大智度論 義疏通講 · 冊2Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Exposition Throughout · Vol. 2

Praise of the Perfections: Why Praise of the Unsurpassed Prajñā Comes to Rest on the Bodhisattva’s Appearing in the World

What Is Being Asked

The chapter is called “Praise of the Perfections”—praise of “perfection,” that is to say, praise of prajñāpāramitā. At the very opening of this chapter, the great śrāvakas—the venerable Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, Subhūti and Mahākāśyapa—together with the bodhisattvas and the householders of the fourfold assembly, all rise from their seats at once and praise prajñā with sixteen names; when the praise is finished, the Buddha approves it, 「如是如是」 tr. "just so, just so," and goes on in his own person to say: it is precisely because there are bodhisattvas that the paths of humans and gods are born in the world, that there are treasures of every kind and happiness of every kind. On the surface this is only a solemn passage of praise, yet beneath it lie several questions that are not easy to answer. First, why should the praise be led by these arhats, 「所作已辦」 tr. "who have done what was to be done"? Prajñā is plainly what bodhisattvas practise; by rights bodhisattvas should praise it themselves—why trouble arhats who have finished their work and seek nothing more? Second, when sixteen names are heaped together, are they in the end sixteen ornaments of praise, or sixteen faces of one and the same thing? Third, and the weightiest question: why does the Buddha at once turn a passage praising prajñā into ‘it is because of bodhisattvas that the world has everything’? What is praised is prajñā, yet the point of arrival is the bodhisattva and the happiness of the world—where is the sinew that joins them? What this chapter sets out to answer is precisely how the two words “praise of the perfections” can both reach the unsurpassed height of prajñā in their praise and come to rest on the real ground of the bodhisattva’s appearing in the world.

Passage by Passage

First, consider from whom the praise comes. Among five thousand bhikṣus the elders numbered more than a thousand, yet the sūtra names only four: Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, Subhūti and Mahākāśyapa. The treatise says that these four are immeasurable fields of merit in the present world—one is the Buddha’s right-hand disciple, one is the Buddha’s left-hand disciple, one cultivates non-contention and is foremost in practising emptiness, one is foremost in practising the twelve dhūta practices—and to name them is to name those among the śrāvakas most fit to bear witness. But a deeper objection follows at once: since these have already “done what was to be done,” why do they still praise prajñā? The treatise’s answer is of great importance: everyone knows that the arhats have already attained the undefiled path, while by comparison the bodhisattvas, though great in wisdom, have not yet cut off their fetters, and the world does not hold them in high regard; now these ones who have finished their work, who have a mind of kindness and compassion and are able to help the Buddha spread his teaching, are brought forward precisely to bear witness, and only so does the praise carry weight. In other words, letting the arhats lead the praise does not raise the arhats above the bodhisattvas; on the contrary, it is done to raise up the bodhisattva path, which the world does not yet hold in regard.

Second, the sixteen names are not a scattered heap but one matter advancing layer by layer. The first eight speak by way of “comparison”: because the path of the Buddha is the greatest, it is called “great”; because its wisdom is foremost, it is called “honoured”; because it can rightly guide the other five perfections, it is called “foremost”; because the five perfections do not reach it, it is called “superior”; because it can benefit oneself and benefit others, it is called “wondrous”; because no dharma surpasses it, it is called “unsurpassed”; because not a single dharma is equal to it, it is called “unequalled”; and because the buddhas are called “the unequalled,” and all are born from prajñā, it is called “equal to the unequalled.” The middle five turn to speak by way of “emptiness”: because it is ultimately pure and cannot be destroyed by idle discourse, it is called “like empty space”; because the own-mark of all dharmas cannot be found, it is called “emptiness of own-mark”; because the coming together of many conditions has no own-nature, it is called “emptiness of own-nature”; because within dharmas there is no dharma of their own, it is called “emptiness of all dharmas”; and so on up to its breaking down all dharmas so that nothing whatever exists, and even that non-existence does not exist—therefore it is called “emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas.” The last three return to speak by way of “function”: because there is no merit it does not gather in, as flowers open when the sun rises, it is called “opening all merits”; because when the sun of prajñā rises it brings all merits to accomplishment and is the root of all wholesome dharmas, it is called “accomplishing all merits”; because nothing in the world can topple or move it, it is called “indestructible.” At the end the treatise itself gathers these sixteen names up into a single sentence—the buddhas of the three times are all born from prajñā, and nothing in the world is equal to it, therefore it is said to be “incomparable,” and “incomparable” is precisely “equal to the unequalled.” It can be seen that the pivot lies exactly in 「無等等」 tr. "equal to the unequalled": the reason prajñā is unsurpassed does not lie in its having overpowered anyone, but in its being equal to the buddhas, that from which the buddhas are born.

Third, the praise having reached this point, the Buddha turns the thread of the discourse and says in his own words, ‘it is because of bodhisattvas that the world has everything.’ Because bodhisattvas come into the world, there are born the human path and the heavenly path, kṣatriyas, brahmins and householders, up to wheel-turning sage kings and the gods; there are born srota-āpannas, up to the buddhas; there are food and drink, clothing, bedding and dwellings, and treasures of every kind—maṇi jewels, pearls, coral, gold and silver; up to all the instruments of happiness among humans, in the heavens, and of freedom from desire—all come to be through bodhisattvas. This turn is no digression, but gives ground to the praise that went before: the unsurpassed height of prajñā is not a title hung in empty air; rather, the bodhisattva who practises in reliance on prajñā, abiding in the six perfections, himself practising giving and also teaching beings to give, appears in the world in order to give happiness to all beings; traced to its very bottom, the source of all that is good in the world is this bodhisattva who practises in accordance with the Dharma and also transforms others by means of the Dharma. To praise prajñā, then, is at the same time to point out the bodhisattva’s place as the source for the world.

Fourth, this place as source at once draws out two real matters that need clarifying. The first: since wealth, food and treasures come to be because of bodhisattvas, why must people still toil and labour hard before they obtain them? The treatise answers: in a kalpa of famine people obtain nothing at all even if they exhaust their strength, which shows that wealth and food are brought about by the power of beings’ merit, and that the power of merit was taught to them by bodhisattvas who, life after life, praised giving, keeping the precepts, and the good mind; the causes and conditions of these three kinds of merit are deep or shallow, and so what is obtained is superior, middling or inferior—the superior obtain it as soon as they think of it, to the middling offerings come of themselves, and the inferior obtain it only by applying effort. The second: why is it said of happy things that they 「皆由菩薩得」 tr. "are all obtained through bodhisattvas"? The treatise names three kinds—heavenly happiness, human happiness, and the happiness of nirvāṇa—and says that all come to be through bodhisattvas, and it cites the Buddha’s own words: the bodhisattva abides in the six perfections, himself practising giving and also teaching beings to give; although beings do the practising themselves, without a bodhisattva to teach them they would never practise at all. Taking the two matters together, the bodhisattva’s being ‘the source of everything’ is the cause that consists in teaching and transforming, not a cause that bypasses beings’ own merit and karma to give things to them directly.

Fifth, this forces out the sharpest question of the whole chapter: heavenly happiness and human happiness are exactly where beings give rise to fetters, and greed further gives rise to hatred—is the bodhisattva not at fault in teaching people the causes and conditions of a happiness that gives rise to fetters? The treatise says decisively, 「菩薩無咎」 tr. "the bodhisattva is without fault," and gives several explanations in succession. First it sets up the frame with two similes: as when a person with a good mind digs a well, and a blind man loses his footing of his own accord, falls into the well and dies, the one who dug the well is without offence; as when a person prepares good food and gives it to others, and the one who receives it does not know moderation, eats too much and falls ill, the one who gave the food is without offence—giving happiness and teaching merit are a pure mind of kindness and compassion; beings are unable to receive them purely, and the fault does not lie with the bodhisattva. Then it completes the argument from four angles: if the buddhas and bodhisattvas did not teach beings to make merit, there would be no gods, no humans, no asuras, and only the three evil destinies would grow; beings give rise to greed because of happiness, to hatred because of greed, to suffering because of hatred, to offence because of suffering, and the bodhisattva’s giving of happiness is precisely meant to spare beings from falling into this fifth, grave offence; happiness does not of itself necessarily give rise to greed—with right recollection happiness becomes a cause of merit, and only with wrong recollection does it give rise to greedy desire; and the bodhisattva acts precisely to let beings receive happiness in reliance on right recollection.

Sixth, at the very end the treatise leaves one most honest boundary—only the Buddha alone is without error and without fault. These bodhisattvas have not yet accomplished the path of the Buddha and have not yet obtained the buddha-eye, and that is why they use these three kinds of happiness—heavenly happiness, human happiness, the happiness of nirvāṇa—to teach and transform beings who can be liberated; as for the buddhas, they teach and transform only by the happiness of liberation. This one sentence sets the earlier “the bodhisattva is without fault” back in its proper place: the bodhisattva’s giving of happiness and teaching of merit are indeed without fault, yet in the end they are the expedient skilful means of those who have not yet obtained the buddha-eye, not the ultimate; the ultimate freedom from error and fault lies only with the Buddha. Having carried its praise of the perfections to the highest point, the chapter closes by holding itself back with this sentence, and this is exactly where the chapter shows its sense of proportion most clearly.

Do Not Misread

Do not read the sixteen names as sixteen different kinds of prajñā, or as sixteen ornate phrases of praise piled together; they are sixteen faces of one and the same prajñā, running from its superiority by comparison, through its superiority in the meaning of emptiness, to its superiority in function, and returning in the end to the single meaning of “equal to the unequalled.” Nor should you read ‘it is because of bodhisattvas that the world has everything’ as meaning that the bodhisattva is a creator who bestows things out of nothing; the treatise says it plainly: wealth, food and the instruments of happiness are brought about by the power of beings’ merit, and the power of merit comes to be through the bodhisattva’s teaching and transforming—it is the cause that consists in teaching and transforming, not a direct giving that goes around beings’ own karma. Still less should you read the arhats’ leading of the praise as meaning that arhats are higher than bodhisattvas; bringing forward those who have finished their work and seek nothing to bear witness is done precisely to raise up the bodhisattva path, whose fetters are not yet cut off and which the world does not yet hold in regard. Finally, do not read ‘the bodhisattva teaches happiness’ as the bodhisattva egging people on to greedy attachment—giving happiness is for the causes and conditions of merit under right recollection; when beings give rise to greed through wrong recollection, the fault lies with beings; and the reason this method is still not ultimate, the treatise itself has already pointed out with ‘only the Buddha is without error and without fault.’

Bearing on Practice

This chapter can be used as several mirrors. When reading the sixteen names, you can ask yourself: in my heart do I truly set prajñā in the place of “great, honoured, foremost,” or do I praise it with my lips while in fact still holding worldly dharmas to be highest? When enjoying favourable circumstances, you can think of ‘it is because of bodhisattvas that the world has everything’—the good conditions of every kind that I enjoy at this moment are, traced to the root, the fruit of others who practised in accordance with the Dharma and taught by means of the Dharma; so as you enjoy them, keep in mind the repaying of kindness, and also resolve to become that cause of teaching and transforming. In dealing with people and giving them help, remember the proportion of digging a well with a good mind and giving good food to others—kindness and compassion must be matched with the skilful means of wisdom, taking account of whether the other person can receive purely, so that good intentions do not turn instead into another’s harm. And the most important mirror of all is to keep ‘only the Buddha is without error and without fault’ always at heart: even the bodhisattvas’ teaching and transforming by the three kinds of happiness still carries something not yet complete, how much more so oneself; so when doing good and liberating others, on the one hand give yourself to it wholeheartedly, and on the other never dare to regard yourself as faultless, leaving true freedom from error and fault to the Buddha, and keeping it also as the direction toward which you yourself are heading.

Further Resonances

Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter phrase by phrase, and the first thing he brought out was precisely why the chapter is named “Praise of the Perfections” and not “Praise of Prajñā”—the ancient master says that “perfection” extends to all six perfections, and that here it is precisely “perfection” that is praised, so the chapter takes “Praise of the Perfections” as its name. Another ancient master divides the whole chapter into two parts: the first part is the four great śrāvakas together with the bodhisattvas and the fourfold assembly praising with one voice, explicitly marked as “sixteen phrases”; the second part is the Buddha’s confirming and completing, approving what they praised; and, following the treatise’s explanation of the phrase “rightly guides the five perfections,” he extends it into the simile ‘the five perfections are like a broth, prajñā is like salt’—a broth becomes savoury only by means of salt, and the five perfections are accomplished only by means of prajñā, which accords exactly with this treatise’s meaning, 「能正導五度故名第一」 tr. "because it can rightly guide the five perfections, it is called foremost." These readings each have their own provenance; here only their approach is recorded, without judging which is higher. Brought back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a finer outline, but this chapter’s rewriting of “praise”: true praise of the perfections is not adding a few more fine words for prajñā, but recognising prajñā as that from which the buddhas are born and on which bodhisattvas rely; and when the praise reaches its highest point, it is still willing to say of itself, 「唯佛一人無錯無失」 tr. "only the Buddha alone is without error and without fault"—raising prajñā to the unsurpassed, yet not passing off one’s own incompleteness as the ultimate. Between this letting go and this drawing in lies exactly the sense of proportion that “praise of the perfections” teaches: to strive with all one’s strength toward prajñā, toward omniscience, and not to rest content halfway.

The Mark of the Tongue: Why the Buddha Again Puts Forth the Mark of the Tongue, and Why He Bids Subhūti Speak Prajñā

What Is Being Asked

This chapter opens with the World-Honored One putting forth the mark of the tongue, covering the whole of the three-thousand great-thousand world, and from the mark of the tongue sending forth light of countless colours that shines everywhere on the buddha-worlds of the ten directions. The bodhisattvas of the ten directions, seeing the light, fall into doubt, and each asks his own buddha “by whose spiritual power” there is so great a light; the buddhas answer that it is Śākyamuni of the Sahā world in the west, who sends forth this light 「為諸菩薩摩訶薩說般若波羅蜜故」 tr. "because he is speaking prajñāpāramitā for the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas". Thereupon the bodhisattvas and the gods of the ten directions bring flowers to make offering, and the flowers scattered in empty space are transformed into “a great jewelled tower of four pillars”; a hundred thousand koṭi of people in the assembly make vows because of this, and the Buddha, knowing that with their utmost sincerity they have already attained acceptance of the Dharma, smiles and sends forth light, and says to Ānanda: these hundred thousand koṭi people shall all become buddhas after sixty-eight koṭi of kalpas, 「劫名華積」 tr. "the kalpa named Heap of Flowers", 「佛皆號覺花」 tr. "the buddhas all called Flower of Awakening". On the surface this is only a solemn scene of sending forth light and summoning the assembly, but beneath it lie pressed several questions not easy to answer. First, the Buddha already displayed the mark of the tongue in the very first chapter—why must he put it forth again here? Second, this sūtra is named wisdom, and 「舍利弗智慧第一」 tr. "Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom", yet the Buddha does not bid Śāriputra but instead bids Subhūti to speak prajñā—what, after all, is Śāriputra lacking? Third, when those hundred thousand koṭi people become buddhas, why should the kalpa and the buddha-name both take precisely the word “flower”? What this chapter sets out to answer is exactly how this scene of the tongue’s light leads in a whole prajñā sūtra, and on what ground the one who speaks prajñā is singled out.

Passage by Passage

First, see for what purpose this scene of the tongue’s light appears. The World-Honored One puts forth the mark of the tongue to cover the three-thousand great-thousand world, and from the mark of the tongue sends forth light shining everywhere in the ten directions; the bodhisattvas of the ten directions see the light and ask, and the answer they receive holds only one essential sentence—that light is sent forth by Śākyamuni “because he is speaking prajñāpāramitā for the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas.” It is plain, then, that this light from the mark of the tongue covering the great-thousand world does not appear as a display of supernormal power for its own sake; the whole pageant serves one matter only: the speaking of prajñā. Sending forth light from the mark of the tongue to summon the assembly is setting forth, first by an auspicious sign before the assembly, the fact that a whole prajñā sūtra is about to be spoken. This connects with the treatise-author’s first question: since the mark of the tongue was already put forth in the very first chapter, why is it put forth again now? The treatise answers crisply—this matter is 「非一日一坐說」 tr. "not spoken in one day or at one sitting". Putting forth the mark of the tongue before was for gathering the great assembly and liberating all beings, and at that time it was Śāriputra who asked; now it is another time and another group of people, and 「須菩提巧說空故」 tr. "because Subhūti skilfully speaks of emptiness", the Buddha bids him speak again, and so the light of the mark of the tongue is put forth again. Putting it forth again is not repetition; rather, each new speaking of prajñā requires this auspicious sign of summoning the assembly to be set up anew.

Next, see how the one who speaks prajñā is singled out. The treatise-author himself sets up two layers of question. The first question is: “Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom”—what, after all, is he lacking, that the Buddha instead bids Subhūti? The treatise does not answer first in terms of higher and lower, but says only that the Buddha’s disciples are many, and when one has finished speaking he bids another in turn, just as a king with many ministers likewise “speaks with them together in turn”; it is plain that not bidding Śāriputra does not mean that Śāriputra falls short in anything. Then a further question presses: if it is by turn, there are also many such as Maudgalyāyana and Kāśyapa—why do they not each get their turn one by one? Only now does the treatise answer with the real pivot—「此經名智慧」 tr. "this sūtra is named wisdom", and Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom, so he is the one questioned first; as for whom to bid to speak, there is a separate choosing. Subhūti is bidden on the strength of two great causes and conditions: first, he 「好行無諍定」 tr. "delights in practising the concentration of non-contention", is always kind and compassionate toward beings, and though he cannot liberate beings broadly, he always helps bodhisattvas and “asks the Buddha about the affairs of bodhisattvas”; second, he 「好深行空法」 tr. "delights in practising the dharma of emptiness deeply", and 「般若中多說空法」 tr. "in prajñā the dharma of emptiness is much spoken of". Taking the two questions together: the questioning arises from Śāriputra, foremost in wisdom, and the proclaiming is entrusted to Subhūti, who practises the dharma of emptiness deeply; the standard for singling out the one who speaks the Dharma lies not in the height or lowness of name and rank, but in whether his practice and understanding can accord with the emptiness that this sūtra so much speaks of.

