kṣānti is patience, so why does it speak of paths and fruits? The answer should be sought in the sūtra text itself. At the end of this passage the Buddha himself gives the name: 「須菩提！是名菩薩無生法忍。」 tr. "Subhūti! This is called the bodhisattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas." From this it can be known that the acceptance spoken of here is not the patience that endures what goes against one, but the acceptance that rests unmoved within the dharma of non-arising; and where this resting unmoved is proved lies precisely in 「行是助道法，而過聲聞、辟支佛地」 tr. "he practises these dharmas that aid the path, and passes beyond the grounds of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha"—to practise its path and not take its fruit is the hardest of acceptances. Again, after 「何以故」 tr. "Why?" this passage says only 「知諸法自相空，無生，無定相，無所轉」 tr. "he knows all dharmas to be empty of specific marks, non-arising, without fixed mark, without anything turning" and stops, and does not go on to say 「入諸法實相，所謂一切法無作無起相」 tr. "and enters the real mark of all dharmas, namely the mark of all dharmas without making and non-rising." The first two perfections speak as far as entering the real mark; the four perfections after this all stop at 「無所轉」 tr. "without anything turning"; this is a boundary of the sūtra text itself, and the reader need not supply it on the text's behalf.
9. The vīryapāramitā passage—entering the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions without receiving the retribution. The fourth passage is headed vīrya, and what it speaks of is entering the first dhyāna and so on up to the fourth dhyāna, entering the four immeasurable minds and the four formless absorptions, and though going in and out of the dhyānas, not receiving the retribution. In this passage three matters are worth noticing. First, the sūtra text in this passage does not bring out the phrase 「應薩婆若念」 tr. "with a thought that accords with sarvajñā," unlike the four passages of dāna, śīla, kṣānti, and dhyāna. Second, the object contemplated also turns according to what is practised—the two passages of dāna and śīla read 「觀一切法自相空」 tr. "he contemplates all dharmas as empty of specific marks," the kṣānti passage reads 「知諸法自相空」 tr. "he knows all dharmas to be empty of specific marks," and this passage alone reads 「知諸禪定自相空」 tr. "he knows the dhyānas and absorptions to be empty of specific marks"—what is contemplated is precisely the absorptions he himself enters. Third, this passage says 「淨佛國土，成就眾生」 tr. "purifies buddha-lands and brings beings to accomplishment," but does not say 「增益善根」 tr. "increases the roots of goodness"; the phrase increasing the roots of goodness appears in the sūtra only in the two passages of dāna and śīla. Practising vigour, he does not receive worldly retribution; only for the sake of rescuing and delivering all beings does he practise vīryapāramitā—the so-called mark of vigour falls, in this passage, entirely upon going in and out of the dhyānas without taking their retribution.
10. The dhyānapāramitā passage—entering the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions without realising the four fruits. The fifth passage is headed dhyāna, and speaks of entering the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions, and yet not realising the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to not realising the fruit of the arhat; after it 「何以故」 tr. "Why?" still reads 「知諸法自相空，無生，無定相，無所轉」 tr. "he knows all dharmas to be empty of specific marks, non-arising, without fixed mark, without anything turning" and stops. This passage is the shortest, yet there is a difference of one Chinese character that must be seen clearly: the kṣānti passage reads 「不取」 tr. "does not take" the four fruits, while this passage reads 「不證」 tr. "does not realise" the four fruits. To take is to follow its fruit and retribution and receive it; to realise is to obtain it in person in its state; the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions are the gates of absorption practised in common by the sages of the four fruits, and to practise these absorptions and not realise their fruit is harder still than not taking. Further, this passage does not speak of not receiving retribution, does not speak of increasing the roots of goodness, does not speak of purifying buddha-lands and bringing beings to accomplishment; its words stop at knowing emptiness—here the sūtra text gathers itself in with the utmost economy.
11. The prajñāpāramitā passage—training in the ten powers and so on up to great kindness and great compassion, he should practise thus in the interval before obtaining. The sixth passage is headed prajñā, and what is trained in is the Buddha's ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion—all dharmas of the Buddha ground, not possessed within the cause. So the sūtra text at once brings out a sentence of limit: 「乃至未得一切種智，未淨佛國土，未成就眾生，於其中間應如是行。」 tr. "and so on up to: while he has not yet obtained the omniscience of all kinds, not yet purified buddha-lands, and not yet brought beings to accomplishment, in the interval he should practise thus." The four Chinese characters 「於其中間」 tr. "in the interval" are the eye of this passage: since what is trained in is the dharmas of the Buddha ground while one's person is still on ground not yet attained, how to walk that road in the interval is precisely what prajñā is in charge of. After it 「何以故」 tr. "Why?" again answers with the four phrases of knowing all dharmas to be empty of specific marks, and the last sentence reads 「應如是行般若波羅蜜，不受果報」 tr. "should practise prajñāpāramitā thus, not receiving retribution"—not 「不受世間果報」 tr. "not receiving worldly retribution." Worldly retribution is the retribution of the three realms, while retribution covers the retribution of cause and fruit in general; for this difference of wording the sūtra text has its own boundaries, and it is recorded without forcing an explanation. The six passages end here: the six perfections all take the same knowing and seeing as skilful means, while what is parted from follows each perfection.