Having explained this far, the treatise gathers the narrative it has cited into one sentence: the several layers of meaning—“the light of the mark of the tongue,” “the coming and going of the bodhisattvas,” and even “the offering of the flower-tower”—are all “as said before”; they have already been spoken of in the very first chapter and are not explained again here. Then the treatise-author, following the sūtra text, retells that scene: beings see this “great power of supernormal abilities,” see the mark of the tongue covering the three-thousand great-thousand world, and moreover hear and see the buddhas speaking the Dharma in the great assembly, and on the spot attain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, vowing that their own supernormal transformations in the future shall also be like the Buddha’s; the Buddha, knowing that beings have attained acceptance, smiles, and the meaning of this “smile,” and how the Buddha replies, are likewise all “as said before.” Last it returns to the prediction: the one who has attained acceptance shall become a buddha after sixty-eight koṭi of kalpas, and it was precisely because he saw the bodhisattvas of the ten directions bringing “seven-jewelled flowers” to make offering, which turned into “a seven-jewelled flower-tower,” that 「其心清淨」 tr. "his mind became pure" and he attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; just because the condition of attaining the path is bound up with this one tower of flowers, when he becomes a buddha 「劫名華積」 tr. "the kalpa is named Heap of Flowers", 「佛皆號覺華」 tr. "the buddhas are all called Flower of Awakening". The names are not put on at random; rather, the very event of awakening to the path at the outset is recorded in the name of the kalpa and the name of the buddha.

Do Not Misread

Do not read the second putting-forth of the mark of the tongue as the sūtra repeating itself, or as the treatise-author, having nothing to say, serving up leftovers; the treatise says plainly that this matter is “not spoken in one day or at one sitting”—it is a fresh summoning of the assembly for another time, other people, another speaking of prajñā, not a re-enactment of the first chapter. Nor read the Buddha’s not bidding Śāriputra but bidding Subhūti instead as Śāriputra’s wisdom falling short; what the sūtra asks is 「竟何所少」 tr. "what, after all, is he lacking", but what the treatise answers is turn and choosing—Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom, and precisely for this is he questioned first; that the bidding to speak falls to Subhūti is because he practises the dharma of emptiness deeply and accords with the emptiness that prajñā so much speaks of, and these two matters do not obstruct each other. Still less read this grand scene of auspicious signs—the light of the mark of the tongue, the great jewelled tower, the seven-jewelled flowers—as a mere show of supernormal power; at one end it leads in the prajñā about to be spoken, at the other it is the condition for beings’ awakening to the path; it is doctrine, not theatre. Finally, do not read “the kalpa named Heap of Flowers” and “the buddhas all called Flower of Awakening” as names the Buddha picked up at random; the treatise has already pointed out that, because on seeing the offering of flowers the mind became pure and attained acceptance, the name is set up from the flower—the name is set up on the ground of the event of awakening to the path, and is no coincidence. As for the three words “as said before,” do not take them either as the treatise-author lazily skipping over something; they point back to the first chapter, telling the reader to look where it has already been said, so that the treatise need not trouble to repeat it.

Bearing on Practice

This chapter can serve as several mirrors to look into. When listening to the Dharma, think of that light from the mark of the tongue covering the great-thousand world—what the whole scene of auspicious signs leads in is, in truth, only one prajñā sūtra; then the single sentence of prajñā one hears at this moment is exactly what such a solemn pageant was for, and should be cherished and received with a mind of utmost sincerity. Of those hundred thousand koṭi people who attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, the sūtra points out only one thing, 「至心」 tr. "utmost sincerity"; it is plain that the threshold of awakening-entry lies not in the wonder of seeing auspicious signs, but in whether the mind that receives the Dharma is sincere or not. Think again of the choosing of the one bidden to speak: the Buddha does not simply take the one foremost in wisdom, but instead takes Subhūti, who practises the dharma of emptiness deeply and also always “asks the Buddha about the affairs of bodhisattvas”—this is a reminder to oneself that understanding and practice must accord, that emptiness is not something one can merely speak of with the mouth, but something the mind truly consents to practise deeply; and compassion, too, does not lie in the pageant of liberating broadly—to be willing always to help others and willing to ask about the Dharma on others’ behalf is equally to be a vessel for speaking the Dharma. Lastly, look at that passage where one receives a prediction through seeing flowers and the kalpa is named Heap of Flowers: awakening to the path is often bound up with a single pure condition, and the words “his mind became pure” matter most of all—seeing the same one tower of flowers, the one whose mind is pure attains acceptance right there; so in ordinary days one should guard and keep one’s own mind, so that when a condition is met it can be received purely, and that condition for awakening to the path will not pass by in vain.

Further Resonances

Later, ancient masters wrote commentaries on this chapter phrase by phrase, and the first thing they singled out was precisely why this chapter comes and why the mark of the tongue is put forth again. One ancient master, following the intent of this treatise, says that prajñā is not spoken to its end in a single assembly, and therefore the mark of the tongue is displayed again; other ancient masters divide the whole chapter into five parts or into three parts—from sending forth light to summon the assembly, the gathering of the time and the assembly, the reappearance of auspicious signs because of the offering, and the awakening of the assembly present, up to the joyful prediction—outlining it layer by layer. As for the meaning taken from the mark of the tongue, there is also an ancient master who, using the cause and condition in a jātaka (birth-story) of the Buddha in which a physiognomist examines the tongue—the tongue that covers is a sign of not speaking falsely—explains the mark of the tongue as proof of not speaking falsely, saying that the one who receives the command to speak the Dharma accords with the marks of the Dharma and what he speaks is not empty, and hence this chapter comes; this belongs to that ancient master’s own teaching exposition, and this jātaka is not seen in the text of sūtra or treatise; his approach is recorded without judging whether it is higher or lower. As for how Flower of Awakening and Heap of Flowers came by their names, the ancient masters mostly reconcile them following the intent of the treatise—because on seeing the offering of flowers one awakened to the path, the name of the kalpa and the name of the buddha are set up from the flower; and there is further an ancient master who compares this obtaining of a name from flowers with the obtaining of Śāriputra’s future buddha-name in the Lotus Sūtra, distinguishing the difference in their kinds of cause and condition. These readings each have their own provenance; here only their approach is recorded. Brought back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a finer outline table, but this chapter’s transformation of auspicious signs: the mark of the tongue and its light covering the great-thousand world are not for dazzling with wonders, but only for leading in a prajñā sūtra about to be spoken; and the choosing of the one who speaks the Dharma, and the naming of the one who awakens to the path, each have their real sinew—what the auspicious signs point to is always that Dharma which is to be spoken, and that mind which purely receives the Dharma.

The Three Designations: If No Dharma Is Seen That Is Called “Bodhisattva,” How Can He Still Be Taught Prajñā?

What Is Being Asked

At the very opening of this chapter the Buddha instructs Subhūti: 「汝當教諸菩薩摩訶薩般若波羅蜜」 tr. "You should teach the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas prajñāpāramitā"; and the assembly, the moment they hear it, begin to doubt—is this Subhūti’s own power of wisdom, or is it the Buddha’s power? Subhūti answers decisively: whatever the Buddha’s disciples speak is all the Buddha’s power, 「佛說如燈」 tr. "the Buddha’s teaching is like a lamp," and all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas truly have no power to speak prajñā for bodhisattvas. Yet immediately afterwards Subhūti himself puts to the Buddha a still harder question—he says 「我等不見是法名菩薩，云何教菩薩般若波羅蜜」 tr. "We do not see this dharma called ‘bodhisattva’; how are we to teach the bodhisattva prajñāpāramitā?" The Buddha’s reply is the general proposition of the whole chapter: prajñāpāramitā, the bodhisattva, and the word “bodhisattva” all 「但有名字」 tr. "only have names," and this name 「不在內，不在外，不在中間」 tr. "is not inside, not outside, not in between"; then follow seven similes in a row—from this name “I,” through the body and the five aggregates, the six faculties, the six objects and the eighteen elements, all the way to the buddhas of the past and to dreams, echoes, reflections and illusions—all of them only provisional names that exist through coming together. The sūtra finally gathers it into one sentence: a bodhisattva practising prajñā should train in 「名假施設、受假施設、法假施設」 tr. "the provisional designation of names, the provisional designation of receiving, the provisional designation of dharmas." On the surface it is only a teaching that breaks down names and marks, but beneath it lie several questions not easily answered. First, since 「不見是法名菩薩」 tr. "this dharma called ‘bodhisattva’ is not seen," and even the bodhisattva cannot be found, how can one still teach him prajñā? Second, what exactly are these three designations, and how are the three to be told apart? Third, and the most crucial question of all—if prajñā and the bodhisattva are both only provisional names, both unfindable, then what is it, in the end, that the Buddha takes such pains to have someone proclaim, and to teach people to cultivate and train in? What this chapter sets out to answer is exactly this one matter: speaking the real mark of all dharmas without destroying provisional names—though provisional names are unfindable, it is precisely upon provisional names, following the sequence of the three designations, that one must walk through to the prajñā of the real mark of all dharmas.

Passage by Passage

First, why the Buddha does not speak himself but instead commands Subhūti. The treatise-author sets up a question of his own: the Buddha does not speak himself, and the bodhisattvas surpass the śrāvakas in merit, in wisdom and in sharpness of faculties—why then single out Subhūti for the command? The treatise gives several layers of causes and conditions in succession: earlier, in the chapter on the Mark of the Tongue, there were already two causes and conditions for having Subhūti speak; again, the Buddha’s majestic virtue is weighty and venerable, so that the assembly, in awe and reverence, dared not question the Buddha; again, when beings saw the Buddha’s body surpassing Sumeru, his tongue covering the three-thousand great-thousand world, and his emitting immeasurable light, their minds were all startled and afraid and they dared not put questions; therefore the Buddha commanded Subhūti to speak the Dharma on the assembly’s behalf, and sanctioned him: 「汝所說者，皆是佛力」 tr. "What you speak is all the Buddha’s power." The treatise supplies one further reason: prajñāpāramitā is of two kinds—「一者、共聲聞、菩薩合說，二者、但與諸法身菩薩說」 tr. "first, that spoken jointly, in common to śrāvakas and bodhisattvas; second, that spoken only to the dharma-body bodhisattvas." What is to be spoken here is the kind spoken mixed together in one place for śrāvakas and bodhisattvas; precisely because it is spoken mixed, there must be someone equal to a mixed assembly, to lead it in raising questions and to respond and bring the teaching forth, and so Subhūti was commanded to be the first of those speaking the Dharma, with Maitreya, Śāriputra and Śakra Devānām Indra also sharing that task. It is plain, then, that commanding Subhūti was in part a selection made according to the conditions of the assembly and in part set up for this one kind of ‘jointly spoken’ prajñā; and between this and the fact that what the speaker speaks is all the Buddha’s power, the two matters do not obstruct each other. This joins up with what Subhūti himself said to Śāriputra: all that śrāvakas speak and know is received from the Buddha’s majestic spiritual power, 「譬如傳語人」 tr. "like a person who relays words"; if one does not meet the Buddha’s Dharma, the eye of wisdom sees nothing, 「譬如夜行險道，無人執燈，必不得過」 tr. "like walking a dangerous road by night: if no one holds a lamp, one certainly cannot get through." It is plain, then, that commanding Subhūti to speak and the speaker’s words being all the Buddha’s power are not at odds—he speaks on command precisely because what he speaks is all lit by the Buddha’s power, as a lamp lights things: the lamp is not the thing, yet the thing becomes manifest by means of the lamp.

Along this same line, Subhūti puts it still more strongly: 「一切聲聞、辟支佛實無力能為諸菩薩說般若波羅蜜，況我一人」 tr. "All śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas truly have no power to speak prajñāpāramitā for the bodhisattvas—how much less I, one person"—if even the whole body of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas lacks this power, how much less he alone. Why no power? The bodhisattvas’ wisdom is extremely deep, their questions and answers profound and far-reaching; even ordinary, shallow dharmas are hard to speak before bodhisattvas, how much more a dharma as deep as prajñā. The treatise sets down a simile to wake the reader to it: 「能食一斛飯，從有一斗者索，欲以除飢，是不能除」 tr. "one who can eat a bushel of rice begs from someone who has a peck, wishing thereby to relieve his hunger—it cannot be relieved." The measure of the bodhisattvas’ Dharma is like the person who can eat a bushel; what the śrāvakas have is no more than a peck—how could a peck’s measure supply a bushel’s hunger? This is exactly what lies beneath the sentence 「聲聞、辟支佛無力能為菩薩說般若」 tr. "śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas have no power to speak prajñā for bodhisattvas," and precisely because of this, the matter of speaking prajñā must in the end be returned wholly to the Buddha’s power.

Next, look at the thorniest question: since “this dharma called ‘bodhisattva’ is not seen,” how is he to be taught? This question Subhūti asks on behalf of all listeners—if one insists on pointing out a single thing to call “bodhisattva,” then sought everywhere it is not to be had at all; so he says that within all dharmas the bodhisattva is sought and is unfindable, the word too is unfindable, prajñā too is unfindable: 「是三事不可得故，我云何當教」 tr. "because these three things are unfindable, how shall I teach?"

Here a more intimate doubt must first be resolved: the Buddha plainly commanded Subhūti to speak prajñā for bodhisattvas, yet Subhūti replied that the bodhisattva, sought everywhere, is unfindable—his words run directly contrary to the Buddha’s—so why did the Buddha not only not rebuke him but on the contrary approve him? The treatise-author sets up this question himself and gives a twofold answer. First, speaking the Dharma is of two kinds, attached and unattached: 「一者、著心說，二者、不著心說」 tr. "first, speaking with an attached mind; second, speaking with an unattached mind." If one says 「無菩薩」 tr. "there is no bodhisattva" while carrying a mind that grasps at the real, that makes even “no” into something solid, a fixed view of annihilation, dismissing the bodhisattva, dismissing cultivation and realisation, reducing everything to nothingness; this is called wrongly grasped emptiness, and it deserves rebuke. Now Subhūti 「以不著心說空」 tr. "speaks of emptiness with an unattached mind," speaking of emptiness without grasping that emptiness as some really existent thing—even emptiness is not set up—and so 「佛不訶之」 tr. "the Buddha does not rebuke him." One and the same sentence, “there is no bodhisattva”: spoken with an attached mind it becomes the view of annihilation; spoken with an unattached mind it is the real mark—the crux lies not in what words are spoken but in whether the mind that speaks them is attached to anything. Second, Subhūti 「常行空三昧，知諸法空」 tr. "always practises the emptiness samādhi and knows that all dharmas are empty"—he was from the first a person who had penetrated deeply into the meaning of emptiness; since the Buddha told him to 「為諸菩薩說般若」 tr. "speak prajñā for the bodhisattvas," while the bodhisattva is after all empty, with the two set side by side Subhūti was startled into asking 「云何名菩薩」 tr. "What is called a bodhisattva?"—this startled question is not doubting the Buddha; it is precisely pressing the meaning of emptiness right before one’s eyes. The Buddha therefore 「述成」 tr. "confirms and completes" his words: the bodhisattva, 「從發心已來乃至佛道，皆畢竟空故不可得；若如是教者，是即教菩薩般若波羅蜜」 tr. "from the arousing of the mind onward up to the path of buddhahood, is unfindable because all is ultimately empty; if one teaches in this way, that is teaching the bodhisattva prajñāpāramitā." This sentence is exactly the direct answer to the central doubt of this chapter—it turns out that “unfindable” not only does not obstruct teaching; the very fact of being 「畢竟空故不可得」 tr. "unfindable because ultimately empty" is itself the prajñā that is to be taught. When Subhūti says there is no bodhisattva, what he says is exactly the ultimate emptiness the Buddha wants people to realise for themselves; the two statements of teacher and disciple look contrary but are in fact one meaning, so the Buddha goes along with it and completes it, without adding a single word of rebuke.

The answer being so, the treatise-author then sets up a simile of fire to push the meaning of ‘provisional names are unfindable’ still finer. In every case there are two dharmas: one is the name, the other is the meaning of the name. Take fire: 「能照、能燒是其義」 tr. "the ability to illuminate and the ability to burn are its meaning"; only when the two dharmas of illuminating and burning come together is it provisionally named “fire.” If, apart from these two dharmas, there were a separate fire, there should be a third function besides; but in fact there is no third, so it is plain that 「二法和合假名為火」 tr. "the two dharmas coming together are provisionally named fire." This provisionally named fire the treatise then searches out in three places: it is not within the two dharmas—if it were within, then once the two dharmas came together it should burn the mouth; it is not outside the two dharmas—if it were outside, then on hearing the name “fire” one should not give rise to the notion of fire in the two dharmas; it is not in between the two—all conditioned dharmas have from the first no place of support. Searched out in the three places and not found, 「火不在三處」 tr. "fire is not in the three places"; there is only a provisional name. This whole examination is then carried straight over to the bodhisattva: the bodhisattva too is a provisional name formed by the coming together of the two dharmas 「名、色」 tr. "name and form," and is likewise not inside, not outside, not in between. So “not seeing this dharma called ‘bodhisattva’” does not mean there is no bodhisattva; it means the bodhisattva is from the first only a provisional name of coming together, with no real entity to point to—and precisely because of this he must be taught prajñā, so that he may see, as it truly is, what lies at the bottom of this provisional name.

The Buddha himself then speaks a simile, setting out this meaning of provisional names once more: 「如五眾和合故名為我，實我不可得」 tr. "just as, because the five aggregates come together, it is named ‘I,’ yet a real I is unfindable"; so too a being, a life-holder, a knower, a seer are nothing but dharmas of provisional names arising from the coming together of the causes and conditions of the five aggregates; these dharmas in reality neither arise nor cease, and the world speaks of them only by names—the bodhisattva, the word “bodhisattva,” and prajñāpāramitā 「皆是因緣和合假名法」 tr. "are all dharmas of provisional names from the coming together of causes and conditions," falling in the same case. This takes the simile of 「我名」 tr. "the name ‘I’" among the seven similes earlier and, from the Buddha’s own mouth, solemnly sets it down again as a settled verdict. Right after this the Buddha further sets up an exchange of question and answer to guard against one-sided grasping: someone says 「但五眾和合有眾生，而眾生空，但有五眾法」 tr. "only through the coming together of the five aggregates is there a being, and the being is empty; there are only the dharmas of the five aggregates"—taking it that the being which is formed is indeed empty, but the five aggregates which form it really exist. The Buddha at once corrects this: 「眾生空，五眾亦和合故假名字有」 tr. "the being is empty, and the five aggregates too exist as provisional names because they come together"; not only is the being a provisional name—the five aggregates themselves are likewise provisional names of coming together, 「十二處、十八界亦如是」 tr. "and the twelve bases and the eighteen elements are likewise." This one push is the most essential: breaking the provisional must be carried to the end; one may not leave the five aggregates (or the twelve bases, or the eighteen elements) as a really existent stepping-stone—otherwise the being has been emptied, yet upon the five aggregates a further self is covertly set up again, and the provisional has still not been broken through. This is exactly the intent of the sequence of the three designations, ‘first destroying names, next breaking receiving, last breaking dharmas’: to break the designation of receiving and see the emptiness of beings is to have reached only midway; only when the designation of dharmas—the five aggregates that form the being—is also lit up and broken through does it count as breaking the prajñapti of dharmas and arriving within the real mark of all dharmas, the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of the five aggregates arriving together at once; only this is final. To stop at the layer of the emptiness of beings while allowing the five aggregates to be real is exactly where those of the outside paths and the two vehicles have not finished analysing dharmas, and is also the one-sidedness that the Buddha’s question here sets out to put right.

Further on, the treatise, following the similes that practitioners of contemplation habitually receive, divides bodhisattvas into two kinds: 「一者、坐禪，二者、誦經」 tr. "first, those who sit in meditation; second, those who recite the sūtras." One who sits in meditation contemplates the body day after day, and so takes his similes from the parts of the body he contemplates—the parts of the skull coming together are named “head,” the parts of the foot bones coming together are named “foot,” head and foot bones and the rest coming together are named “body”; 「一一推尋，皆無根本」 tr. "searching them out one by one, none has any root"—this is the method of breaking that he habitually practises and contemplates, the one that comes most readily to hand. One who does not sit in meditation but recites the sūtras mostly takes things outside the body as similes—「以草、木、枝、葉、華、實為喻」 tr. "taking grass, trees, branches, leaves, flowers and fruit as similes"; grass and trees, branches and leaves coming together give the name “grass” or “tree,” showing the same principle of provisional names by coming together. Though the two kinds of people differ in taking their similes from the inner body or from outer things, the meaning of provisional names that they break is one and the same; and even that the buddhas of the past have only names, and that the ten similes of the first chapter have only names, are all extensions of this same meaning.

Next comes the doctrinal backbone of the whole chapter, what the treatise calls 「三種波羅聶提」 tr. "the three kinds of prajñapti." The treatise-author first says in general 「菩薩應如是學三種波羅聶提」 tr. "the bodhisattva should train thus in the three kinds of prajñapti," and then gives the definitions one by one. What is called 「法波羅聶提」 tr. "the prajñapti of dharmas" is 「五眾等法」 tr. "the dharmas such as the five aggregates," these dharmas of form, feeling, perception, constructions and consciousness themselves; what is called 「受波羅聶提」 tr. "the prajñapti of receiving" is 「五眾因緣和合故名為眾生」 tr. "because the causes and conditions of the five aggregates come together, it is named a being"—as the bones coming together are named the skull, as root, stem, branches and leaves coming together are named a tree—which is receiving a provisional name upon the coming together of dharmas; what is called the prajñapti of names is 「用是名字取二法相」 tr. "using these names to receive the marks of the two dharmas," placing names upon names already there. The treatise further speaks of another layer in terms of coarse and fine: many minute particles come together and there are coarse dharmas—this is the designation of dharmas; coarse dharmas come together and a name arises, as from illuminating and burning there is the name “fire”—this is the designation of receiving; 「多名字邊更有名字」 tr. "beside many names there are further names," as beside the names of beams, rafters and tiles there arises further the name “house,” and beside the names of branches and leaves there arises further the name “tree”—this is the designation of names. The three designations are not three things, but three levels in the establishing of one and the same provisional name—there being dharmas, a name received upon the dharmas, and a name laid upon a name. With the three designations set up, the treatise-author then gives the direction of practice: 「行者先壞名字波羅聶提，到受波羅聶提；次破受波羅聶提，到法波羅聶提；破法波羅聶提，到諸法實相中。」 tr. "The practitioner first destroys the prajñapti of names and arrives at the prajñapti of receiving; next breaks the prajñapti of receiving and arrives at the prajñapti of dharmas; breaks the prajñapti of dharmas and arrives within the real mark of all dharmas." Broken away layer by layer, it comes to rest at last in one summarising sentence—「諸法實相，即是諸法及名字空般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas is precisely the prajñāpāramitā of the emptiness of all dharmas and of names." Breaking to the very end does not break into a blank nothingness; it breaks through to the prajñā in which dharmas and names are both empty. This answers exactly the doubt of how the unfindable can still be taught: the prajñā that is taught is just this real mark, where the three designations have been broken through and all dharmas and names are empty.

In the second section of the sūtra, the Buddha brings this principle down to not seeing and not being attached. The bodhisattva practising prajñā does not see the names of form, feeling, perception, constructions and consciousness as permanent or impermanent, pleasant or painful, and so on up to defiled or pure; within the conditioned nature and the unconditioned nature alike he does not see prajñā and does not see the bodhisattva; abiding within the indestructible dharma he cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and there too he does not see prajñā, or the bodhisattva, or the word “bodhisattva”—he 「但知諸法實相」 tr. "only knows the real mark of all dharmas," and that real mark is 「無垢無淨」 tr. "neither stained nor pure." Knowing that names are only provisional designations, he is not attached to the five aggregates, the six sense-fields, the six perfections, and so on up to all the dharmas of bringing beings to maturity and purifying buddha-worlds—because 「無著者、無著法、無著處，皆無故」 tr. "there is no one who attaches, no dharma of attachment, no place of attachment—all of them are absent." The wonder is that this non-attachment is not doing nothing at all: precisely because he is attached to no dharma he is able to increase the six perfections, enter the bodhisattva’s position, attain avaivartika, and roam the buddha-lands bringing beings to maturity. In a later passage the treatise supplies an inner reason for this “non-attachment”: with the wisdom of 「不見亦不見」 tr. "not seeing, and not seeing that either," the bodhisattva lights up and breaks through ignorance and the afflictions, and further lights up and breaks through attachment to the names prajñā and bodhisattva; therefore 「若見、若聞、若念，皆如幻化；若聞、見、念，皆是虛誑」 tr. "whether seen, whether heard, whether thought, all is like an illusion, like a conjuration; what is heard, seen and thought is all false and deceptive"—since what is seen, heard and thought is like an illusion, like a conjuration, false and unreal, naturally there is nothing to grasp, and this is the reason why there is 「不著色等」 tr. "no attachment to form and the rest." It is plain, then, that non-attachment is not forcibly holding down a thought of ‘do not grasp’; it is seeing that all dharmas are of themselves like illusions, and so there is nothing to be attached to.

Next the Buddha tests Subhūti with two rounds of probing questions. Why are these questions set up? The treatise-author points out the reason: 「人謂佛多說法空」 tr. "people say that the Buddha mostly speaks of the emptiness of dharmas"—listeners, seeing the Buddha speak single-mindedly of the emptiness of all dharmas, conversely give rise to a doubt: if all dharmas were in fact not empty, would there not be some one dharma that is definitely the bodhisattva? The Buddha then, in response to this doubting mind, asks Subhūti in return, 「若諸法不空，頗有一法定是菩薩不」 tr. "If all dharmas were not empty, would there be any one dharma that is definitely the bodhisattva?"—is form the bodhisattva? and so on up to, is old age and death the bodhisattva? Subhūti knows in his mind that 「諸法和合故有菩薩」 tr. "because dharmas come together, there is a bodhisattva"—how could he point to one dharma that is definitely the bodhisattva? So one by one he answers 「不也，世尊」 tr. "No, World-Honored One." This is the first round, asking whether form and so on up to old age and death 「是菩薩不」 tr. "is the bodhisattva"; the Buddha presses further on the meaning by which he answers, and Subhūti replies 「眾生畢竟不可得，何況當是菩薩」 tr. "a being is ultimately unfindable—how much less could it be the bodhisattva"—「須菩提善得眾生空故」 tr. "because Subhūti has well attained the emptiness of beings"—and the Buddha repeatedly praises him, 「善哉」 tr. "Excellent," sanctioning that because beings are unfindable, prajñā too is unfindable. The second round changes the form of the question, asking whether form and so on up to non-action 「是菩薩義不」 tr. "is the meaning of bodhisattva"—the first round broke the coarse attachment ‘form and the other dharmas are themselves the bodhisattva’; the second round goes a layer further in, breaking the subtle attachment ‘the meaning-marks of form are the meaning of bodhisattva’: it asks not only whether the form-body is the bodhisattva, but further whether form’s permanence or impermanence, pleasure or pain, self or non-self, and so on up to non-action—these “meanings”—are the meaning of bodhisattva. Why ask at this subtle layer? Even someone willing to grant that the form-body is not the bodhisattva will often covertly set up a bodhisattva upon some one meaning-mark of form—taking “permanence” to be the meaning of bodhisattva, or “emptiness” to be the meaning of bodhisattva; the second round sweeps away this line of subtle attachment as well. Subhūti still answers one by one 「不也」 tr. "No." The Buddha presses again, and Subhūti answers 「色畢竟不可得，何況無色是菩薩義」 tr. "form is ultimately unfindable—how much less could the formless be the meaning of bodhisattva"; the Buddha again praises him, “Excellent.” At the end the treatise gathers these two rounds of sanction into one concluding sentence: 「須菩提入諸法深空中不疑故，能益諸菩薩」 tr. "because Subhūti has entered the deep emptiness of all dharmas without doubt, he is able to benefit the bodhisattvas"—precisely because he has entered deeply into the emptiness of all dharmas without a trace of doubt, he is fit to be of benefit to the bodhisattvas; what the Buddha sanctions in praising him again and again, “Excellent,” is exactly this measure of non-doubt.

Finally the Buddha declares 「諸法不見諸法」 tr. "dharmas do not see dharmas." The treatise-author first adds a transitional sentence: since Subhūti said 「我不見是法名菩薩」 tr. "I do not see this dharma called ‘bodhisattva’," the Buddha broadens it: 「非但菩薩獨不可見，都無有法見法者」 tr. "it is not only the bodhisattva alone that cannot be seen; there is no dharma at all that sees a dharma"—not only is there, for the single dharma “bodhisattva,” nothing to be found that can see it; among all dharmas there is not one dharma that can see a dharma. Why do dharmas not see one another, and even 「諸法不見法性」 tr. "dharmas do not see dharma-nature"? The treatise gives the reasoning: on one side, 「法性無量不可見故」 tr. "because dharma-nature is measureless and cannot be seen," therefore 「諸法不見法性」 tr. "dharmas do not see dharma-nature"—dharma-nature is measureless and signless and from the first cannot be seen; on the other side, 「諸法因緣和合生，無有自性，畢竟空故，法性不見諸法」 tr. "dharmas arise from the coming together of causes and conditions and have no own-nature; because they are ultimately empty, dharma-nature does not see dharmas"—since dharmas have no own-nature and are ultimately empty, there is likewise nothing that could be seen by dharma-nature. Neither side has anything it sees, and so it is said that they do not see one another. The nature of form does not see dharma-nature, and so on to the nature of consciousness likewise; and 「五眾性與法性同名故名為性」 tr. "because the nature of the five aggregates shares its name with dharma-nature, it is called ‘nature’"—the nature of the five aggregates and dharma-nature share the one word “nature,” both named with respect to where they are ultimately empty; the twelve bases, the eighteen elements, and conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are all likewise, returning together to one nature. To put it more concisely still, 「離有為不可說無為，離無為不可說有為」 tr. "apart from the conditioned, the unconditioned cannot be spoken of; apart from the unconditioned, the conditioned cannot be spoken of"—the two dharmas, conditioned and unconditioned, are established in dependence on each other, and within these two dharmas all dharmas are already fully contained. Because the bodhisattva sees nothing in all these dharmas, he is 「不驚、不畏、不怖」 tr. "not startled, not afraid, not terrified," and his mind 「不沒、不悔」 tr. "does not sink, does not regret." This fearlessness too has its line of reasoning, and the treatise points it out clearly: 「有所見、有所不見，則有恐畏」 tr. "if something is seen and something is not seen, then there is fear"; if 「都無所見，則無所畏」 tr. "nothing at all is seen, then there is nothing to fear"—whenever one portion is seen and another portion cannot be seen, setting the two against each other gives rise to taking and rejecting, gives rise to fear; if nothing in all dharmas is seen, there is nothing to set against anything, and so nothing to fear—and so it is with what are called the five aggregates, on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas.

Subhūti twice presses for the causes and conditions of not being terrified and not being startled, and the Buddha answers with great precision: first he says that because 「一切心心數法不可得、不可見」 tr. "all mind and mental-factor dharmas are unfindable and cannot be seen," there is no terror; then he says that because 「意及意界不可得、不可見」 tr. "the mind-faculty and the mind-element are unfindable and cannot be seen," there is no startlement and no fear. In the second section of the treatise text, the treatise-author supplies the reason for these two questions: when ordinary people enter emptiness, they see mind and mental-factor dharmas as attainable and outer dharmas as unfindable, and so they are afraid; the bodhisattva knows that 「心心數法虛妄不實」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas are false and unreal," and so is not afraid. And the reason there is a third question is that 「意及意識，是心心數法根本」 tr. "the mind-faculty and mind-consciousness are the root of mind and mental-factor dharmas"—mind and mental factors become manifest only in mind-consciousness; the mind-faculty and the mind-element are precisely the root-base of all these mental factors, and fear too arises from here. Why does fear arise from mind-consciousness? Mind-consciousness, in taking its objects, mostly gives rise to discrimination, and the more it discriminates, the more taking and rejecting arise and the more fear arises; the first five consciousnesses, when they arise, are brief and pass away along with their object, with no leisure to discriminate, and so do not of themselves become a root of fear. Knowing that the root-base lies in the mind-faculty, the Buddha speaks of the mind-faculty and the mind-element as “unfindable and cannot be seen” in order to pull out the very root of fear as well, not merely to soothe the branches and tips. The first two questions break the fear concerning mind and mental-factor dharmas, the third question breaks its root, peeling layer after layer to the very end; hence the treatise judges this repeated question 「無咎」 tr. "without fault." The whole chapter comes to rest in one sentence: although the bodhisattva does not see these four things—the bodhisattva, the word “bodhisattva,” prajñā, and the word “prajñā”—he is able, by three causes and conditions, not to fear, and this is 「教菩薩般若波羅蜜」 tr. "teaching the bodhisattva prajñāpāramitā"; and this prajñā 「不從十方求，亦無與者」 tr. "is not sought from the ten directions, nor is there anyone who gives it," nor is it something like gold, silver and jewels, to be sought and obtained by force—it lies from the first in one’s own names and marks; where the three designations are broken through and one sees for oneself that all dharmas and names are both empty, there is nothing else to be begged for outside.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「我等不見是法名菩薩」 tr. "we do not see this dharma called ‘bodhisattva’" as dismissing the bodhisattva, as denying that there is any such matter as cultivating and becoming a buddha. What the sūtra and the treatise say is that the bodhisattva is from the first a provisional name formed by the coming together of the two dharmas, “name and form,” which, sought everywhere, has no real entity to point to; it is not saying that there is no bodhisattva to be taught and no prajñā to be trained in; exactly because the bodhisattva is only a provisional name, he must be taught to see the real mark upon provisional names. Nor read the three designations and the three kinds of prajñapti as a set of names and marks that the Buddha established with his own mouth in the sūtra text. The sūtra itself says only 「名假施設、受假施設、法假施設」 tr. "the provisional designation of names, the provisional designation of receiving, the provisional designation of dharmas" and “they only have names”; the definitions of the three kinds of prajñapti, distinguished layer by layer, and the sequence of breaking the provisional that runs from 「先壞名字」 tr. "first destroying names" on to receiving and to dharmas, are the explanatory treatise that the treatise-author set up to explain the sūtra, not a direct statement of the sūtra—only by recognising this layer will the reader not mistake the treatise’s fine construction for the Buddha’s own words. Still less read not seeing, the unfindable, and all being empty as a mere inert emptiness, as annihilation. The treatise-author points out specially that Subhūti, fearing that people would 「謂法都空無所有」 tr. "say that dharmas are altogether empty and there is nothing whatever" and so fall into wrong views, therefore asked again; the Buddha’s reply was “all mind and mental-factor dharmas are unfindable and cannot be seen,” which speaks of being unfindable and not able to be seen, not of there being nothing at all—speaking the real mark of all dharmas without destroying provisional names, the establishing of provisional names stays just as it was; only their own-nature is lit up and broken through. Finally, do not read the command to Subhūti to speak as meaning that the Buddha could not speak himself, or that Subhūti stood above the Buddha. The treatise says it plainly: what the speaker speaks is 「皆是佛力」 tr. "all the Buddha’s power," like a person who relays words, like seeing by means of a lamp; whom to command to speak is a selection made according to conditions, and between this and the power of speaking the Dharma belonging wholly to the Buddha, the two matters do not obstruct each other.

Bearing on Practice

This chapter can be used as a mirror held up to names and marks. In daily life, as thoughts arise and the mind moves, whenever we open or shut our mouths we are circling around names—an “I,” a “he,” a “matter,” each of them seeming a really existing thing; this chapter reminds us that these are nothing but provisional names that exist through coming together, 「不在內，不在外，不在中間」 tr. "not inside, not outside, not in between," and searched for everywhere, their real entity is not to be had at all. If one is truly willing to look at things this way even once, attachment will naturally loosen by a degree. Still more usable is the sequence of the three designations: first loosen the designation of names, name laid upon name—as a house is no more than a name for beams, rafters and tiles, and a tree no more than a name for branches and leaves; then loosen the designation of receiving, the name received upon dharmas—as a head is no more than the received name for many bones coming together, and a being no more than the received name for the five aggregates coming together; last, light up and break through the designation of dharmas, the dharmas themselves as well, and walk through to where dharmas and names are both empty. This is not abstract talk; it is exactly the actual work of one who sits in meditation, who 「常觀身、骨等諸分和合故名為身」 tr. "always contemplates that, because the parts—the bones and the rest—come together, it is named ‘body’," and who, “searching them out one by one,” finds that “none has any root.” There is also a medicine closest to hand, the one that counters fear: when a beginner first contemplates emptiness, he often feels his mind has nothing to rely on and nowhere to rest, and grows afraid; this chapter points out that the root of the illness lies in mind-consciousness’s much discriminating—the more one discriminates, the more fear; the remedy is not to press it down by force, but to see that 「心心數法虛妄不實」 tr. "mind and mental-factor dharmas are false and unreal" and from the first unfindable—since fear then has no root, one is naturally “not startled, not afraid, not terrified.” Last of all, one should keep in mind a crucial sense of proportion: prajñā 「不從十方求，亦無與者」 tr. "is not sought from the ten directions, nor is there anyone who gives it"; it is not begged from outside, nor is it something anyone can give; lighting up and breaking through provisional names and seeing the real mark for oneself is in the end something one must do oneself, upon one’s own names and marks, and nothing else can stand in for it.