12. The treatise-author sets up a question: why ask such a coarse question. The treatise section opens at once with a Question: why does Subhūti ask so coarse a question—「不供養諸佛，不具足善根，不得真知識，當得薩婆若不」 tr. "not making offerings to the buddhas, not fulfilling the roots of goodness, not obtaining true friends—will he obtain sarvajñā or not?" The treatise-author repeats the question in the sūtra word for word and adds the one word 「麁」 tr. "coarse"; this is the treatise-author's verdict on this question. What is called coarse does not reproach it for crude ignorance; it says that what this question raises is too blunt—taking the three matters away all at once and asking straight out whether one can obtain, leaving no room. The treatise-author sets up this question precisely to lead into the two views of what someone says below: the question is coarse because the doubt contained in it is itself coarse; if that doubt is not spelled out, the wonder of the Buddha's answer in the sūtra text cannot be seen.
13. Someone says: within ultimate emptiness, planting and not planting are equal and without difference. At the head of the treatise-author's Answer: he brings out the first view. Someone says: if all dharmas are without any existent nature and ultimately empty, then within ultimate emptiness planting roots of goodness and not planting roots of goodness are equal and without difference; if it is so, can one not make offerings to the buddhas, not plant roots of goodness, not obtain true friends, and obtain sarvajñā? The provenance of this view is precisely the teaching of the prajñā line itself—that all dharmas are ultimately empty is what the earlier chapters have spoken of broadly; it is not a doctrine of the outside paths. The difficulty lies in this one step of inference: since within ultimate emptiness all is equal, and planting and not planting have no two marks, why must practising and not practising be distinguished? This doubt must not be passed over carelessly; it is a road that one who studies emptiness most easily sets foot on; the treatise-author places it first precisely because he sees how common it is.
14. Again someone, doubting, says: there are all kinds of other gates to obtaining sarvajñā. The second view is not of the same category as the first. The doubt of the former view lies in principle—taking emptiness as its ground, it doubts the use of practice; the doubt of this view lies in affairs—since there are all kinds of gates to obtaining sarvajñā, perhaps one need not pass through this one gate of planting roots of goodness. The treatise-author introduces it with 「復有人疑言」 tr. "again someone, doubting, says," and appends at the end the sentence 「是故問佛」 tr. "for this reason he asks the Buddha," gathering both views together into the cause of Subhūti's asking. It can be seen that in explaining this question the treatise-author does not judge that Subhūti himself has this doubt; he only says that there are the doubts of these two kinds of people and that Subhūti asks for their sake. Reading the treatise to this point, Subhūti's question is no longer coarse: what is coarse is the doubt, not the one who asks.
15. The treatise-author cites the Buddha's answer. The treatise-author next cites the Buddha's answer: if one makes offerings to the buddhas, plants roots of goodness, and obtains true friends, it is still hard to obtain, how much more if one does not! What is cited here is the text of the second section of the sūtra segment, yet the treatise-author cites it without explaining it further, because the meaning of this answer is fully spoken in the two rounds of question and answer below. The words citing the sūtra and the words the treatise-author speaks himself should be looked at as two layers—wherever the treatise writes 「佛答」 tr. "the Buddha answers" or 「須菩提問」 tr. "Subhūti asks," it is the treatise-author re-presenting the dialogue in the sūtra as argument, not the treatise-author setting up a question and answer of his own; the several sections below should all be read in this way.
16. Subhūti's objection: within ultimate emptiness there is neither merit nor non-merit. This next section is the most important place in the treatise section: the treatise-author brings out a question and answer that the sūtra text does not have. Subhūti asks: since within ultimate emptiness there is neither merit nor non-merit, why is it obtained only by reason of merit? This objection goes one step further than what someone says in passage 13—the former doubts the use of practice, while here the objection is to the Buddha's answer itself: since the Buddha takes merit (making offerings, planting roots of goodness) as the means of obtaining, and within ultimate emptiness merit and non-merit are both unfindable, does not the Buddha's answer contradict itself? Whenever one reads the prajñā sūtras and treatises and meets a place of this kind, ‘using emptiness to object to existence’, one must not skip over it, because the Buddha's answer often makes clear precisely here the boundary between the two truths.
17. The Buddha answers: because within worldly truth there is merit, it is obtained. The Buddha's answer is only one sentence: because within worldly truth there is merit, it is obtained. This sentence is not a concession, nor is it a provisional teaching. Ultimate emptiness is a word within the highest meaning; that there is merit and there is obtaining is a matter within worldly truth; the highest meaning does not break worldly truth, so within emptiness there is no merit while within worldly truth there is merit, and the two words each have their place and do not usurp each other. If the two Chinese characters 「世諦」 tr. "worldly truth" are read as ‘let us say so for the time being’, this answer becomes a mere fobbing-off; only when they are read as ‘in the station of worldly truth this matter really is so’ is it the meaning the treatise-author takes. The treatise-author's explanation of this section below proceeds precisely along this sentence.