Further Resonances

Later, ancient masters composed commentaries on this chapter phrase by phrase, and what was brought out first was often precisely why the chapter is named the Chapter of the Three Designations rather than simply the Chapter of Emptiness. One ancient master sets up the question: since the Buddha’s Dharma takes seeing emptiness and cutting off delusion as essential, why not title it the Chapter of Emptiness, but title it instead the Three Designations? His intent is precisely to point out that this chapter’s distinctive feature lies not in breaking into emptiness single-mindedly, but in speaking of emptiness without destroying provisional existence—awakening into the real mark by following the establishing of provisional names. Another ancient master sums up the three designations of the treatise’s explanation in two ways of speaking: one takes the five aggregates as the designation of dharmas, the five aggregates forming a person as the designation of receiving, and person and dharmas having names as the designation of names; the other judges coarse and fine by names set up further upon names and dharmas arising further upon dharmas—exactly illuminating, and illuminated by, the two layers of definition of this treatise’s three kinds of prajñapti. Yet another ancient master glosses the word 「波羅聶提」 tr. "prajñapti" directly, saying that what this Sanskrit word refers to is precisely the provisional, precisely provisional designation, so that it and the Chinese rendering in the sūtra, 「名假施設、受假施設、法假施設」 tr. "the provisional designation of names, the provisional designation of receiving, the provisional designation of dharmas," corroborate each other. Still another ancient master, in his own teaching of contemplative practice, takes the defining sentences of these three designations as scriptural proof for contemplating the provisional, setting it side by side with contemplating emptiness and contemplating the middle as one system of contemplation; this belongs to that ancient master’s teaching structure—the treatise text of this chapter speaks only of the three designations and the sequence of breaking the provisional, and does not reach the names of these three contemplations; his approach is recorded without judging which is higher. These readings each have their own context; here only their approaches are recorded. Brought back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a finer outline chart, but the rightful name this chapter gives to the provisional: provisional names are not an illusion to be struck out with a single stroke, but something to be followed and lit up and broken through layer by layer, until at last one sees the prajñā in which all dharmas and names are empty—breaking the provisional is not for abandoning the provisional, but only for seeing the real mark for oneself upon provisional names.

Exhortation to Train: Setting Forth All Merits to Exhort Training in Prajñā, and Why Practising the Six Perfections Can Instead Mean Falling at the Summit

What Is Being Asked

This chapter opens with Subhūti counting out before the Buddha merits of every kind—wishing to be complete in the six perfections; wishing to know fully form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, together with the six faculties, the six objects, the six consciousnesses, the six contacts, and the six feelings; wishing to cut off the three poisons and all the fetters; wishing to enter the samādhi of the limbs of awakening and so on through samādhi-gates of every kind; wishing to fulfil the wishes of all beings—and to each item as he counts it he appends the one phrase 「當學般若波羅蜜」 tr. "should train in prajñāpāramitā." This phrase recurs again and again throughout the chapter, and it is precisely the origin of the name “Exhortation to Train”: dharmas and practices of every kind are set forth, and by each one people are exhorted to bring it all back to prajñā and train there. Yet setting forth dharmas to exhort training is only the outer shell of this chapter; pressed beneath it lie several questions that are hard to answer. First, these words “should train in prajñā” were already spoken earlier, in the first chapter—why are they spoken again now? Second, and the thorniest question in the whole chapter: the bodhisattva is plainly practising the six perfections and entering the three samādhi, which is what a practitioner ought to do—why then does he instead “fall at the summit,” landing in a perilous place where he can neither advance nor retreat? What is this “summit,” and where is it that the “fall” falls? Third, what is the “love of dharmas” bound up with falling from the summit? To love the Dharma has always been taken as a good thing—why is it said here to be a sickness? Fourth, at the end of the chapter yet another question is turned up: since prajñā is the bodhisattva’s affair, why is it said that the three vehicles—śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas—all ought to train in it? What this chapter sets out to answer is precisely this one matter: prajñā is not only the highest dharma to be trained in; this highest dharma itself can also become an object of clinging in thought and so turn into a fault. To exhort training in prajñā is to exhort not merely to train, but to train without clinging, to practise carrying skilful means, and to go all the way to the real mark of all dharmas without, halfway along the road, giving rise to love, exalting oneself, and falling from the summit.

Passage by Passage

First see how the treatise-author explains “why it is spoken again.” The treatise sets itself a question: the first chapter has already said “should train in prajñā”—why say it again now? The treatise gives several layers of causes and conditions in succession. Before, there was only praise—「欲得是諸功德，當行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "one who wishes to obtain these merits should practise prajñāpāramitā"—and the flavour of prajñā had not yet been properly taught; now the assembly has heard the flavour of prajñā, and because they wish to obtain the remaining merits they should train further. Again, the many kinds of teaching earlier that dharmas are empty might make people mistakenly think 「佛法斷滅，無所復作」 tr. "the Buddha-Dharma is annihilation, and there is nothing further to be done," so it is still said that one should practise giving and the other merits, to break this doubt: if prajñā were truly annihilation, it would not go on to speak of practising merits. Again, before was the extended teaching and this is the brief one; before, the Buddha spoke, and here Subhūti speaks. Again, prajñā is deep and subtle, and so it is praised over and over. Next the treatise explains the terms in the sūtra one by one, and the most important sentence among them is its explanation of “knowing the five aggregates”: among the five aggregates and other dharmas, of all the bonds of the world 「受為主」 tr. "feeling is the master"—pleasant feeling gives rise to greed, painful feeling gives rise to anger, feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant gives rise to delusion; the three poisons arise from feeling, and that is why the sūtra singles out “feeling” alone and does not list perception, recollection, and the other mental factors. This stroke seems trivial, yet it plants the root for the sickness of love of dharmas below, 「受念著」 tr. "taking it up in feeling and clinging to it in thought"—the sickness grows precisely out of that one word “feeling.”

Next, the centre of gravity of the whole chapter: falling from the summit and love of dharmas. In this section of the sūtra, the Buddha first says that one who wishes “not to fall at the bodhisattva’s summit” should train in prajñā, and Śāriputra then asks what falling from the summit means. Subhūti’s answer is exact: if a bodhisattva 「不以方便行六波羅蜜」 tr. "practises the six perfections without skilful means" and enters the three samādhi of emptiness, signlessness, and non-action, the result is that he does not fall to the ground of the śrāvaka or the pratyekabuddha, yet neither does he enter the bodhisattva position; this is called “rawness in dharmas,” and therefore he falls at the summit. Śāriputra asks again what “rawness” is, and the answer is 「生名愛法」 tr. "rawness is called loving dharmas"; asked what love of dharmas is, he answers: when the bodhisattva practises prajñā, he sees that form is empty and yet takes it up in feeling and clings to it in thought; he sees that feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are empty, signless, without action, quiescent, impermanent, suffering, and not-self, and yet takes them up in feeling and clings to them in thought; and so on up to receiving in feeling and clinging in thought to the four truths, to the defiled and the pure, to the bodhisattva path and what is not the bodhisattva path, and to all dharmas—this is 「順道法愛生」 tr. "love of dharma in accord with the path arises." Here a turn must be seen clearly: what is loved is not the five desires of the world, but the highest meanings of the Dharma—emptiness, signlessness, non-action; following along the road of cultivating the path, one gives rise to love toward the dharmas of the path, and so it is called “love of dharmas in accord with the path.” The treatise-author then dissects this sickness in fine detail. He first asks: by virtue of what roots of good does one not fall into the evil destinies, into poverty and lowliness, or into the two vehicles, and also not fall at the summit? The answer: with the three roots of good, fetters thinned, and deep entry into meditation, kindness and compassion, and prajñā, there is none of the four matters one cannot escape. He asks again why, of the four matters, falling from the summit alone is asked about; the answer is that the three other matters were spoken of earlier, while falling from the summit had not been, and so it is asked. He asks again why, since the meaning of the summit was spoken of before, it is spoken of again; the answer is that the meaning is the same but the names differ. Then comes the marrow of the whole section—the treatise explains “rawness”: love of dharmas 「於無生法忍中，無有利益」 tr. "is of no benefit within the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas," and so it is called “rawness”; and it sets up a simile: 「譬如多食不消，若不療治，於身為患」 tr. "as when one eats too much and it is not digested: if it is not treated, it becomes an affliction to the body"; the bodhisattva who has first aroused the mind greedily takes in the food of the Dharma and is bound to it in the depth of his mind, and with respect to the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas this becomes rawness, becomes a sickness. Going one layer further, because he clings to love of dharmas he loves even “neither arising nor ceasing,” just as when a person bound to die takes medicine and the medicine instead becomes a sickness; therefore it is said that love of dharmas 「於人天中為妙，於無生法忍為累」 tr. "is wondrous among humans and gods, but is an encumbrance to the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas." Standing opposite this “rawness” is “ripeness”: recollection, imagining, and discrimination, loving dharmas as one goes along with them—this is rawness, and such a mind cannot hold the water of the real mark of all dharmas; the reverse is called the bodhisattva’s ripeness. The treatise further answers why the same thing is also called the summit, the position, and the not-raw: the dharma between compliant acceptance and the acceptance of non-arising is called the summit; abiding at the summit, one goes straight toward the Buddha path and does not fear falling, just as in the śrāvaka Dharma what lies between heat and acceptance is called the summit dharma. It answers again why, once the summit has been gained, one still speaks of falling from the summit: 「垂近應得而失者」 tr. "one who, being close to it and due to attain it, loses it" is therefore called “falling”; one who truly gains the summit is such that 「智慧安隱，則不畏墮」 tr. "his wisdom is secure and at peace, and he does not fear falling," just as 「譬如上山，既得到頂，則不畏墮」 tr. "as in climbing a mountain, once one has reached the summit, one does not fear falling"; it is only in the stretch before reaching it that one teeters and fears falling. When the summit grows and becomes firm it is called “the bodhisattva position,” which is also “the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas”; one who has entered this position cannot be moved by the fetters, by Māra, or by Māra’s people. The treatise further distinguishes rawness and ripeness by whether or not there is the fire of the wisdom of the real mark of all dharmas, and sets up a simile: 「譬如熟瓶能盛受水，生則爛壞」 tr. "as a ripe, fired jar can hold water, while a raw one crumbles"—one who has the fire of the wisdom of the real mark is like the fired jar that can hold water, and one who lacks it is like the raw jar that breaks when it meets water. At the end it concludes in a single sentence: because it 「拔一切無常等諸觀法」 tr. "uproots all the contemplative dharmas such as impermanence," it is called “the position”; if it is not so, then love of dharmas in accord with the path arises—answering exactly that sentence of the sūtra, “love of dharmas in accord with the path arises.”

The third section of the sūtra turns to non-arising, the eighteen emptinesses, and the mark of mind being ever pure. Śāriputra asks what the bodhisattva’s non-arising is; Subhūti answers that when the bodhisattva practises prajñā, within the eighteen emptinesses each does not see the other, pair by pair—within inner emptiness he does not see outer emptiness, within outer emptiness he does not see inner emptiness, and so on one by one up to the emptiness of existent dharmas and the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas not seeing each other; in this way he is able to enter the bodhisattva position. Next it says that one should train thus: not keeping in mind the five aggregates, the six faculties, the six objects, the six perfections, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; having obtained the mind of awakening, the mind equal to the unequalled, and the great mind, of each one 「不應念、不應高」 tr. "one should not keep it in mind, should not be exalted by it," because 「是心非心，心相常淨故」 tr. "this mind is not-mind, since the mark of mind is ever pure." Śāriputra asks what it means that the mark of mind is ever pure; the answer is that this mark of mind 「與婬、怒、癡不合不離」 tr. "is neither joined with nor apart from lust, anger, and delusion," and is neither joined with nor apart from the fetters and afflictions—the entanglements, the floods, the bonds, and the rest—or from the minds of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; this is what the mark of mind being ever pure means. The section that follows is a pressing interrogation, layer upon layer: is there a mind that has “the mark of no-mind”? Within the mark of no-mind, neither a mark of mind nor the mark of no-mind can be found; since they cannot be found, one should not ask in this way. What is the mark of no-mind? 「諸法不壞不分別，是名無心相」 tr. "all dharmas are not destroyed and not discriminated—this is called the mark of no-mind." Is it only the mind that is so, or are form and so on up to the Buddha path also so? The answer: one who knows the mark of mind as not destroyed and not discriminated also knows form and so on up to the Buddha path as not destroyed and not discriminated. The purpose of this whole section is to have one leave, even at the subtlest point, no “mind” that can be grasped—not even “the mark of no-mind” may be received as a mark. The treatise-author, explaining this section, first follows the sūtra in explaining inner and outer emptiness not seeing each other: the outer four great elements enter the body and become inner, and when the body dies they return to the outer; because all dharmas have no coming or going, none abides within another, and the remaining seventeen emptinesses are likewise; he also explains the mark of the bodhisattva position as not keeping in mind any dharma as existent. Then the treatise-author distinguishes the three minds: the first arousing of the mind, which takes the unsurpassed path as its object and vows “may I become a buddha,” is called “the mind of awakening”; this mind resembles the Buddha—because the cause resembles the effect—and so it is called “the mind equal to the unequalled”; further, he matches the six perfections to the three minds—giving and morality are the mind of awakening; patience and vigour are the mind equal to the unequalled; meditation joined with great compassion and skilful means, practising all practices without falling into annihilation, is the great mind. Along the way come two extraordinary similes: those who practise patience and vigour, when someone comes to cut their flesh and draw out their marrow, 「而慈念怨家，血化為乳」 tr. "yet think with kindness of the enemy, and their blood turns to milk"; and knowing that all dharmas are ultimately empty and yet practising all practices out of great compassion is 「譬如人欲空中種樹，是為希有」 tr. "like a person wishing to plant a tree in the empty sky—this is rare." The treatise further explains why the mind is not exalted: one gains great wisdom and yet the mind is not exalted, because the mark of mind is ever pure—「如虛空相常清淨，烟雲塵霧假來故覆蔽不淨」 tr. "as the mark of space is ever pure, and because smoke, clouds, dust, and mist come adventitiously it is covered over and not pure"; the afflictions are like visiting dust—「除去煩惱，如本清淨」 tr. "when the afflictions are removed, it is pure as it originally was"; this purity is not made by the practitioner, and so one should not exalt oneself. At the end of the chapter Śāriputra praises Subhūti as a true son of the Buddha, and the treatise-author borrows as a simile the saying that 「婆羅門從梵天王口邊生」 tr. "brahmins are born from beside the mouth of the Brahmā king" to explain “born from the Buddha’s mouth”; he also explains taking one’s share of the Dharma, having confidence of one’s own within the Dharma, and realisation with the body; and he cites Śāriputra as foremost in wisdom, Maudgalyāyana as foremost in the supernormal power of travel, Kāśyapa as foremost in the dhūta austerities, while Subhūti is foremost in the samādhi of non-contention. A final question gathers the whole chapter to a close: since prajñā is the bodhisattva’s affair, why should all three vehicles train in it? The treatise answers: 「諸法實相即是無餘涅槃」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas is itself nirvāṇa without remainder," and the people of all three vehicles strive with vigour for the sake of nirvāṇa without remainder; again, prajñā teaches at length the gate of liberation of emptiness, and 「若離空解脫門，無道、無涅槃」 tr. "apart from the gate of liberation of emptiness there is no path and no nirvāṇa"; and Śāriputra himself states the causes and conditions: prajñā teaches at length the marks of the three vehicles, and the people of all three vehicles should train in it and so reach accomplishment—and this brings us back to the root intent of the chapter’s title, “exhortation to train.”

Do Not Misread

First, do not read “falling from the summit” as meaning that once one has gained the summit one is bound to fall. The summit is in itself a good thing: the treatise says that abiding at the summit one 「直趣佛道，不復畏墮」 tr. "goes straight toward the Buddha path and no longer fears falling," and that one who truly gains the summit is such that “his wisdom is secure and at peace, and he does not fear falling”; the one who falls is the person who, close to it and due to attain it, loses it—who lacks skilful means and is stuck halfway. The summit is not a trap; being stuck for lack of skilful means is. Second, do not read “love of dharmas” as meaning that loving the Dharma is in itself a transgression. The treatise says it clearly: love of dharmas “is wondrous among humans and gods, but is an encumbrance to the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas”; the sickness lies not in loving the Dharma, but in carrying one’s clinging in thought to dharmas all the way into ultimate emptiness and into neither-arising-nor-ceasing, so that within the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas it instead becomes a sickness. Nor should “practises the six perfections without skilful means” be read as meaning that the six perfections are at fault—the fault lies in “being without skilful means”: only when the contemplation of emptiness goes alone and is not joined with great compassion and skilful means does one get stuck between the two vehicles and the bodhisattva position, losing both advance and retreat. Third, do not read “the mark of mind is ever pure” as meaning that there is some separate pure mind-substance to be obtained. The sūtra itself says “this mind is not-mind”; its purity is purity because of ultimate emptiness, not that there is some separate pure mind to take hold of; the afflictions are only visiting dust that covers it over, not something the mind originally has, and to remove them is to return to the original purity—and precisely for this reason it is said “one should not keep it in mind, should not be exalted by it”; to exalt oneself on the strength of a pure mind is to fall right back into clinging in thought. Fourth, do not read “the mark of no-mind” as a blank annihilation in which there is nothing at all. The sūtra says “all dharmas are not destroyed and not discriminated—this is called the mark of no-mind,” and within the mark of no-mind neither a mark of mind nor the mark of no-mind can be found; what is being taught is that it cannot be found and cannot be received as a mark, not that everything is swept away. Fifth, do not read the statement that all three vehicles should train in prajñā as meaning that the three vehicles are of one flavour without distinction. The treatise says that all three vehicles should train in it because “the real mark of all dharmas is itself nirvāṇa without remainder,” toward which all three vehicles alike are heading; prajñā teaches at length the marks of the three vehicles, and this is not to say that what the three vehicles practise and realise is entirely the same.

Bearing on Practice

The most immediate use of this chapter is to furnish the practitioner with a mirror in which to see love of dharmas. As soon as one applies oneself and gains even a small measure of accord, it is easy to feel delight in the dharma one has gained, to become attached to it in love, and secretly to exalt oneself—this chapter sees through this sickness utterly: what is loved is precisely the highest dharmas—emptiness, signlessness, non-action—and the loftier and subtler the dharma loved, the harder the love is to detect. The treatise’s two similes, “eating too much and not digesting it” and “medicine instead becoming a sickness,” point straight at the crux: even the best medicine, once it becomes an object of clinging in thought, will instead become a sickness. Knowing this, when applying oneself one understands that the moment one gains accord one should raise up awareness and illumination, not lingering in the dharma and not using it to flatter oneself. Next is the measure of ‘practising while carrying skilful means’: the cause of falling from the summit lies precisely in “practising the six perfections without skilful means,” which shows that the contemplation of emptiness must not go alone but must be joined with great compassion and skilful means if one is not to get stuck midway; in ordinary days, when cultivating emptiness and ultimate emptiness, remember to pair it with the compassionate vow and the skill of liberating beings—emptiness and compassion going side by side is the road that does not fall at the summit. Next again is how to use “the mark of mind is ever pure”: when afflictions arise there is no need to panic, nor to be pleased with oneself over a moment of purity—afflictions are visiting dust, coming for a while to cover it over, not something you originally have; purity too is not something you have fabricated, but is like the purity of space, which returns of itself to its original purity once the smoke and clouds are removed. Seen this way, removing the afflictions without the mind being exalted is exactly the one mild, balancing medicine this chapter gives. Finally, one sentence should also be remembered: those who wish to train in the ground of the śrāvaka or the ground of the pratyekabuddha too 「當應聞般若波羅蜜，持、讀、誦、正憶念、如說行」 tr. "should hear prajñāpāramitā, uphold it, read it, recite it, keep it rightly in mind, and practise as it teaches"—prajñā is not the exclusive preserve of the bodhisattvas’ household; all who head toward nirvāṇa should apply their minds here.

Further Resonances

Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter following the text phrase by phrase, and where he first put his effort, as a rule, was in subdividing the earlier section, ‘setting forth all dharmas to exhort training,’ into seven items according to a doctrinal outline—setting forth the root of the six perfections, setting forth the objects to be known, setting forth what is to be cut off, setting forth the practices of general training, setting forth samādhi and dhāraṇī, setting forth kindness and compassion that transform others, and setting forth what the bodhisattva is to leave behind, in order to exhort training—laying them out layer upon layer, so that they and the sequence of exhortation to train explained in this treatise illuminate each other. Another ancient master, in his own commentary, recorded the various judgements of earlier masters on the stage of “falling from the summit”: some place it in a certain abiding, some in a certain ground, some between certain acceptances, with differing readings standing side by side; the ancient master lists each by name without forcing a verdict on which is right and which wrong, and here too their differences are only recorded, without judging which is higher. Yet another ancient master took this chapter’s teaching of “falling from the summit,” “love of dharmas,” and “love of dharmas in accord with the path arises” into his own gate of contemplative practice, setting it up separately as a branch of work called ‘no love of dharmas’: he says that if a practitioner, at the point of having passed through the inner and outer obstructions and being about to enter the limit of the real, gives rise to love of dharmas and abides in attachment, then he ought to enter yet does not enter, and so falls at the summit; he must guard against it and break it before he can bring forth the true—this connects the meaning of this chapter’s “practising the six perfections without skilful means” and “love of dharmas in accord with the path arises” to the last link of a system of graded contemplation. This belongs to the ancient master’s pedagogical construction; the text of the treatise in this chapter speaks only of the marks of falling from the summit and of love of dharmas, and of the distinctions of rawness and ripeness, of position and acceptance, and does not reach the names of this gate of contemplation; its approach is recorded without judging which is higher. Bringing these readings back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a finer table of stage-judgements, but one reminder this chapter gives to those who cultivate the path: the place where the road comes near to entering the limit of the real is the most perilous, and the peril lies not elsewhere but precisely in the one thought of love and self-exaltation that arises toward the highest dharma—in exhorting training in prajñā, what the exhortation exhorts at its very end is exactly the illumining and breaking of this one thought.

Overview

“Gathering and Dispersal” is the ninth chapter of the Larger Sūtra. At the very opening, Subhūti addresses the Buddha—he is not aware of, and does not obtain, a bodhisattva who practises prajñāpāramitā; if that is so, for whom is prajñāpāramitā to be taught? The reason lies precisely in this: he does not obtain the gathering and the dispersal of any dharma at all. Form and so on to consciousness; the eye and so on to the mind; the twelve links of dependent origination; lust, anger, and delusion and the various wrong views; the six perfections and the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to the eighteen unshared dharmas; the dharmas of the three times; the Buddha and the buddhas, bodhisattvas, and śrāvakas of the ten directions; and so on to the real mark of all dharmas—seek each of them one by one, and neither its gathering nor its dispersal is seen. Since gathering and dispersal are not seen, there is no ground on which to establish a name for the bodhisattva; and if one is established by force, then 「是字不住，亦不不住」 tr. "this word does not abide, nor does it not abide". The whole chapter therefore circles round a single ‘gathering and dispersal,’ yet it does not ask how dharmas come together or how they scatter; it asks this: for a bodhisattva who knows deeply that dharmas fundamentally have no gathering and dispersal, on what ground can there still be a name, something abided in, a prajñā that can be taught?

This question the treatise-author marks out at the very opening as the pivot. The preceding chapter, “Exhortation to Train,” has already said that one does not see the bodhisattva, the word ‘bodhisattva,’ or prajñāpāramitā—why does this chapter say it again? The treatise-author’s answer is: craving is of four kinds, and among them craving for dharmas is hard to dispel; in craving wholesome dharmas that benefit the path, the fault is hard to see, and therefore it must be said again. And whereas the preceding chapter said that the word ‘bodhisattva’ is not seen, this chapter goes a step further and says ‘not aware, not obtaining’: it is because he is not aware of it and does not obtain it that he does not see it, and not because the power of his wisdom is weak that he does not see it. Going one layer further along this, the treatise-author brings out the eye of the whole chapter: all dharmas are empty through the emptiness of the unfindable, and the reason they are all empty lies precisely in 「無集、無散」 tr. "no gathering, no dispersal". Once gathering and dispersal are broken, ultimate emptiness is established; the names of dharmas, what is abided in, and what is received all fall into emptiness along with it. The many marks throughout the chapter—not obtaining gathering and dispersal, not being fit to abide, not receiving—must all be set back into this pivot to be read. Apart from no gathering and no dispersal, ultimate emptiness has nowhere to settle; apart from ultimate emptiness, not obtaining gathering and dispersal becomes once again a statement of annihilation.

The treatise-author also completes this pivot from another side. First he rectifies the names of the two words 「集」 tr. "gathering" and 「散」 tr. "dispersal", lest the reader hear ‘not seeing gathering and dispersal’ as a failure to grasp the coming-together and scattering before his eyes. With the eye and form as conditions, eye-consciousness arises; the three things coming together give rise to contact, and give rise to feeling, perception, construction, and the other mental-factor dharmas; with wrong recollection, afflictions and the karma of offence arise; with right recollection, wholesome dharmas arise; receiving recompense for good and evil, one again sows good and evil in this very body, and so it turns on without end—this is called ‘gathering.’ Yet these dharmas, eye-consciousness and the rest, cease of themselves from thought-moment to thought-moment and disperse as soon as the conditions part; when they arise they come from nowhere, and when they cease they go nowhere—this is called ‘dispersal.’ Having rectified the names, the treatise-author at once gathers them up with a fourfold unfindability: because there is no place of coming, gathering is unfindable, and because there is no place of going, dispersal is unfindable; because arising is non-existent, gathering is unfindable, and because ceasing is non-existent, dispersal is unfindable; because of ultimate emptiness, gathering is unfindable, and because the causes and conditions of karma are not lost, dispersal is unfindable; because one contemplates the truth of the cessation of the world, gathering is unfindable, and because one contemplates the truth of the origination of the world, dispersal is unfindable. Since gathering and dispersal are each unfindable, a name has nowhere to abide. A name abides, to begin with, in a dharma; since the dharma is empty, the name of itself has no place of abiding—just as the name ‘cart’ exists through the coming together of wheel, rim, spokes, and hub, and once these part and scatter the name ‘cart’ is lost; seek the name ‘cart’ in the wheels and the rest, and neither identity nor difference is obtainable; therefore a name neither abides nor does not abide.

The whole chapter falls, following its fascicles, into a two-part arc. The First Part (Fascicle 42) raises the question from ‘not aware, not obtaining’ and lays the foundation: first it rectifies the names of gathering and dispersal and makes clear by four gates that they are unfindable; then it says that a name neither abides nor does not abide, that the five aggregates are like a dream and like an illusion, and that separation, quiescent cessation, and neither-arising-nor-ceasing each have two meanings; next, switching to another approach, it refutes the name ‘bodhisattva,’ saying that earth, water, fire, and wind have only names, and that coarse karma and subtle karma, and so on up to the noble path and its fruit, are all empty; then it turns into the gate of not being fit to abide, stating directly that form and so on to old age and death, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to the eighteen unshared dharmas, the six perfections, letters, the supernormal powers, impermanence, suffering, and emptiness, and so on to the gates of dhāraṇī and samādhi—each one is not to be abided in, because 「色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "form is emptiness, emptiness is form"; at the end it concludes with the passage on the brahmin ascetic Śreṇika, making clear that the principle of the emptiness of dharmas is one that even people within the Small Vehicle are able to enter by faith—not taking marks, abiding in practising in faith, no mark at all received—how much more so those who practise the Great Vehicle. The weight of this part lies in rewriting gathering and dispersal from the coming-together and scattering that the eye sees into the unfindable, and in saying on this basis that no name abides, that dharmas are not to be abided in, and that no mark at all is received.

The Last Part (Fascicle 43, “Gathering and Dispersal,” Chapter 9, Last Part) gathers the principle of the unfindability of gathering and dispersal toward two places. First it makes clear the substance of prajñāpāramitā: the real mark of all dharmas cannot be broken and cannot be destroyed; whether there is a buddha or there is no buddha, it abides constantly without alteration. Next it speaks directly of leaving the two extremes and walking the middle way: permanence and annihilation, existence and non-existence, form and the formless, the six inner faculties and the six outer sense-objects, and so on to this prajñā and what is not prajñā—whatever forms two extremes, one leaves them all and walks the middle way, and this is prajñā. Gathering and dispersal are themselves one kind of the two extremes of existence and non-existence; to leave gathering and dispersal is precisely to leave the two extremes. After this, by the eighteen emptinesses it makes clear that the six perfections are without anything existent; by three similes, a great wind breaking up clouds and the others, it shows that emptiness is able to break dharmas; it further glosses prajñā as the foremost among all wisdoms, distinguishing three kinds of wisdom—worldly, separation-born, and world-transcending—of which prajñā is the most excellent; finally it comes to whose prajñā this is: for the sake of worldly truth, prajñā belongs to the bodhisattva, and at the attainment of buddhahood it is renamed ‘omniscience of all kinds’; therefore prajñā does not belong to the Buddha, does not belong to the two vehicles, does not belong to ordinary people—「但屬菩薩」 tr. "it belongs only to the bodhisattva"; the bodhisattva who trains thus gradually draws near to sarvajñā, is always born by apparitional birth, and never departs from the buddhas. The weight of this part lies in extending the unfindability of gathering and dispersal into the middle way that leaves the two extremes, and in concluding to whom prajñā belongs.

The teaching of this chapter has two layers, sūtra and treatise. The sūtra text mostly first sets out one mark of not obtaining gathering and dispersal, or of not being fit to abide, or of not receiving, and then answers with ‘this word is without anything existent’ and ‘because of emptiness of nature’; the treatise’s explanation presses on why it is said again, what gathering and dispersal mean, why a name does not abide, why one is not to abide here, and further, through similes—eye and form giving rise to consciousness; the coming together of the cart’s wheel; the image in a mirror; Kāśyapa hearing music and being unable to keep himself still; a great wind breaking up clouds; the moon in the water and the moon in the sky—brings out the weight of the practice. If one reads only the sūtra’s lists, the many kinds of not obtaining and not abiding easily become a string of negated names; if one reads only the similes in the treatise, one easily loses the particular difficulty that each simile answers. The steadiest way to read is first to recognise whether what a given section means to break is gathering, dispersal, abiding, or receiving, then to see how the sūtra text purifies it by the unfindable, and finally to see how the treatise’s explanation brings it back down into causes and conditions, the two truths, and the middle way.

Therefore, in reading each section, one can ask at least three layers of question. First, what exactly is it that this section gathers and disperses, abides in and receives—is it a name, the five aggregates, a mark, or prajñā itself? Second, the unfindability, the not being fit to abide, the not receiving that the sūtra text speaks of—which attached mark, of grasper, of grasped, or of abided-in, is it clearing away? Third, by which objection does the treatise’s explanation guard against the reader taking no gathering and no dispersal as annihilation, or taking the provisional setting-up of names as a really existent dharma that is able to gather and disperse? The questions and answers of this chapter often first grant that the challenge has force—there are marks of gathering and dispersal before one’s eyes, and while the coming-together has not yet dispersed there seems to be a name—and then set limits to it by no coming and going, by ultimate emptiness, and by the two truths, worldly truth and the truth of the highest meaning; it is precisely this way of not carelessly flattening the two sides that makes gathering and dispersal neither a really existent coming-together and scattering before one’s eyes nor an annihilation that can be struck out with a single stroke. Read on along this middle-way path of the unfindable, abiding in not a single dharma, and the many marks of not obtaining gathering and dispersal throughout the chapter will of themselves settle into one and the same matter: dharmas have no gathering and no dispersal, and therefore are ultimately empty; being ultimately empty, a name does not abide, not a single dharma abides, no mark at all is received—and prajñā 「但屬菩薩」 tr. "belongs only to the bodhisattva".

Reading On in the Order of the Treatise

Gathering and Dispersal, First Part: Not Seeing the Gathering and Dispersal of Dharmas, Yet Still Establishing the Names of Bodhisattva and Prajñā

What Is Being Asked

This part opens with a confession that sounds strange to the ear. Subhūti, who is about to proclaim prajñā for others, first admits to the Buddha that he is 「不覺、不得」 tr. "not aware of, and does not obtain" a bodhisattva who is practising the prajñāpāramitā, and further says that he 「不得一切諸法集散」 tr. "does not obtain the gathering and dispersal of all dharmas"—form and so on up to consciousness, the eye and so on up to the mind, the twelve causes and conditions, lust, anger, delusion, and all wrong views, the six perfections and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, the five aggregates that are like a dream and like a transformation, the good and the not good, the conditioned and the unconditioned, the three times, and so on up to the Buddha and the real mark of all dharmas: in none of them can he find a single portion of anything that could be gathered together or could be dispersed. That being so, he asks: for whom, then, can I still establish the name “bodhisattva,” and to whom am I to teach prajñā?

This question falls right on the blade’s edge of the preceding chapters. The preceding chapter has only just said again and again that beings are unfindable and that a bodhisattva has only a name and no real dharma; now this part turns the point of the spear squarely on the two words “gathering and dispersal”: if all dharmas have nothing that is gathered and nothing that is dispersed, then the names and words used to call someone a bodhisattva, to call something prajñā—upon what, in the end, are they placed? The whole tension of the First Part of the Chapter on Gathering and Dispersal lies here—this chapter is plainly titled “Gathering and Dispersal,” yet the sūtra text says in every sentence ‘not obtaining gathering and dispersal’; on one side it must faithfully establish the various teachings—that the bodhisattva receives a name, that prajñā is received as a training, and even that the brahmin ascetic Śreṇika attained the path because of this—while on the other it withdraws, inch by inch, the real dharma on which a name could be placed. Whether, without granting a trace of a real self or a real dharma, one can make ‘placing a name’ and “unfindable” both hold at once—this is exactly what this part sets out to answer.

Passage by Passage

1. Why it is said again—among the four kinds of craving, the hardest to dispel is craving for dharmas. The preceding chapter has already said that one does not see the bodhisattva, the word “bodhisattva,” or prajñā; why say once more “not aware of, does not obtain”? The treatise-author’s determination is this: beings have four kinds of craving; the faults of craving for desire are evident and easily removed, craving for existence and craving for non-existence are somewhat harder, and only craving for dharmas—loving and being attached to those wholesome dharmas that are beneficial to the path—has faults that are the hardest to see clearly, like a great tree that is hard to uproot, and so it is said again. Moreover, the wording shifts to a different edge: before it said “not seeing,” here it says “not aware of, does not obtain,” so that one may understand that this not-seeing is not a failure to see because the power of wisdom is thin, but that there is fundamentally nothing to be aware of and nothing to obtain. Besides this, two further difficulties press here and must first be settled. The first: before one practises prajñā, surely there is a bodhisattva—why say that one does not see a bodhisattva practising prajñā? Answer: beings have been, 「從無始已來」 tr. "from beginningless time onward," unfindable in themselves; it is not that they become unfindable only once prajñā is practised; only because of falsehood, deception, and inversion do ordinary people follow this provisional name and call it existent, and now, practising prajñā, one extinguishes falsehood, deception, and inversion and knows clearly that it was non-existent from the first—this is not “existing before and not existing now”; were it read as existing before and not existing now, one would fall into annihilation. The second: why does Subhūti feel 「心悔」 tr. "remorse of mind"? It is because he 「畏破妄語戒」 tr. "fears breaking the precept against false speech"—in the Buddha’s Dharma all dharmas are definitely without self, and if he were to say “there is a bodhisattva” for whom he is to teach prajñā, he would fall into the offence of false speech, and so he feels remorse. The question, then, is not a doubt about the meaning of emptiness, but one more cut, made against the hardest-to-dispel craving for dharmas, together with this carefulness in guarding the precept.

2. First giving “gathering” and “dispersal” their right names. To speak of the unfindable, one must first recognise clearly what is being denied. The treatise-author says: the eye and form serve as conditions and eye-consciousness arises; the three things coming together give rise to eye-contact; within contact there further arise feeling, perception, construction, and the rest; wrong recollection gives rise to offensive karma and right recollection gives rise to wholesome dharmas; receiving the recompense of the six destinies, one plants karma again; thus it goes on 「展轉無窮」 tr. "passing on from one to the next without end"—this is called “gathering.” And eye-consciousness and the other dharmas perish moment by moment and their conditions at once part; when they arise they come from nowhere and when they cease they go nowhere, and they do not, like grain carried here and carried there, have a gathering and a scattering—this is called “dispersal.” Once the names and their meanings are set up, the bottom is at once exposed: these dharmas come from nowhere when they arise and go nowhere when they disperse, and 「但誑惑於眼」 tr. "merely deceive and delude the eye." Gathering and dispersal are not denied but seen through—they are only the marks of an illusory transformation, not real matters that could be clung to or rested upon.

3. Four gates to the unfindability of gathering and dispersal. Following the names and their meanings, this part sets out four gates by which gathering and dispersal are unfindable. 「無來處故，集不可得」 tr. "Because there is no place from which it comes, gathering is unfindable," and because there is no place to which it goes, dispersal is unfindable; arising is originally non-existent and ceasing is originally non-existent, therefore gathering and dispersal are both unfindable; 「畢竟空故集不可得，業因緣不失故散不可得」 tr. "because of ultimate emptiness, gathering is unfindable; because karmic causes and conditions are not lost, dispersal is unfindable"; 「觀世間滅諦故，集不可得；觀世間集諦故，散不可得」 tr. "because one contemplates the truth of the cessation of the world, gathering is unfindable; because one contemplates the truth of the origination of the world, dispersal is unfindable." The four gates press ever closer, layer upon layer, on one and the same matter: to say “unfindable” is not to strike out cause and effect at a stroke—it is precisely because karma is not lost that its “dispersal” is said to be unfindable; it is precisely because of ultimate emptiness that its “gathering” is said to be unfindable. Emptiness and not-being-lost are here two faces of one body, not cancelling each other out.