18. The treatise-author explains the intent of the two persons, and brings out the simile of the man of the path begging for food who strikes a hungry dog with his staff. Here the treatise-author sets out his own explanation: Subhūti asks for the sake of beings who cling to being without anything existent, and the Buddha answers by not clinging to an existent dharma, namely 「精進修福尚不可得，何況不修福！」 tr. "Even cultivating merit with vigour, it is unfindable, how much less without cultivating merit!"—the question and the answer each have what they face: the question is to break beings' clinging to non-existence, and the answer is so as not to fall into clinging to existence. Clinging to neither side is the measure of this section. Below it he brings out the simile: it is like a man of the path who has taken up the dharma of begging for food: he comes to a village and goes from one house to the next, begging for food and obtaining none; he sees a hungry dog lying down starving, strikes it with his staff and says: 「汝畜生無智，我種種因緣，家家求食尚不能得，何況汝臥而望得！」 tr. "You beast, without wisdom! I, with all kinds of causes and conditions, seek food from house to house and still cannot obtain it, how much less you, lying there and hoping to obtain it!" In the simile three things are matched—the man of the path's diligent seeking is matched with cultivating merit with vigour; the hungry dog's lying starving is matched with hoping to obtain without cultivating; the words spoken as he strikes with the staff are matched with the Buddha's answer 「尚不可得，何況不修」 tr. "it is unfindable, how much less without cultivating." Though the simile comes out of a worldly affair, it touches one's own person most closely: if one who studies emptiness abandons practice because of emptiness, he is precisely that dog lying there and hoping to obtain; the sting of this simile is spoken to those inside the gate.
19. Subhūti asks: having these causes and conditions, why does he not obtain the retribution? The treatise-author brings out another round of question and answer. Subhūti asks: World-Honored One! Having these causes and conditions of making offerings to the buddhas and so on, why does he not obtain their retribution? What this question continues is Subhūti's renewed question in the third section of the sūtra segment, while its wording turns into the language of cause and fruit—since the causes and conditions are complete, why does the retribution not appear? Asking in the language of cause and fruit is just right for drawing out the Buddha's answer of 「離方便」 tr. "apart from skilful means"; for if one reasons by ordinary cause and fruit, when the cause is complete the fruit must arrive; now the cause is complete and the fruit does not arrive, so something else must be lacking.
20. The Buddha answers that it is because he is apart from skilful means; and the explanation that skilful means is prajñā, and of the three marks of obtaining and yet not accomplishing. The Buddha's answer is only four Chinese characters: because he is apart from skilful means. The treatise-author at once gives a turning word: Skilful means, namely prajñāpāramitā. This sentence is the naming word of the whole chapter—the sūtra text before repeatedly spoke of the power of skilful means without explaining its name; here the treatise-author explains it by prajñā, and then the knowing and seeing of those four phrases in the passages on the six perfections, 「知諸法自相空，無生，無定相，無所轉」 tr. "he knows all dharmas to be empty of specific marks, non-arising, without fixed mark, without anything turning," is precisely the function of prajñā, and before and after become one matter throughout. Below it the treatise-author explains the marks of being apart from skilful means in three phrases: though he sees the form bodies of the buddhas, he does not see the Dharma body with the eye of wisdom; though he has planted roots of goodness in a small portion, they are not complete; though he obtains good friends, he does not keep close to them and consult and receive from them. The three phrases have one syntax, all of the form ‘though … yet not …’, and correspond one by one with the four phrases of lack in the Buddha's answer in the sūtra segment—seeing the form body without seeing the Dharma body is precisely not hearing the power of skilful means from the buddhas; planting a little without completeness is precisely the roots of goodness planted not being complete; obtaining and yet not keeping close and consulting and receiving is precisely not constantly following the teaching of the good friend. The four phrases of the sūtra are the marks of the illness that the Buddha raises; the three phrases of the treatise are the root of the illness that the treatise-author points to: the illness lies not in what is met being untrue, but in the one who receives being apart from prajñā.