4. Why a name is “neither abiding nor not abiding”—the simile of the cart and the simile of fire. A name has to be placed upon a dharma; since the dharma is empty, the name has no place to abide: just as the name “cart” does not abide in the wheel, rim, spokes, and hub, nor is it apart from the wheel, rim, spokes, and hub—「一、異中求，皆不得」 tr. "sought as the same or as different, in neither is it obtained"; the name of a being stands likewise to the five aggregates, and once the five aggregates disperse, the name has nowhere to abide. Yet names cannot be said to be wholly nothing either—if names and words were wholly abolished, worldly truth would perish and the truth of the highest meaning would perish too: 「二諦無故，諸法錯亂」 tr. "because the two truths would be absent, all dharmas would be thrown into confusion." One layer further: if a name really were in the dharma, then 「說火則燒口，說有則塞口」 tr. "to say ‘fire’ would burn the mouth, to say ‘existence’ would stop up the mouth"; if a name were wholly not in the dharma, then saying “fire” should not give rise to the thought of fire, and one seeking fire might just as well get water. So the placing of a name falls outside both sides: it neither really abides in the dharma nor is wholly without abiding, and only because of 「無所有」 tr. "having no existence" is it neither abiding nor not abiding. As with the name “bodhisattva,” so with the names of all dharmas—the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, and the rest.

5. Why the five aggregates are spoken of again as “like a dream, like an illusion”; why of the ten similes only five things are named. It has already been said above that the gathering and dispersal of the five aggregates is unfindable—why are the five aggregates brought up again here? Answer: before, the five aggregates were spoken of directly; now the five aggregates are spoken of as 「如夢、如幻」 tr. "like a dream, like an illusion." This phrase has a remedy of its own: some people hold that 「凡夫五眾虛誑不實，聖人五眾非是虛誑」 tr. "the five aggregates of ordinary people are deceptive and unreal, while the five aggregates of the noble ones are not deceptive"—judging only the defiled portion to be illusory and setting the pure portion down as real; so Subhūti says that, like a dream and like an illusion, they 「同皆不住」 tr. "all alike do not abide," and the two portions, ordinary and noble, are seen through together. It is asked again: of the ten similes, why are only five things raised—dream, echo, shadow, mirage, and transformation? The answer: to say all ten would not have been impossible either; it is only that five similes are spoken in accordance with the minds of beings, or that five similes are raised to correspond to the five aggregates, and once the matter and its principle are clear there is no need to say them all.

6. Which meaning is taken for each of separation, quiescence, non-arising, non-ceasing, and non-indicating. This section glosses name after name, and most of all must not be skipped. “Separation” is divided in two ways: one division is into “separation of body” and “separation of mind,” the other into 「諸法離名字」 tr. "all dharmas are separate from names" and 「諸法各各離自相」 tr. "all dharmas are each separate from their own specific marks"; here, since the purpose is to break names, it is the latter pair that is taken, the former pair being for the most part what the Small Vehicle speaks of. “Quiescence” is of two kinds—one is to quiet evil things by means of the mark of pure goodness, the other is to contemplate worldly dharmas 「如涅槃寂滅相」 tr. "as having the quiescent mark of nirvāṇa"—here the latter is taken. “Non-arising” is of two kinds—one is that the future and the unconditioned are called non-arising, the other is that all dharmas in reality have no mark of arising and arising is unfindable—here the latter is taken. “Non-ceasing” has three: 「智緣滅，非智緣滅，無常滅」 tr. "cessation through knowledge, cessation not through knowledge, and cessation through impermanence"; what is spoken of here is cessation through impermanence, and because it is contrary to cessation through impermanence it is called non-ceasing. “Non-indicating” means 「一切諸觀滅，語言道斷」 tr. "all contemplations cease, and the path of words is cut off," so that there is not a single dharma that can be pointed to and said to be existent or non-existent, permanent or impermanent. This string of names and terms is no mere heaping up; it is meant to make one know that each name the sūtra uses has its own meaning that is taken, and must not be matched vaguely.

7. How gathering and dispersal are spoken of for unconditioned dharmas—the simile of carving doors in empty space. Question: the five aggregates have gathering and dispersal, so to say “neither gathering nor dispersing” can still serve as a remedy; but suchness, dharma-nature, and the limit of reality have from the first nothing contrary to them—why is it said of them too that they neither gather nor disperse? Answer: when a practitioner attains suchness, dharma-nature, and the rest, this is called “gathering,” and when he loses them it is called “dispersal”—gathering and dispersal are, from the first, provisionally set up with respect to attaining and losing; just as empty space originally has no gathering or dispersal, yet when doors and windows are carved out it is called gathering, and when they are blocked up it is called dispersal. It can be seen that even for the most signless of dharmas, dharma-nature and the limit of reality, their “gathering and dispersal” is only a provisional name following attainment and loss, and there is no real gathering and no real dispersal to rest upon.

8. Breaking the name “bodhisattva” through another gate—the five aggregates and the bodhisattva do not contain each other. Before, names were broken through the gate of “neither abiding nor not abiding”; here a further 「異門」 tr. "different gate" is set up, breaking on every side with four statements: 「菩薩非是五眾，五眾非是菩薩」 tr. "the bodhisattva is not the five aggregates, the five aggregates are not the bodhisattva"; in the five aggregates there is no bodhisattva, and in the bodhisattva there are no five aggregates; the five aggregates do not belong to the bodhisattva, and the bodhisattva does not belong to the five aggregates; 「離五眾無菩薩，離菩薩無五眾」 tr. "apart from the five aggregates there is no bodhisattva, apart from the bodhisattva there are no five aggregates." Sought along the four routes of identity, separateness, being in one another, and belonging to one another, the bodhisattva is in every case unfindable—「當知是空」 tr. "know that it is empty"—and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, likewise. These four statements block off, one by one, every possible relation between the name “bodhisattva” and the five aggregates; this is the tightest gathering-in of the whole part’s breaking of names.

9. The simile of the dream and the simile of empty space—names and words merely deceive mind and eye. Everything seen in a dream is false and cannot be spoken of; within it there are no fixed dharma-marks of the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, or the eighteen elements—it 「但誑心」 tr. "merely deceives the mind"; shadow, echo, mirage, and transformation are likewise—they 「但誑耳目」 tr. "merely deceive ear and eye." Going on to a further simile, that of empty space: empty space cannot be spoken of among all dharmas, because it has no mark—it is contrary to form, so it cannot be said to be form; the place where form ends is not itself empty space either, and apart from this there is no other dharma; if one takes having entering and having leaving to be the mark of empty space, that is bodily action, not the mark of empty space; since it has no mark there is no dharma to be pointed to, and so 「虛空但有名字」 tr. "empty space has only a name." The name “bodhisattva” is just like empty space: only a provisional name, and no real substance to which it refers can be found.

10. Earth, water, fire, and wind too have only names—the simile of the image in a mirror and the simile of fine particles. Here a harder doubt has to be withstood: that dreams and empty space have only names can still be believed, but earth, water, fire, and wind are 「實法」 tr. "real dharmas"—how can they too have only names? Answer: people without wisdom take earth and the rest to be real, but when the noble ones contemplate them with the wisdom-eye they are all deceptive. It is like 「小兒見鏡中像」 tr. "a small child seeing an image in a mirror," who takes it to be real, delights in it and wants to grab it, while an adult sees at a glance that it merely deceives the eye; ordinary people see fine particles coming together to form earth and call it real earth, while one who has the divine eye, dispersing this earth, 「但見微塵」 tr. "sees only fine particles," and when these are discriminated and broken apart with the wisdom-eye they are 「都不可得」 tr. "altogether unfindable." Again, in the treatise on the first chapter the marks of the body were broken in many ways; since the body can be broken, earth is broken along with it. Further, if earth were real, why does it all become fire when one cultivates the contemplation of all as fire? If one says that what is contemplated in meditative absorption is real, then would not the Buddha’s saying 「一切法空」 tr. "all dharmas are empty" turn out false instead?—and that is not so. The three great elements of water, fire, and wind are the same. If even the real dharmas of the four great elements have only names, then that the placing of a name has nothing real to rest on is here seen through to the bottom.

11. Since the four great elements are empty, pressing step by step up to the fruit of the noble path and to the Buddha. The treatise-author follows at once with a graded chain that must not be skipped: the body made of the four great elements is itself empty—how much less, then, could the actions such as keeping the precepts that the body performs fail to be empty; the coarse actions such as the precepts being empty, how much less could meditative absorption, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision of liberation fail to be empty; the five aggregates beginning with the precepts being empty, how much less could the fruit of the noble path obtained through these causes and conditions fail to be empty; the fruit of the noble path being empty, how much less could the srota-āpanna, and so on up to the Buddha, fail to be empty. Ring linked to ring and pushed through to the end, it is meant to show that from the coarsest, the four great elements, to the most honoured, the fruit of buddhahood, there is not one place where a real existent can stand. So although the name “bodhisattva” is established out of wholesome dharmas, and so on up to dharmas of existence and non-existence, it 「不名為善」 tr. "is not called good," and so on up to not being called existent or non-existent—precisely because gathering and dispersal are unfindable.

12. Hearing without fear is abiding in the avaivartika nature—the simile of the child of a noble clan. Subhūti, knowing the mark of emptiness to be thus, says that if a bodhisattva who hears this is 「不恐不畏」 tr. "not frightened, not afraid," then this is 「阿鞞跋致性中住，以如不住法住故」 tr. "abiding in the avaivartika nature, because he abides in the way of the dharma of not abiding." What is “the avaivartika nature”? The treatise-author explains it specially: this bodhisattva has 「未得無生法忍」 tr. "not yet attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas," and has not yet received a prediction from the buddhas, but by the power of merit and wisdom alone he is able to 「信樂諸法畢竟空」 tr. "believe in and delight in the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas"; this is called abiding in the avaivartika nature, attaining a share of the quality of avaivartika; just as 「小兒在貴性中生，雖未成事，以姓貴故便貴」 tr. "a small child born into a noble clan, though he has not yet accomplished anything, is noble because his clan is noble." Not to be startled or afraid before ultimate emptiness is a watershed between retrogressing and not retrogressing; though he has not yet accomplished the matter of realising the fruit, his nature is already among the non-retrogressing.

13. From the gate of deference to the gate of non-abiding; the many names of prajñā and the eleven divisions of “practice.” In the preceding part Subhūti spoke of prajñā through the 「謙讓門」 tr. "gate of deference"—saying with his mouth that he did not speak, while in fact speaking for bodhisattvas; here he turns to the 「不住門」 tr. "gate of non-abiding," saying directly that the bodhisattva 「不應住」 tr. "should not abide" in any dharma. Prajñā has from the first many names: contemplating, cultivating, according, uniting, entering, practising, abiding, and so on—all of these are called cultivating prajñā, and the many names are set up only to make the hearers glad. It is divided more finely by one further layer: “practice” comprehends listening, reciting, writing out, right recollection, teaching, reflecting, weighing, discriminating, cultivating, and so on up to awakening; within this practice eleven names are further distinguished one by one—the first seeing is called “contemplating,” learning gradually day by day is called “practising,” tallying with prajñā is called “uniting,” going along with it is called “according,” penetrating it thoroughly is called “entering,” discriminating and taking marks is called “recollecting,” practising constantly so as to become like it is called “training,” observing and knowing right and wrong, gain and loss, by skilful means is called “reflecting,” practising together with the mind of meditative absorption is called “cultivating,” attaining the path and not losing it is called “abiding,” and what is contrary to abiding is called “not abiding.” This string is not a stacking up of synonyms but the naming, stage by stage, of the graded depth of cultivating prajñā, so that the practitioner may know at which stage his own effort lies.

14. Since it was said that the emptiness of dharmas is itself non-abiding, why say again that one should not abide—the signless samādhi and the simile of the flying bird. Someone doubts: since it was said before that the emptiness of dharmas is right then and there non-abiding, why need it be said again that one should not abide? Answer: it is said again only because 「著法愛心難遣」 tr. "the mind attached to craving for dharmas is hard to dispel." True non-abiding is that there is a 「無相三昧」 tr. "signless samādhi": entering it, one does not take the marks of any dharma, yet does not fall into the absorption of cessation; the bodhisattva’s wisdom is inconceivable, and though he does not take the marks of any dharma he is able to walk the path, 「如鳥於虛空中，無所依而能高飛」 tr. "like a bird in empty space, which with nothing to rely on is able to fly high." This is the cause and condition that Subhūti himself states: the mark of form is empty of itself, the emptiness of form is not form, nor is there form apart from emptiness—this meaning has already been stated in the second chapter—and so on up to the six perfections, likewise; because of emptiness there is nothing to abide in. Non-abiding is not stopping one’s hands and sitting withered; it is not sticking, not clinging, and still walking the path.

15. Two kinds of bodhisattva, examples of the syllable-gates, hearing one syllable and entering the real mark. Why should one not abide in letters and supernormal powers either? The treatise-author first distinguishes two kinds of bodhisattva: those who practise meditative absorption give rise to supernormal powers, and those who study and read 「知分別文字」 tr. "know how to discriminate letters." The syllable-gates have examples: one syllable making one word, as the name for earth, 「浮」 tr. "fu," is a one-syllable gate; two syllables making one word, as the name for water, 「闍藍」 tr. "shelan," is a two-syllable gate; the name for water 「波尸藍」 tr. "boshilan" is a three-syllable gate. More important still is the use of hearing a syllable and entering the real mark—the bodhisattva, hearing one syllable, at once enters the real mark of all dharmas: hearing the syllable 「阿」 tr. "a," he at once knows that all dharmas are from the first unarisen; hearing 「頭佉」 tr. "touqu," he at once gives rise to great compassion at the mark of suffering arising in all dharmas; hearing 「阿尼吒」 tr. "anizha," he at once knows that all dharmas are impermanent and enters the noble practice of the path. The use of letters is as deep and wondrous as this, yet because it is ultimately empty one does not abide in it; the meaning of supernormal powers has been stated before; both matters being empty, the bodhisattva does not abide in them.

16. Why one also does not abide in good and indeterminate dharmas; the two kinds of attachment, attachment of desire and attachment of views. Defiled dharmas are not abided in because they are offensive; wholesome dharmas and indeterminate dharmas are not offensive—why are they too not abided in? Answer: though they are not offensive, they can give rise to the causes and conditions of offence—there are bodhisattvas who, with a mind of I and self, abide in form and are attached to form, and perform karma for the sake of producing form; they then 「不受般若」 tr. "do not receive prajñā," do not fulfil prajñā, and do not accomplish sarvajñā—this is precisely the fault that attachment to wholesome dharmas can give rise to. Subhūti himself states the cause and condition of non-abiding: 「色是不受」 tr. "form is not received"; if form is not received, it is not form, because its nature is always empty. A doubt is raised further: since what is impermanent, suffering, and empty has faults and offences and so is not received—as one who knows a red-hot ball of metal cannot be grasped—why must the five aggregates be broken further? Answer: attachment is of two kinds—「欲著」 tr. "attachment of desire" and 「見著」 tr. "attachment of views." Contemplating impermanence and suffering breaks the attachment of desire and one attains liberation; but there are people who, though they contemplate impermanence, are still attached to this contemplation and give rise to a view; to break this layer, the mark of form is analysed as empty, so that they leave the attachment of views. It can be seen that breaking the five aggregates is not superfluous; it is meant to pull out by the root even the subtle view of 「著於觀」 tr. "attachment to contemplation" as well.

17. The samādhi of not receiving is not shared with the two vehicles—the case of Mahākāśyapa hearing the bodhisattvas’ music. It is asked: śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas exhaust their outflows because they do not receive any dharma—why is it said that this 「不受三昧，不與二乘共」 tr. "samādhi of not receiving is not shared with the two vehicles"? The treatise-author answers in three layers. First, though the two vehicles have the samādhi of not receiving, it 「無有廣大之用，不利不深，亦不堅固」 tr. "has no vast use; it is not sharp, not deep, and not firm either." Second, the two vehicles attain the not-receiving of dharmas only at the time their outflows are exhausted, while the bodhisattva has long known that no dharma is received and that all are, like nirvāṇa without remainder, ultimately empty—long and recent, deep and shallow, are not the same. Third, the two vehicles have residual habits, have hindrance and obstruction, and though they have the samādhi of no receiving, it is not pure—as when 「摩訶迦葉聞菩薩伎樂，於坐處不能自安」 tr. "Mahākāśyapa, hearing the music of the bodhisattvas, could not keep himself still in his seat"; the bodhisattvas asked him why he, foremost in dhūta practice, seemed about to rise and dance, and Kāśyapa answered: 「我於人天五欲中永離不動」 tr. "among the five desires of humans and gods I am forever free and unmoved," but this is the power of transformation born of the causes and conditions of the merit and karma of great bodhisattvas, and 「我未能忍」 tr. "I am not yet able to bear it"; just as Sumeru, king of mountains, can bear winds rising from all four sides, yet 「若隨嵐風至，不能自安」 tr. "if the vairambha wind comes, it cannot keep itself still." It can be seen that the residual habits of the two vehicles still count as afflictions at the level of the bodhisattva. This samādhi of not receiving only the Buddha knows completely; though the bodhisattva cannot yet know it completely, he already surpasses the two vehicles. And because people value this samādhi and give rise to a mind of attachment to it, Subhūti goes on to say that not only is the samādhi not received, but form and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds are none of them received, the cause and condition of which lies in the 「十八空」 tr. "eighteen emptinesses." Why must everything be contemplated as empty by means of the eighteen emptinesses? Because 「取相著故，生諸結使」 tr. "through taking marks and being attached, all the fetters arise"; the marks of form and so on up to dhāraṇī and samādhi are all the root of afflictions, and in the Buddha’s Dharma, even down to 「無有法微相可取」 tr. "there is no dharma with even a subtle mark that can be taken."

18. Why the brahmin ascetic Śreṇika is cited—the reason for the citation and his background. At the end of this part a passage on Śreṇika is cited as confirmation. Why cite him? Answer: this sūtra teaches the emptiness of dharmas by many causes and conditions, up to there being no subtle mark that can be taken, and people’s minds doubt and marvel at it and find it hard to believe; so it cites how even a man of the Small Vehicle believed in the emptiness of dharmas as proof—how much more, then, should those of the Great Vehicle not fail to believe. Śreṇika’s origins must also be explained: the brahmin Shanruo 「善知一切智人相」 tr. "knew well the marks of one who is all-knowing"; once, seeing the bodhisattva eat milk-gruel, he knew that he would become a buddha that very day, and Śreṇika 「是其舅也」 tr. "was his maternal uncle." Śreṇika was advanced in years, of wisdom and virtue, and of great renown; after leaving home he read widely in the scriptures and books, cultivated the mind, sat in meditation, and studied the path, and from time to time went to the debating hall; the brahmin ascetics there debated how the six teachers and the Buddha, when their disciples died, did or did not declare where they were reborn, and on this account Śreṇika gave rise to doubt. This account of his background, together with the background of the six teachers, is exactly the occasion of his later going to the Buddha to ask about the Dharma, and must not be passed over in a single phrase.

19. Going to the Buddha, seven questions and seven “No,” attaining the path in his seat. Śreṇika went to the Buddha, greeted him, and set out in full the doubt he had heard in the debating hall in the past: the Buddha’s Dharma says that of the disciples, the lesser receive a further birth hereafter and the greater do not—which is definitive? The Buddha answered, 「我法甚深，微妙難解」 tr. "my Dharma is very deep, subtle and wondrous, hard to understand," and rebuked him that because through the long night he had been 「著諸異見、異欲、異法」 tr. "attached to other views, other desires, other teachings," he could not see for himself; Śreṇika begged the Buddha to take pity and teach the Dharma, 「令我於坐得眼」 tr. "so that I may obtain the eye in this very seat." The Buddha then, with seven questions, broke the 「如去」 tr. "thus-gone" separately, layer by layer: is form the thus-gone; are feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness the thus-gone; is the thus-gone in form, in consciousness; is the thus-gone apart from form, apart from consciousness; and so on up to whether there is some other thus-gone one without form and without consciousness—and to each Śreṇika answered 「不也」 tr. "No." The Buddha then showed him: one who clearly knows this meaning does not declare a place of rebirth, because the habits of conceit of self and the rest are without remainder. Śreṇika attained the path then and there, asked to leave home, his hair and beard fell away of themselves and he became a śramaṇa, and before long he realised arhatship. The treatise points out two stages of his “faith”: the first faith was faith that 「佛能令我得道」 tr. "the Buddha is able to make me attain the path"; later, hearing the Buddha break I and self and knowing that there is originally no self, he knew that dharmas therefore belong to no one, and are like an illusion, like a dream, not to be grasped; attaining this power of faith, he entered the real mark of all dharmas, and no longer accepted that 「色是如去」 tr. "form is the thus-gone," and so on up to 「識是如去」 tr. "consciousness is the thus-gone."

20. Why the brahmin ascetic answered “No” every time—the chain of reasoning that breaks the self. This section is the densest point of meaning in the whole part and must be unfolded route by route. Answer: the brahmin ascetic had from the first taken 「總相為我」 tr. "the general mark to be the self," but the Buddha asked separately, one by one, and so he answered “No.” Looking more closely: worldly people speak of a self in two ways—some say the five aggregates are the self, some say there is a self apart from the five aggregates. If the five aggregates were the self, there would be no separate self; why? 「我是一，眾是五，一不作五，五不作一」 tr. "the self is one, the aggregates are five; one does not become five, five do not become one"; again, the five aggregates are impermanent, arising and ceasing, and if the self were the five aggregates it too should arise and cease, and arising and ceasing, it would 「失罪福」 tr. "lose offence and merit"; the five aggregates arise from causes and conditions and are not sovereign, and if the self were like this, then 「何用我為」 tr. "what use would a self be?" If one says there is a separate self apart from the five aggregates, that too is not so, because it has no mark—knowing, seeing, feeling, and the rest are all marks of the five aggregates, not marks of a self; how could the wise say that there is a self apart from the five aggregates? Knowing by such various causes and conditions that there is no self, the “self” is precisely the “thus-gone”; all dharmas too are thus, all alike the thus-gone, 「以無主故，法無所屬」 tr. "because there is no master, dharmas belong to no one." What is broken is the “self” clung to as one thing through the general mark; once it is broken completely, the self and all dharmas together come to rest in the belonging-to-no-one of the “thus-gone.”

21. Seeking the path in four places, the simile of the scale and the thing weighed depending on each other, the meaning of real wisdom. The treatise further unfolds a passage of Śreṇika’s own examination. He searched for the wisdom that is able to attain the path, and sought it in four places, finding no fixed mark in any: contemplating the five aggregates of one’s own body is called inner, contemplating another’s body is called outer, contemplating both this and that together is called inner-and-outer—by these three kinds of wisdom one does not attain the path, and with no wisdom at all one does not attain the path either; inner and outer may also be understood as the six inner sense-fields and the six outer sense-fields, or as the wisdom that contemplates and the objects and places contemplated. Śreṇika knew that all contemplations have faults and offences: inwardly, by wisdom, one declares outer dharmas to be permanent or impermanent, existent or non-existent, but in fact outer dharmas have no fixed mark, and if they had a fixed mark there would be no need for the use of wisdom; moreover this wisdom arises from the causes and conditions of outer dharmas, and if outer dharmas are not fixed, the wisdom too is not fixed—「如稱為物故、物為稱故」 tr. "as the scale is for the sake of the thing, and the thing for the sake of the scale," the two depend on each other: 「離物無稱、離稱無物」 tr. "apart from the thing there is no scale, apart from the scale there is no thing." Stated briefly, the meaning of true and real wisdom is this: not seeing it in the inner five aggregates, not seeing it in the outer, not seeing it in the inner-and-outer, and not seeing it apart from the five aggregates either—thus 「見是智慧為實」 tr. "one sees this wisdom to be real." Contemplating the five aggregates as impermanent with the knowledge of impermanence, this knowledge exists from the coming together of causes and conditions and is not truly real; 「著觀者邪見，不著者得道」 tr. "one who is attached to the contemplation has wrong views; one who is not attached attains the path"; if the mark of impermanence were real, why would being attached to it keep one from attaining the path; if one says that apart from the contemplations of impermanence and the rest one can attain the path, then ordinary people too should attain the path—so it is said that apart from this wisdom too there is nothing to be obtained. The brahmin ascetic then, in his mind, became far removed from all dharmas, and far removed from wisdom as well; all views of self, all taking of marks, and all wrong views ceased at once, yet this was not obtained from having no wisdom either; thereupon he rejoiced, 「觀無量法性相」 tr. "contemplating the immeasurable mark of dharma-nature," and praised: 「佛真為大師」 tr. "the Buddha is truly the great teacher." This simile of the scale and the thing weighed depending on each other brings out with the utmost clarity that wisdom, relying on outer dharmas, is not fixed—the contemplating and the contemplated are set up in dependence on each other, and neither has an own-nature that can be clung to.

22. Closing with “not relinquishing” and “not receiving.” At its end the whole part closes with two meanings. “Not relinquishing” is 「諸法中皆有助道力故」 tr. "because in all dharmas there is a power that aids the path"—each dharma has its use in aiding the path, so one does not simply cast them all aside. “Not receiving” is 「諸法實相畢竟空無所得故不受」 tr. "because the real mark of all dharmas is ultimately empty and has nothing to be attained, one does not take it up." One layer further: since fetters and afflictions are inverted and false, there is from the first nothing to relinquish; only knowing the mark of all dharmas as they really are, without marks and without recollection—this is called the bodhisattva’s 「不受、不捨波羅蜜」 tr. "perfection of not receiving and not relinquishing," which is precisely prajñā. On this shore and on the other shore alike there is nothing to be crossed, and so 「世間即是涅槃相，涅槃相即是世間相」 tr. "the world is itself the mark of nirvāṇa; the mark of nirvāṇa is itself the mark of the world"—one and the same mark, the so-called signless. Knowing thus, one ought to enter extinction, and only because merit is not yet complete does one not become extinct—「大慈悲、本願力故不滅」 tr. "because of great kindness and compassion and the power of the original vow, one does not become extinct"; though one seeks the Buddha’s path, with regard to this Dharma there is no mark of fair or foul, of receiving or relinquishing, and so it is 「非法亦非非法」 tr. "neither dharma nor non-dharma"; the 「不得集散、不住、不受」 tr. "not obtaining gathering and dispersal, not abiding, not receiving" spoken of all the way through comes at last to rest in the single phrase 「一切相不受」 tr. "no mark whatever is received."

Do Not Misread

Do not read ‘not obtaining gathering and dispersal’ as annihilation, or as a denial of cause and effect. The four gates of this part say it very plainly: it is precisely because 「業因緣不失」 tr. "karmic causes and conditions are not lost" that dispersal is said to be unfindable; it can be seen that far from abolishing cause and effect, it speaks of cause and effect as set within ultimate emptiness. It says further that it is “not that it existed before and now no longer exists”; to read it as a person dying like a lamp going out, with karmic recompense struck out at a stroke, is to read it exactly backwards.

Nor read “should not abide” as cultivating nothing at all and sitting down into a withered absorption. The treatise-author deliberately distinguishes the signless samādhi from the absorption of cessation: the bodhisattva does not take the marks of any dharma yet is still able to walk the path, like a bird flying high with nothing to rely on; “not abiding” is not sticking and not making things one’s own, not stopping one’s hands. In the same way, do not read “not receiving” as the kind of not-receiving of the two vehicles at the time their outflows are exhausted—the bodhisattva’s not-receiving has 「廣大之用」 tr. "vast use," has long known ultimate emptiness and still exercises great compassion, and so it is said to be “not shared with the two vehicles”; even a noble one like Kāśyapa, foremost in dhūta practice, could not keep himself still on hearing the bodhisattvas’ music, which shows that the residual habits of the two vehicles are not yet exhausted, and that their not-receiving and the bodhisattva’s not-receiving are worlds apart in depth.

Do not, because “earth, water, fire, and wind” are called real dharmas, take them to have a real portion of self-substance. The treatise uses the two similes of the image in the mirror and of fine particles precisely to make one see through this: ordinary people call them real; the divine eye disperses them and sees only fine particles; the wisdom-eye discriminates them and they are altogether unfindable. If even the four great elements have only names, how much more the precepts, meditation, and wisdom, and so on up to the fruit of the noble path and the fruit of buddhahood—this graded chain is meant to press to the bottom the question “where could a real existent still stand?”, not to belittle wholesome dharmas.

Do not read 「阿鞞跋致性中住」 tr. "abiding in the avaivartika nature" as the already-realised stage of non-retrogression. The treatise says it clearly: this is one who has 「未得無生法忍、未從諸佛授記」 tr. "not yet attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, and not yet received a prediction from the buddhas," and only by the power of merit and wisdom believes in and delights in ultimate emptiness, like the small child of a noble clan who, though he has not yet accomplished anything, is already noble; hearing of ultimate emptiness without being startled or afraid, his nature is already among the non-retrogressing, but he has not yet accomplished the matter of non-retrogression.

Above all, the passage on Śreṇika must not be read as attaining by a single act of faith alone. His “faith” had two stages: the first faith was only faith that the Buddha could make him attain the path; truly entering the real mark came only afterwards—after he had heard the Buddha break I and self, after the seven questions and seven “No,” after seeking wisdom in four places and finding no fixed mark in any. To read his attaining the path in his seat as a sudden faith that needed no breaking of attachment is to leave out that most philosophically revealing chain of reasoning that breaks the self.

Still less read “a name is neither abiding nor not abiding” as the complete abolition of names and words. If names and words could be abolished, the two truths would be thrown into confusion. This part does not want one to renounce designations, but to see clearly: calling someone a bodhisattva, calling something prajñā, are only provisional names set up, and among the five aggregates of clinging and so on up to all dharmas they 「不可說」 tr. "cannot be spoken of," yet one still follows names to recognise things, and the two truths go side by side. Placing a name and the unfindable are, from the first, two faces of one and the same matter.

Bearing on Practice

This part can serve as a mirror in which to see one’s own mind. When meeting various designations, names, and marks, one can ask: am I placing “I,” “bodhisattva,” “prajñā” as if each were a really existing thing, or do I know it to be neither abiding nor not abiding, having only a provisional name? When cultivating absorption one can ask: am I taking marks and abiding in attachment, greedy for the flavour of meditation and the flavour of the Dharma, or am I not taking marks and yet not giving up walking the path? When tending wholesome dharmas one can ask: craving for desire is easy to see and easy to remove, but that hardest-to-see craving for dharmas—love of and attachment to the good one is oneself cultivating—have I noticed it quietly tying a new knot of clinging? At a subtler layer still: is “attachment to contemplation” also among them—plainly contemplating impermanence, yet secretly grasping this contemplation as real and giving rise to a kind of view, which is exactly what the treatise calls the attachment of views? Coming to the word “faith,” one can ask further: is what I believe a faith that takes marks, wanting to grasp a state that can be obtained, or is it, like Śreṇika’s, a faith that gives rise, with regard to omniscience, to no mark-taking faith, and yet truly believes its way in where nothing is obtainable? If one can answer these questions steadily, one is truly able to place names, and truly to practise prajñā, within ‘not obtaining gathering and dispersal’—clinging to nothing, and yet thought after thought not sticking, not receiving, not relinquishing.

Further Resonances

Taken as a whole, this part in fact does only one thing: first it gives “gathering and dispersal” their right names, then by four gates it withdraws their obtainability, and so ‘placing the name “bodhisattva,”’ ‘teaching prajñā,’ ‘teaching non-abiding,’ and ‘sealing it with Śreṇika’s faith’ all stand, as a matter of course, upon ultimate emptiness without falling into annihilation. Later, among the ancient masters who read this chapter, what was received first was exactly the section on the names and meanings of gathering and dispersal and the four gates of unfindability, each rearranging the order of these four layers according to his own understanding and taking it into his own structural analysis; there were also ancient masters who noticed a surface paradox—the sūtra text says in every sentence ‘not seeing gathering and dispersal,’ yet this chapter is titled precisely “Gathering and Dispersal”—and the various masters each have their own explanation of this mismatch between name and meaning; here only their approach is recorded, without judging which is higher, and the details are left for the general discussion at the end of the chapter. As for this part itself, what is most worth carrying away is not a finer table of the items of gathering and dispersal, but its rewriting of “name”: from the simile of the cart, the simile of empty space, the simile of the image in the mirror, to the simile of fine particles, what is shown all along is that a name is never a nail driven into some real dharma, but a provisional setting-up that stands according to conditions between the two truths, neither abiding nor not abiding; only one who can see names thus can receive the ever-deepening “not abiding” and “not receiving” that follow, and can understand why Śreṇika truly believed his way in at the very point where 「四處求智慧皆不可得」 tr. "wisdom sought in four places is in every case unfindable."

Gathering and Dispersal, Last Part: Three Questions Open Up the Substance of Prajñā—Non-existent and Unfindable, Walking the Middle Way Apart from the Two Extremes; Prajñā Belongs Only to the Bodhisattva, Yet in the End He Is Never Apart from the Buddhas

What Is Being Asked

When the Chapter on Gathering and Dispersal reaches this second half, the sūtra suddenly draws itself together into three very short questions: a bodhisattva who wishes to practise prajñā should ask himself 「何者是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "What is prajñāpāramitā?", 「何以故名般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Why is it called prajñāpāramitā?", and 「是誰般若波羅蜜」 tr. "Whose prajñāpāramitā is it?" All through the first half the chapter has said that in the bodhisattva, in the five aggregates, in the twelve causes and conditions, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, no gathering and no dispersal can be seen, and has gone so far as to say that not one among all dharmas can have a name forcibly set up for it; having come this far, the reader can hardly avoid a doubt that turns back on itself: since everything is unfindable, can the name ‘prajñā’ itself then stand? The second half turns the spearhead precisely onto prajñā itself—asking first what it is, then why it bears this name, and last whose, after all, it is. The three questions look ordinary, but in fact they draw back the blade of ‘seeing no gathering and no dispersal’ that runs through the whole chapter and turn its light upon the illuminating prajñā itself: if prajñā too is non-existent and unfindable, on what ground can it still serve as the bodhisattva’s practice, and still bring about sarvajñā? What this part sets out to answer is precisely this question.

Passage by Passage

The moment the treatise opens its mouth, it points out for the sūtra where these three questions land: what, after all, is the substance of prajñā? Its answer cuts like a nail through iron—prajñāpāramitā 「是一切諸法實相，不可破，不可壞」 tr. "is the real mark of all dharmas; it cannot be broken, it cannot be destroyed"; whether there is a buddha or there is no buddha, this mark of dharmas and this position of dharmas abide permanently without change, and it is not something that buddhas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, or even gods and humans can make. This sentence matters most: it turns the first half’s ‘dharmas are unfindable’ into a positive foothold—precisely because the real mark of dharmas is made by no one and cannot be broken or destroyed, within it there is from the very start nothing to be called gathering and nothing to be called dispersal; that gathering and dispersal are unfindable does not negate prajñā along with them, but points out that the real mark which prajñā illuminates is of itself just so. The sūtra itself had long since set down its own comment—「若法無所有、不可得，是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "if a dharma is non-existent and unfindable, that is prajñāpāramitā"; non-existent and unfindable is not ‘utterly nothing at all’; it is precisely what makes prajñā prajñā.

Next the treatise marks out, with a long string of ‘two extremes’, the way this real mark is walked: 「常是一邊，斷滅是一邊」 tr. "permanence is one extreme, annihilation is one extreme"; only to leave these two extremes and walk the middle way is prajñā. Permanence and impermanence, suffering and happiness, form and the formless, the resistant and the non-resistant, the conditioned and the unconditioned, the worldly and the world-transcending, and so on up to ignorance and the exhaustion of ignorance, old age and death and the exhaustion of old age and death, the existence of dharmas and the non-existence of dharmas—each and every one is a paired extreme. Here there is one sentence most worth savouring—even 「此般若波羅蜜是一邊，此非般若波羅蜜是一邊」 tr. "‘this is prajñāpāramitā’ is one extreme, ‘this is not prajñāpāramitā’ is one extreme" must be left: only when even the discrimination ‘this is prajñā, that is not prajñā’ is laid down is it true prajñā. It is then gathered into three gates—「離有、離無、離非有非無」 tr. "apart from existence, apart from non-existence, apart from neither existence nor non-existence"—not falling into foolish delusion and able to walk the good path. This sentence must not be taken lightly: to dismiss existence and non-existence without falling into annihilation and without falling into inert emptiness is 「不墮愚癡」 tr. "not falling into foolish delusion"; after the two extremes are dismissed, still honestly to practise the six perfections and do the work of a bodhisattva is 「能行善道」 tr. "able to walk the good path"—so it can be seen that leaving the two extremes does not mean dismissing all good practices along with them; it dismisses the attachment and does not dismiss the practice. This section is precisely the direct statement of the whole chapter’s ‘seeing no gathering and no dispersal’: to see that there is gathering is one extreme, to see that there is dispersal is one extreme; leave the two extremes and fall into neither annihilation nor permanence—the reason gathering and dispersal are “unfindable” is made concrete on this middle way, and is not reduced to a stretch of inert emptiness.