21. The treatise-author explains the two gates of practising dāna with mind and without mind. The treatise-author further cites the causes and conditions the Buddha himself states: from the first arousing of intent the bodhisattva practises dānapāramitā with mind and without mind. Below this it divides into two gates. With mind means giving with a mind that accords with sarvajñā, keeping in mind the buddhas' all kinds of immeasurable merits, and giving out of pity for beings—the mark of this gate is being tied to something: tied to sarvajñā, tied to the Buddha's virtues, tied to beings. Without mind means: whether giving to a Buddha and so on down to an ordinary person, he does not give rise to the three thoughts, namely giver, recipient, and the thing given—the mark of this gate is clinging to nothing. The two gates look opposite, but are in fact two sides of one matter: with mind is not grasping and clinging, it is vow and practice unbroken; without mind is not indifference, it is the three thoughts not arising. The treatise-author further brings out, for 「不生三想」 tr. "does not give rise to the three thoughts," why it is so, going down layer by layer: the thing given, together with all dharmas, is empty of specific marks, from the beginning ever unarisen; without fixed mark—whether one or different, whether permanent or impermanent, and so on—because this dharma is empty of specific marks; it cannot be turned, because it abides within suchness. The two pairs of the section 「無定相」 tr. "without fixed mark" break what ordinary people reckon about the thing given—reckoning it as one or as different, or reckoning it as permanent or as impermanent; all four reckonings come from specific marks not being empty. At the end it concludes: contemplating thus, he enters the real mark of all dharmas, namely the mark of being without making and non-rising; all dharmas can make nothing, so he does not give rise to a haughty mind and hopes for nothing. The eight Chinese characters 「不生高心，無所悕望」 tr. "does not give rise to a haughty mind and hopes for nothing" are the words by which this paragraph comes down upon the practitioner—giving and exalting oneself, giving and having hopes, are precisely the proof that the three thoughts have not been removed.
22. The treatise-author concludes with the four functions of the power of skilful means. The above having made clear the practice with mind and without mind, the treatise-author gathers it in with one sentence: because of such power of skilful means, he is able to increase the roots of goodness and part from the roots that are not good, to teach and transform beings, and to purify buddha-worlds. This sentence should be read against the two passages of dāna and śīla in the sūtra segment. The sūtra reads as three matters, ‘increases the roots of goodness … purifies buddha-lands, and brings beings to accomplishment’; the treatise reads as four matters, 「增益善根、離不善根，教化眾生、淨佛世界」 tr. "increase the roots of goodness and part from the roots that are not good, teach and transform beings, and purify buddha-worlds"—adding one 「離不善根」 tr. "part from the roots that are not good," and making increasing and being far from into a pair. Only here is the matter of the roots of goodness spoken of completely: it is not only planting many; one must also plant them to completeness; it is not only increasing one's good; one must also be far from one's not-good. This chapter is titled planting roots of goodness, and the place where the whole chapter really speaks of the accomplishment of 「種」 tr. "planting" is precisely this sentence.
23. Giving without receiving worldly retribution, and the reflection of the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent. The treatise-author next says that whether giving much or giving little, he does not receive worldly retribution; it is only for the sake of rescuing and delivering all beings. Below this he specially brings out a passage of the mind of the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent: when the bodhisattva gives to beings in measured and limited amounts, he has this thought—「我先世不行深福德，今不能廣施眾生。我今當深實多行檀波羅蜜，得是果報已，能具足利益，廣施無量眾生，若今世利，若後世利，若道德利。」 tr. "In former lives I did not practise deep merit; now I cannot give widely to beings. I should now deeply, really, and much practise dānapāramitā; having obtained this retribution, I will be able to benefit fully and give widely to immeasurable beings—whether the benefit of this life, or the benefit of later lives, or the benefit of the path and its virtue." This passage is most precious, because what it speaks of is the person whose strength does not yet reach. What is said above is all lofty practice—not receiving retribution, not giving rise to the three thoughts—and a reader may doubt that this is a matter within reach of the beginner's mind; so the treatise-author picks out this one thought—though what is given is measured and limited, what is vowed is immeasurable; and he knows for himself that the reason it is limited lies in the thinness of his merit in former lives, so now he should practise deeply in order to seek the ability to give widely. The sequence of the three benefits at the end should also be looked at: the benefit of this life, the benefit of later lives, the benefit of the path and its virtue, going from shallow into deep and returning to the path and its virtue, from which it can be seen that the retribution sought is not for receiving it oneself, but for the ability to give widely.
24. General conclusion: without such skilful means one still does not obtain, how much less one who does not make offerings; the remaining five perfections are also like this. In the final paragraph the treatise-author gathers in the whole chapter: without such skilful means, though the bodhisattva makes offerings to the buddhas, plants roots of goodness, and obtains true friends, he still does not obtain it, how much less one who does not make offerings! These words have exactly the same syntax as the Buddha's answer in the second section of the sūtra segment, and what is added is the five Chinese characters 「無如是方便」 tr. "without such skilful means"—the sūtra's 「尚難得」 tr. "still hard to obtain" here at last makes clear why it is hard. The next sentence, 「餘五波羅蜜，亦如是」 tr. "the remaining five perfections are also like this," is not an abbreviation. Above, the treatise-author explained skilful means in detail only with respect to the with mind and without mind of dānapāramitā; this sentence tells the reader plainly: for the five perfections from śīla onward, their with mind and without mind, their not giving rise to the three thoughts, their not receiving retribution, are each and every one as was said within dāna, and the reader should infer them for himself. The sūtra segment shows skilful means through the six perfections one by one, the treatise segment explains one perfection in detail and with this sentence extends it to the remaining five—the sūtra is detailed and the treatise brief, and joined together they are complete.
Do Not Misread
Do not read Subhūti's question in which all three matters are lacking as Subhūti himself not believing in cause and fruit. The treatise-author, explaining this question, says plainly that it is 「須菩提為眾生著無所有故問」 tr. "Subhūti asks for the sake of beings who cling to being without anything existent," and first brings out two views of what someone says to make clear where the doubt comes from. What the questioner harbours need not be his own doubt; questions in the sūtras are often asked for the sake of beings; if this question is read as Subhūti's confusion, then the object at which the three Chinese characters 「尚難得」 tr. "still hard to obtain" in the Buddha's answer are aimed is lost.
Do not read 「畢竟空中，種善根、不種善根等無異」 tr. "within ultimate emptiness, planting roots of goodness and not planting roots of goodness are equal and without difference" as a wrong view that this treatise refutes and rebukes. Since the treatise-author brings it out with 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" and adds no rebuke, and further below answers it head-on with 「世諦中有福故得」 tr. "because within worldly truth there is merit, it is obtained," it can be seen that the principle this view relies on (ultimate emptiness) is itself not mistaken; the mistake lies in that one step of inference—using the equality within the highest meaning to cancel the differences within worldly truth. Reading the prajñā treatise one should keep this measure: what is broken is the one-sidedness of grasping emptiness, not the meaning of emptiness itself.
Do not read 「以世諦中有福故得」 tr. "because within worldly truth there is merit, it is obtained" as the Buddha taking a step back to speak words of expedience. The two truths each have their place; this answer is spoken as it really is in the station of worldly truth, not set up provisionally. If it is read as provisional speech, then the simile of the man of the path begging for food below has nothing to attach to—the treatise-author brings out this simile precisely to make clear that ‘hoping to obtain without cultivating’ really does not obtain within worldly truth, and is not said idly.
Do not read the differences among the passages on the six perfections as oversights of the sūtra text. The two passages of dāna and śīla have 「增益善根」 tr. "increases the roots of goodness" while the four passages below them do not; the first two passages speak as far as 「入諸法實相，所謂一切法無作無起相」 tr. "enters the real mark of all dharmas, namely the mark of all dharmas without making and non-rising" while the latter four passages stop at 「無所轉」 tr. "without anything turning"; the two passages of vīrya and prajñā do not bring out 「應薩婆若念」 tr. "with a thought that accords with sarvajñā"; the kṣānti passage reads 「不取」 tr. "does not take" the four fruits while the dhyāna passage reads 「不證」 tr. "does not realise" the four fruits; the prajñā passage reads 「不受果報」 tr. "not receiving retribution" and not 「不受世間果報」 tr. "not receiving worldly retribution"—these boundaries are all the sūtra text's own wording; the exposition can only record them as they really are, may not fill them out on the sūtra's behalf, and still less may it alter the reading of this passage on the basis of another passage's text.
Do not misread the names and marks of the kṣānti passage. This passage is headed kṣāntipāramitā, yet throughout it speaks of the path of seeing the truths, the path of reflection, and not taking the four fruits, and at the end concludes of itself 「是名菩薩無生法忍」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas." The acceptance meant here is not the patience that endures what goes against one, but the acceptance that abides unmoved within the dharma of non-arising; its proving-place is precisely 「雖行是助道法，而過聲聞、辟支佛地」 tr. "though he practises these dharmas that aid the path, he passes beyond the grounds of the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha." If this passage is read with the worldly meaning of patient endurance, then what the whole passage says has nothing to do with acceptance, and instead becomes a suspicion of misplaced slips.
Do not read with mind and without mind as two kinds of bodhisattvas or two stages. The treatise-author is explaining the one sentence the Buddha himself speaks, 「以有、無心行檀波羅蜜」 tr. "practises dānapāramitā with mind and without mind," and the two gates are both tied to one practice of one person: what with mind is tied to is sarvajñā, the Buddha's virtues, and beings; what without mind is parted from is the three thoughts of giver, recipient, and the thing given. If it is read as with mind being low and without mind high, or as first with mind and afterwards without mind, then the section 「念諸佛種種無量功德，憐愍眾生故布施」 tr. "keeping in mind the buddhas' all kinds of immeasurable merits, and giving out of pity for beings" has nowhere to be placed—and that is precisely the practice this treatise praises everywhere.
Do not read 「餘五波羅蜜，亦如是」 tr. "the remaining five perfections are also like this" as the treatise-author abridging and not explaining. This sentence is the treatise-author's plain showing of the method of inference by example: the with mind and without mind, the not giving rise to the three thoughts, and the not receiving worldly retribution spoken of within dāna hold for all five perfections. If it is read as an abbreviation, then the skilful means this chapter establishes becomes only a matter of the one gate of giving, contrary to the purport of the sūtra segment, which raises the six perfections together.
Bearing on Practice
The first use to be had is to take 「尚難得，何況不」 tr. "still hard to obtain, how much more one who does not" as a sentence for shining on oneself every day. The Buddha uses this syntax twice, and what is raised in the first member each time is causes and conditions as full as making offerings to the buddhas, planting roots of goodness, and obtaining true friends. If what the practitioner does through the day falls far short even of the first member, he need not go on to ask about the second member; if he feels himself already among those of the first member, that word 「尚」 tr. "still" is precisely the reminder—complete in causes and conditions and still finding it hard, the hardness lies in skilful means, and he should turn back to look at the knowing and seeing with which he practises, not turn back to add more practices.
The second use to be had is to take the four phrases of the Buddha's answer as an order of examination for the gate of practice. Far from the power of skilful means, not hearing the power of skilful means from the buddhas, the roots of goodness planted not complete, not constantly following the teaching of the good friend—the four phrases can be turned round and asked of oneself: toward the teaching of the good friend, do I follow it constantly or only now and then? Are the roots of goodness I plant complete or only half? The Dharma I hear—do I hear its outward matters, or do I hear through to skilful means? Between me and the power of skilful means, is there distance or closeness? The four questions go from coarse into fine; when the last question can be answered, the first three become clear of themselves.
The third use to be had is that the bone of the sentences of the passages on the six perfections can be used to examine oneself perfection by perfection. The proving-place of each perfection lies in that one sentence of knowing and seeing after 「何以故」 tr. "Why?", while what is parted from has its own name in each: when giving, are there or are there not the thought of giving and the thought of a recipient? When keeping morality, is there or is there not falling into stinginess and greed, breaking morality, and the other unwholesome things, the prides, and the minds of the two vehicles? When practising the factors of the path, is there or is there not a hidden thought of taking the fruit and its realisation? When going in and out of the dhyānas, is there or is there not a tasting of their retribution? When entering the deep absorptions, is there or is there not a mind of realising and taking? When training in the dharmas of the Buddha ground, is there or is there not a falling back because one has not yet obtained? The six questions each ask according to its practice, and need not be mixed into one question.
The fourth use to be had is that the dog lying starving can serve as a mirror. The treatise-author's simile shows no mercy: one who seeks diligently still does not obtain, how much less one who lies there and hopes to obtain. If a practitioner, having read prajñā long while his gate of practice grows sparser by the day, excuses himself at every turn with 「畢竟空」 tr. "ultimate emptiness," he should pick out this simile and shine it on himself once—if the emptiness one studies makes one slack in cultivating merit, that emptiness is certainly not the emptiness the treatise-author speaks of, because in the same passage where the treatise-author speaks of emptiness there stands precisely the sentence 「精進修福尚不可得」 tr. "even cultivating merit with vigour, it is unfindable."
The fifth use to be had is that the one thought of the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent can be taken up and used directly. What is given is measured and limited, and yet he is not disheartened by this; instead he knows for himself that his merit in former lives was thin, and vows to practise deeply—this one thought is most apt for the beginner. In daily use, if what one can give is little and whom one can benefit is near, there is no need to be ashamed of this, nor any need to be content with it; following the sequence of the three benefits the treatise-author brings out—the benefit of this life, the benefit of later lives, the benefit of the path and its virtue—tie the one gift before one's eyes to the last item, and then even measured and limited giving is the practice of dānapāramitā.
Further Resonances
The backbone of this chapter is one section of sūtra text and one section of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins from Subhūti addressing the Buddha, asking whether a bodhisattva-mahāsattva who does not make offerings to the buddhas, does not fulfil the roots of goodness, and does not obtain true friends will obtain sarvajñā; the Buddha answers that making offerings to the buddhas, planting roots of goodness, and obtaining true friends, the omniscience of all kinds is still hard to obtain, how much more not making offerings, not planting, not obtaining; Subhūti asks again why, having made offerings and planted and obtained friends, the omniscience of all kinds is hard to obtain, and the Buddha answers: far from the power of skilful means, not hearing the power of skilful means from the buddhas, the roots of goodness planted not complete, not constantly following the teaching of the good friend; Subhūti asks a third time what the power of skilful means is, such that practising it one obtains the omniscience of all kinds, and the Buddha then shows it one by one through the six perfections—the dānapāramitā passage says that with a thought that accords with sarvajñā he gives to a Buddha, a pratyekabuddha, a śrāvaka, a human, a non-human, without giving rise to the thought of giving or the thought of a recipient, taking as the reason that he contemplates all dharmas as empty of specific marks, non-arising, without fixed mark, without anything turning, and enters the real mark of all dharmas, the mark of being without making and non-rising, and that he increases the roots of goodness, practises dāna, purifies buddha-lands, and brings beings to accomplishment, and yet does not receive worldly retribution; the śīlapāramitā passage says that keeping morality he does not fall into lust, anger, and delusion, nor into the afflictions, the entanglements and bonds, nor into stinginess and greed, breaking morality, hatred, laziness, a scattered mind, folly and delusion, the prides, and so on up to the mind of a śrāvaka or a pratyekabuddha, its reason and its fruit being the same as before; the kṣāntipāramitā passage says that because the power of skilful means is accomplished he practises the path of seeing the truths and the path of reflection and yet does not take the four fruits of the śramaṇa, that though he practises the dharmas that aid the path he passes beyond the grounds of the two vehicles, and concludes it as the bodhisattva's acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; the vīryapāramitā passage says that he enters the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions, and though he goes in and out of the dhyānas he does not receive the retribution, knowing the dhyānas and absorptions to be empty of specific marks and purifying buddha-lands and bringing beings to accomplishment; the dhyānapāramitā passage says that he enters the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions and yet does not realise the four fruits of the śramaṇa; the prajñāpāramitā passage says that he trains in the Buddha's ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion, and so on up to: while not yet having obtained the omniscience of all kinds, not yet having purified buddha-lands, and not yet having brought beings to accomplishment, in the interval he should practise thus, and concludes with practising prajñāpāramitā thus, not receiving retribution. Treatise ① is led off with a Question: first it asks why Subhūti asks so coarse a question and repeats his question word for word, and in the answer brings out two views of what someone says—one, that within ultimate emptiness planting and not planting are equal and without difference, and so doubts whether one might obtain sarvajñā without planting roots of goodness; two, the doubt that there are all kinds of other gates to obtaining sarvajñā and one need not plant roots of goodness—and concludes them with: for this reason he asks the Buddha; next it cites the Buddha's answer, still hard to obtain, how much more one who does not, and brings out Subhūti's objection that within ultimate emptiness there is neither merit nor non-merit, and the Buddha's answer that because within worldly truth there is merit it is obtained; next it states for itself that Subhūti asks for the sake of beings who cling to being without anything existent and that the Buddha answers by not clinging to an existent dharma, brings out the words that even cultivating merit with vigour it is unfindable, how much less without cultivating merit, and takes as a simile the man of the path who begs for food from one house to the next and obtains none and strikes with his staff the hungry dog lying starving; next it brings out Subhūti's asking why, having these causes and conditions of making offerings to the buddhas and so on, he does not obtain their retribution, and the Buddha's answer that it is because he is apart from skilful means, and the treatise-author explains that skilful means is namely prajñāpāramitā, and explains its marks in three phrases: though he sees the form bodies of the buddhas he does not see the Dharma body with the eye of wisdom; though he has planted roots of goodness in a small portion they are not complete; though he obtains good friends he does not keep close to them and consult and receive from them; next it cites the causes and conditions the Buddha himself states and divides practising dāna into the two gates of with mind and without mind—with mind is giving with a mind that accords with sarvajñā, keeping in mind the buddhas' merits, and pitying beings; without mind is not giving rise to the three thoughts of giver, recipient, and the thing given—and explains layer by layer that the thing given is empty of specific marks, ever unarisen, without fixed mark, cannot be turned, abiding within suchness, and enters the real mark of all dharmas, the mark of being without making and non-rising, concluding that all dharmas can make nothing, so he does not give rise to a haughty mind and hopes for nothing; next it gathers it all in: because of such power of skilful means he is able to increase the roots of goodness and part from the roots that are not good, to teach and transform beings, and to purify buddha-worlds; next it says that whether giving much or giving little he does not receive worldly retribution, and brings out the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent, who gives in measured and limited amounts and reflects that in former lives he did not practise deep merit, that now he should deeply, really, and much practise dānapāramitā so as to give widely to immeasurable beings, with the benefit of this life, the benefit of later lives, and the benefit of the path and its virtue; at the end it concludes that without such skilful means, though one makes offerings to the buddhas, plants roots of goodness, and obtains true friends, one still does not obtain it, how much less one who does not make offerings, and with the remaining five perfections being also like this extends it to the rest.
Of the veins of meaning between this chapter and the chapters before and after, three lines can be seen. First, continuing from what precedes: the final section of the preceding chapter says that the bodhisattva should make offerings to the buddhas, plant roots of goodness, and never be apart from true friends; this chapter takes these very three matters as the starting point of its question and asks in reverse whether they may be lacking, so the rise of this chapter is a probing question that overturns the conclusion of the preceding chapter, not a separate start; the preceding chapter having said that one practises prajñā not for the sake of the roots of goodness, this chapter then says that without the roots of goodness one does not obtain; looking at the two chapters together, one sees the continuity of practising not for the sake of the roots of goodness and yet not being able to be without the roots of goodness. Second, within the chapter it makes a turn of its own: the first half, the sūtra text, turns from asking whether the three matters may be lacking into the showing of the power of skilful means through the six perfections, its pivot being Subhūti's question 「何等是方便力」 tr. "what is the power of skilful means"; the latter half, the treatise text, turns from explaining the coarse question into the practice with mind and without mind, its pivot being the treatise-author's words 「方便者，所謂般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Skilful means, namely prajñāpāramitā." Between the two turns, the two Chinese characters 「方便」 tr. "skilful means" are in the one what is asked and in the other what is explained. Third, handing on to what follows: this chapter concludes that without skilful means the three matters are all unaccomplished, and the next chapter then takes "Training in All" as its title—since the roots of goodness planted must be accomplished by skilful means, the gates trained in should also be all-pervading before they are complete; the reader may look at the two chapters together.
Among the explanations of the ancient masters and the differences of the texts, three matters can be recorded for this chapter. First, the chapter title in four forms: this edition's base text writes 「種善根品第七十三」 tr. "Planting Roots of Goodness, the Seventy-third"; the Song and Yuan editions change 「種」 tr. "planting" to 「眾」 tr. "many" and write "The Many Roots of Goodness"; the Palace edition calls it otherwise "The Three Roots of Goodness" and inverts the order of chapter number and chapter name; the Ishiyama-dera manuscript, besides the chapter name, attaches a separate sūtra name, writes "Roots of Goodness and Skilful Means", and reports its own fascicle number; and the chapter order in the Shōgozō manuscript and the Ishiyama-dera manuscript is moreover in both one place lower than in the base text. The sūtra explained has as its own chapter heading "The Three Goods", the Seventy-third, a name different from this treatise's "Planting Roots of Goodness" while the meaning is connected; the Palace edition's variant name is precisely close to the sūtra's chapter heading, and there may be a trace of the chapter names of the two works touching on each other; this is recorded as it is, without forcing an explanation of which came first. The variant names in their several forms are recorded side by side without judgement; the full register of the variant readings of the texts is detailed in the Apparatus layer. Second, Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra has a continuing section on this chapter; the heading he sets up follows the sūtra explained and is written "The Three Goods", the Seventy-third, not using this treatise's name "Planting Roots of Goodness", from which it can be seen that his commentary relies on the sūtra's system of chapter names and not on the treatise's system of chapter names. He explains the reason for the name, saying: 「此明供養諸佛、脩善根、植善知識，皆名為善，故云三善。」 tr. "This makes clear that making offerings to the buddhas, cultivating roots of goodness, and planting good friends are all named good; therefore it is called the three goods."—explaining the heading of the three goods precisely by the sūtra's three matters, which points to the same thing as this treatise's taking these three matters as the starting point of its question. Jizang further brings out a variant name of his own, saying: 「亦三善根品，此品中論菩薩善根，故以目品。」 tr. "It is also the chapter of the Three Roots of Goodness; within this chapter the bodhisattva's roots of goodness are discussed, and therefore this is used to name the chapter."—this name accords precisely with the chapter title "The Three Roots of Goodness" of this edition's Palace edition, from which it can be seen that the differences among the forms of the chapter name are not found only in the collation notes of the canons; in the commentaries of the ancient masters too they stand side by side. As for the syntax of the Buddha's answer, Jizang explains it, saying: 「佛舉有破無，明行三多尚難得道，況不行耶？」 tr. "The Buddha raises existence to break non-existence, making clear that even practising the three abundantly it is still hard to obtain the path—how much less not practising them?"—what is called raising existence to break non-existence is to use the words that even with the three matters complete it is still hard to obtain the path to break the mind of the assembly of the time that clung to non-existence. As for why this is so, Jizang ties it to the preceding chapter, saying: 「上品是用無破有，故云不為善故行。時眾著無，故舉有破無。」 tr. "The preceding chapter used non-existence to break existence; therefore it said that one practises not for the sake of the good. The assembly of the time clung to non-existence; therefore he raises existence to break non-existence."—the preceding chapter used non-existence to break existence and said that one practises not for the sake of the roots of goodness; this chapter in reverse uses existence to break non-existence and says that without the roots of goodness one does not obtain; one breaking and one establishing—this is precisely where the first line listed above lies. At the end he judges the presence or absence of skilful means by having something to be attained and having nothing to be attained; Jizang says: 「無方便有所得行三品多故難得道，有方便無所得行故易得道也。」 tr. "Without skilful means, practising the three kinds abundantly with something to be attained, therefore it is hard to obtain the path; with skilful means, practising with nothing to be attained, therefore it is easy to obtain the path."—this treatise glosses skilful means by prajñā, while Jizang judges skilful means by having something to be attained and having nothing to be attained; the two explanations are recorded side by side without judgement, and what they point to may be consulted together. The detail and brevity of what his commentary explains are detailed in the Apparatus layer. Third, the extant text of Huiying's Commentary stops at the preceding fascicle and does not reach this chapter; this is an absence of explanation, not an omission of mention; the phrase 「所種善根」 tr. "the roots of goodness planted" in Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises comes from his citing the matter before Dīpaṃkara Buddha in the Diamond Prajñā Sūtra in discussing goodness with something to be attained and with nothing to be attained; it is unrelated to this chapter and is not taken as continuing it; examining now the Tiantai line's Great Calming and Contemplation, Profound Meaning of the Lotus, and Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus, no citation of this chapter's title is seen either. The evidence of the ancient masters bearing on this chapter is very thin, unlike the thickness of other chapters of this treatise; it is recorded as it really is, and no inference is drawn.