Then on what ground does the phrase “non-existent and unfindable” itself stand? Here the treatise sets down three successive layers of explanation, taking it apart from a single conclusion into reasons that can be told apart. First is Subhūti’s own statement: 「是法無所有、不可得」 tr. "this dharma is non-existent and unfindable"—prajñāpāramitā 「空故無所有」 tr. "is non-existent because it is empty," which is said with respect to its substance; 「常無常等諸觀，求覓無定相故不可得」 tr. "through the contemplations of permanence, impermanence, and the rest, one searches and seeks and there is no fixed mark; therefore it is unfindable," which is said with respect to contemplation: pressing the inquiry with every kind of contemplation, of permanence, of impermanence, and so on, searching here and seeking there, one cannot lay hold of a single fixed mark, and so it is called unfindable. ‘Non-existent’ rests on ‘emptiness’, ‘unfindable’ rests on ‘no fixed mark’; each of the two words has its own footing, and they are not a repetition of synonyms. Next, the treatise explains the meaning of “non-existent”: the reason the dharmas of prajñā and of the other five perfections are non-existent is that they 「不可取、不可受、不可著」 tr. "cannot be grasped, cannot be received, cannot be attached to"—they cannot be taken hold of, cannot be held on to, cannot be clung to; this is what is called non-existent, and it does not mean blankly empty with not a single thing at all. The third layer is the most forceful: precisely because the “eighteen emptinesses” are there, these six perfections are non-existent and unfindable; the treatise at once receives three similes and sets them side by side—「大風能破散諸雲」 tr. "a great wind can break up and scatter the clouds": the clouds gather, and once the wind rises they scatter; 「大火燒乾草木」 tr. "a great fire burns dry grass and trees": the grass and trees grow thick, and once the fire is lit they are consumed; 「金剛寶摧破大山」 tr. "the vajra jewel shatters great mountains": the mountain is solid, and at one stroke of the vajra it is smashed; 「諸空亦如是能破諸法」 tr. "the emptinesses, too, are like this: they can break all dharmas." The three similes together show one meaning: the eighteen emptinesses break dharmas not by adding some other thing outside dharmas to strike them, but because dharmas are by nature like floating clouds, dry grass, and precarious mountains, which at a single touch of the contemplation of emptiness scatter of themselves, are consumed of themselves, and are smashed of themselves—what is called ‘able to break’ breaks precisely the mind that grasps at marks, ‘taking it to be really existent’.

Why, then, is it still called by this name, prajñā? The treatise answers: prajñā is 「一切諸智慧中最為第一」 tr. "the very foremost among all kinds of wisdom," 「無上、無比、無等，更無勝者，窮盡到邊」 tr. "unsurpassed, incomparable, unequalled; there is nothing further that surpasses it; it is exhausted to the very limit"; and it sets out three similes to bear witness to ‘foremost’—「如一切眾生中佛為第一，一切諸法中涅槃為第一，一切眾中比丘僧為第一」 tr. "just as among all beings the Buddha is foremost, among all dharmas nirvāṇa is foremost, and among all assemblies the saṅgha of bhikṣus is foremost." Among beings there is none who can reach the Buddha; among dharmas there is nothing that goes beyond nirvāṇa; among assemblies the saṅgha of bhikṣus is the most honoured—the standing of prajñā among all wisdom is just like the standing of these three within their kinds. Someone at once raises a difficulty: you said first that prajñā is simply the real mark of all dharmas, permanent and unchanging—how can you now say that it is foremost among the kinds of wisdom, like nirvāṇa foremost among dharmas? The real mark is principle and ‘foremost’ is a matter of phenomena; principle is permanent while phenomena admit of comparison—is this not a contradiction? The treatise resolves it by 「因中說果」 tr. "speaking of the effect within the cause" and 「果中說因」 tr. "speaking of the cause within the effect," attaching a simile to each. Speaking of the effect within the cause is 「如人日食數匹布」 tr. "like a person who eats several bolts of cloth a day"—cloth by nature cannot be eaten, yet one says that a person eats several bolts of cloth a day, because the cause, cloth, can be exchanged for the effect, food; on the basis of the cause the name of the effect is spoken. Speaking of the cause within the effect is 「如見好畫而言好手」 tr. "like seeing a fine painting and saying ‘a fine hand’"—what is praised is the painting (the effect), yet the mouth calls it a fine hand (the cause); on the basis of the effect the credit is given to the cause. The provenance of this name prajñā is precisely the latter kind: 「因諸法實相生智慧，是則果中說因」 tr. "wisdom arises from the real mark of all dharmas; this, then, is speaking of the cause within the effect"—the real mark is the cause and wisdom is the effect; now, on the basis of this wisdom at the stage of the effect, it is called the foremost of the real mark, and principle and phenomena do not clash. Further, the bodhisattva 「入不二入法門」 tr. "enters the Dharma-gate of entering non-duality"; when he directly practises prajñā he does not distinguish at all whether it is cause or effect, inner or outer, this or that—what is called 「一相，無相」 tr. "one mark, that is, no mark"—and this difficulty dissolves of itself.

The treatise further grounds prajñā’s being called ‘foremost’ in a lateral comparison: 「世間三種智慧」 tr. "the three kinds of wisdom in the world." The first is 「世俗巧便」 tr. "worldly skill and expedience"—worldly cleverness of the sort of broad learning, letters and arts, benevolence, wisdom, propriety, and reverence; the second is 「離生智慧」 tr. "the wisdom born of separation," that is, what is separated from through cultivating concentration: the wisdom of the stages of absorption, from separation from the desire realm all the way up to the sphere of nothingness; the third is 「出世間智慧」 tr. "world-transcending wisdom," that is, the wisdom of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas who are 「離我及我所」 tr. "apart from self and what belongs to self" and whose outflows are all exhausted. Each of the three kinds is higher than the one before, yet prajñā 「為最殊勝」 tr. "is the most surpassing," because it is 「畢竟清淨、無所著故」 tr. "ultimately pure and attached to nothing," and also 「為饒益一切眾生故」 tr. "because it is for the benefit of all beings." The world-transcending wisdom of the two vehicles, though its outflows are exhausted and it is pure, 「無大慈悲，不能饒益一切故不如」 tr. "has no great loving-kindness and compassion and cannot benefit all, and therefore does not equal it"—pure to spare but short of compassion; as for the worldly kind, 「罪垢不淨、欺誑智慧」 tr. "a wisdom stained with offence, impure, and deceiving," there is still less need to speak of it. None of the three kinds of wisdom reaches this, and so it alone is named prajñā. The treatise next supplies another mechanism by which prajñā gets its name—why a pāramitā is named as it is. This wisdom operates 「為度一切眾生故、為得佛道故」 tr. "for the sake of liberating all beings, for the sake of attaining the Buddha-path"; the feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness associated with it, the bodily and verbal actions arising from it, and the constructions not associated with mind such as arising and abiding—these many dharmas 「和合」 tr. "come together," and only then are they named in sum a pāramitā; and within this same mass of coming-together, 「智慧多故名為般若波羅蜜，念定等多故名為禪波羅蜜」 tr. "because wisdom predominates it is called prajñāpāramitā; because mindfulness, concentration, and the like predominate it is called the perfection of meditation," and the other four perfections are named by the same rule. So the six perfections are not six unrelated things, but one and the same mass of wholesome dharmas come together, named after whichever dharma within it predominates—the name prajñā is got precisely because within this mass wisdom is predominant. 「如是等種種無量因緣故，名為般若波羅蜜」 tr. "for such immeasurable causes and conditions of every kind as these, it is called prajñāpāramitā"—only here is the provenance of this name fully told.

It is asked further whose prajñā this is. The treatise answers by the two truths: in the highest meaning there is 「無知者、見者、得者」 tr. "no knower, seer, or attainer"; all dharmas are without self and without what belongs to self, and from the start belong to no one; but spoken of in terms of worldly truth, prajñā 「不屬佛，不屬聲聞、辟支佛，不屬凡夫，但屬菩薩」 tr. "does not belong to the Buddha, does not belong to śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, does not belong to ordinary people; it belongs only to bodhisattvas." It does not belong to ordinary people because the dharmas of ordinary people have faults and offences of every kind and are impure—here the treatise sets down a simile to wake us: prajñā is ultimately pure, yet ordinary people do not delight in it, just 「如蠅樂處不淨，不好蓮花」 tr. "as flies delight in dwelling on impurity and do not care for the lotus flower"; what the fly craves is rot and filth, and even with a lotus flower set before it, it pays no heed—ordinary people, attached to defilement and not delighting in pure prajñā, look just like this. Even if ordinary people have attained freedom from desire through cultivation, they still keep the notion of an I and cling to that dharma of freedom from desire, and so they still do not delight in prajñā. Those of the two vehicles, though they wish to delight in prajñā, 「無深慈悲」 tr. "have no deep loving-kindness and compassion" and are single-mindedly bound for nirvāṇa, and so they 「不能具足得」 tr. "cannot attain it in full." Only the bodhisattva, being ultimately pure and benefiting beings, is fit for it. And this prajñā, on reaching buddhahood, 「轉名一切種智」 tr. "changes its name to omniscience of all kinds"—so it can be seen that ‘belongs to bodhisattvas’ does not lock prajñā into the single stage of the bodhisattva, but points out that prajñā is precisely that living road which runs from cause to fruit, from bodhisattva to buddha. This attribution is still an extension of the meaning of gathering and dispersal: prajñā is unfindable yet not annihilated into nothing, precisely because it is the true support, provisionally designated, along this course of cultivation and realisation.

Tucked in here there is one more question, which the treatise answers with great care: the standing order of this sūtra puts the five aggregates first and omniscience of all kinds last—why here, on the contrary, are the six perfections spoken of first? The treatise answers: what Śāriputra asked about is the single meaning “non-existent,” and 「五眾種種因緣觀，強令無所有，難解」 tr. "the five aggregates, contemplated through causes and conditions of every kind and forcibly made non-existent, are hard to understand"—the five aggregates must be contemplated by bringing to bear causes and conditions of every kind, forcing them by contemplation into non-existence, which is laborious and hard to make clear; 「般若波羅蜜即是無所有，易解」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is itself non-existent, and is easy to understand"—prajñā in its very substance is non-existent, seen at a single stroke. The treatise at once fixes the degrees of difficulty with a simile: 「譬如水中月，易明其空；天上月，難令無所有」 tr. "it is like the moon in the water, whose emptiness is easy to make clear; the moon in the sky is hard to make non-existent"—the moon in the water everyone knows at a glance to be an empty reflection, needing no laboured explanation; but the true moon hanging high up there in the sky—to make people believe that it too is non-existent is hard. The five aggregates are like the moon in the sky, laborious to contemplate; prajñā is like the moon in the water, attained as soon as its emptiness is seen—so the easily understood prajñā is raised first, and the hard-to-understand five aggregates are reached afterwards. 「五波羅蜜與般若波羅蜜同名、同事」 tr. "the five perfections have the same name and the same concern as prajñāpāramitā," so the five perfections are spoken of right after, and only then is the non-existence of the five aggregates and so on up to omniscience of all kinds spoken of in turn. When a bodhisattva enters this gate and contemplates the real mark of dharmas without fear and without terror, that is 「不離」 tr. "not being apart from" prajñā; and the treatise also points out the weight of the meaning of 「不離」 tr. "not being apart"—「常行般若波羅蜜不虛，必有果報」 tr. "always practising prajñāpāramitā is not in vain; it will surely have its fruit and recompense"—not being apart is not guarding an empty title; it is that the practice is surely not wasted, and a stage of fruition will certainly repay it. Subhūti’s own statement of the causes and conditions of not being apart still returns to the sentence 「色離色性，色中無色相，虛誑無所有」 tr. "form is apart from the nature of form; in form there is no mark of form; it is false, deceiving, and non-existent."

At the end the sūtra brings all of this down to the stage of fruition. When a bodhisattva trains in this way, how is he able to accomplish sarvajñā? The sūtra answers 「以諸法不生、不成就故」 tr. "because all dharmas do not arise and are not accomplished"—because form is empty, the arising and the accomplishment of form are unfindable, and so on up to the reality-limit likewise; not arising and not being accomplished are just another way of saying, at the stage of fruition, ‘seeing no gathering and no dispersal’. Training thus, one 「漸近薩婆若，漸得身清淨、心清淨、相清淨」 tr. "gradually draws near to sarvajñā, and gradually attains purity of body, purity of mind, and purity of marks"; because of the three purities, minds of lust, hatred, delusion, pride, stinginess, and wrong views do not arise, and so one 「常得化生」 tr. "is always born by transformation" and does not enter a mother’s womb, and 「終不離諸佛」 tr. "in the end is never apart from the buddhas." Question: having such power, why be born by transformation and take a body, rather than going straight to nirvāṇa? The answer lies in just two things—the buddhas are the jewels among beings, and in making offerings to them one is never sated; and the original vow to liberate beings, and the pure land, are not yet fulfilled. By the power of merit and skilful means the bodhisattva 「常不離諸佛」 tr. "is always not apart from the buddhas." The whole chapter, beginning from the question of what prajñā is, has come here to answer with the long path of a bodhisattva who is never apart from the buddhas; the close of the Chapter on Gathering and Dispersal lies right here.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「無所有、不可得」 tr. "non-existent and unfindable" as nihilistic annihilation. The sūtra and the treatise plainly say both that prajñā is the real mark of all dharmas and cannot be broken or destroyed, and that it is non-existent and unfindable—the two statements do not obstruct each other: non-existent is 「空故」 tr. "because it is empty," unfindable is 「求覓無定相故」 tr. "because in searching and seeking there is no fixed mark"; what both speak of is not falling into fixed marks, being impossible to grasp, receive, or cling to, and not being blankly empty with not a single thing at all.

Do not read the “eighteen emptinesses” as some other thing called ‘emptiness’, outside dharmas, that strikes at dharmas. The three similes—the great wind breaking up the clouds, the great fire burning the grass, the vajra shattering the mountain—show that dharmas are by nature like floating clouds, dry grass, and precarious mountains, which, meeting the contemplation of emptiness, scatter of themselves, are consumed of themselves, and are smashed of themselves; what breaks breaks the mind that grasps at marks, and does not add some thing to counteract them.

Do not read 「離是二邊行中道」 tr. "leaving these two extremes, walking the middle way" as a compromise that takes half between existence and non-existence. It leaves even the discrimination ‘is prajñā, is not prajñā’; it thoroughly falls to neither end, rather than taking a position in the middle between the two ends; and the phrase 「不墮愚癡而能行善道」 tr. "not falling into foolish delusion and able to walk the good path" reminds us further: after the two extremes are left, the good practices of the six perfections are to be practised just as before; what is left behind is attachment, not practice.

Do not read “prajñā is foremost” and “prajñā is the real mark” as contradicting each other. The real mark is principle and ‘foremost’ is a matter of phenomena; the treatise reconciles them by “speaking of the effect within the cause, speaking of the cause within the effect”—to call the wisdom at the stage of the effect the foremost of the real mark is “speaking of the cause within the effect,” as on seeing a fine painting one praises a fine hand; it is not two statements in conflict.

Do not read 「但屬菩薩」 tr. "belongs only to bodhisattvas" as meaning that prajñā is the private possession of bodhisattvas, in which the Buddha has no share. The sūtra says plainly that on reaching buddhahood it 「轉名一切種智」 tr. "changes its name to omniscience of all kinds"; “belongs to bodhisattvas” is said in terms of worldly truth and of the stage of cultivation, pointing out that this is the path a bodhisattva ought to practise as his own proper task, and does not exclude the fruit of buddhahood. Nor misread “as flies do not care for the lotus flower” as words disparaging ordinary people—it only likens ordinary people’s attachment to defilement and their lack of delight in purity; it speaks of the illness, it does not revile anyone.

Do not take the three purities and birth by transformation merely as wondrous rewards and neglect their cause. Their cause lies in that layer of the contemplation of emptiness, 「以諸法不生、不成就故」 tr. "because all dharmas do not arise and are not accomplished"; only then comes the fruit—purity of body, of mind, and of marks, and in the end never being apart from the buddhas; to take away the contemplation of emptiness and covet its fruit is to read it backwards.

Do not treat the second half as a fresh start unrelated to gathering and dispersal. It turns the blade of the first half’s ‘seeing no gathering and no dispersal’ back to shine on prajñā itself, and only here does the whole chapter truly close together.

Bearing on Practice

The three questions can serve as a daily turning of the light back on oneself: of what one cultivates, what one understands, and what one attains, ask whether it is, after all, prajñā—if within it there is still a mark to be attained, a name to be clung to, an ability to be boasted of, one is still circling in the old rut of ‘seeing that there is gathering and dispersal’.

The threefold explanation of 「無所有、不可得」 tr. "non-existent and unfindable" gives those who apply themselves exactly three measuring-rods: can the dharma being contemplated still be grasped, still be received, still be clung to? When pressing the inquiry with contemplations of permanence, impermanence, and the like, is one still pinching on to some fixed mark and not letting go? If it can still be grasped, received, and clung to, if there is still a fixed mark to pinch on to, one has not yet arrived at non-existent and unfindable. And the three similes of the eighteen emptinesses breaking dharmas are a ready-made gate of contemplation—when you meet an object you cannot let go of, you may well contemplate it as a great wind breaking up the clouds, a great fire burning grass, a vajra shattering a mountain, and see that it is by nature like floating clouds, dry grass, and a precarious mountain, which scatter at the touch of emptiness.

The teaching on leaving the two extremes lies closest to the afflictions: when the mind stirs over the favourable and the adverse, gain and loss, praise and blame, look whether you have again fallen to one extreme; only when you can leave the two extremes, neither annihilating nor permanent, leaving attachment without abandoning the practice of the good path, can you be said to be walking 「離是二邊行中道」 tr. "leaving these two extremes, walking the middle way."

The phrase “belongs only to bodhisattvas” reminds the practitioner: prajñā is not cultivated for one’s own release, or to hasten towards nirvāṇa, but for the benefit of beings and as the way through to buddhahood; the moment a mind arises that is weary of the world and seeks only its own release, one shares the two vehicles’ 「無深慈悲、不能具足」 tr. "no deep loving-kindness and compassion, unable to attain it in full." And the distinction of the three kinds of wisdom is also worth holding up to oneself: worldly cleverness, the concentration-wisdom born of separation, even the world-transcending wisdom of the two vehicles—if the great compassion that benefits all is lacking, they never reach the surpassing excellence of prajñā; those who apply themselves should always ask whether their own wisdom holds this measure of compassion.

The simile of the moon in the water and the moon in the sky can serve as a teaching on the easy and the hard in contemplating emptiness: where something is readily empty in its very substance (as the non-existence of prajñā), first make its emptiness clear, then turn back to contemplate where emptiness is hard (as the five aggregates), going from the easy into the hard, with no need to grapple to the death with the hardest object from the very first.

The passage on the stage of fruition can serve as ground for long-range faith: the three purities of body, mind, and marks, and always being not apart from the buddhas, all accumulate gradually from the contemplation of emptiness 「以諸法不生、不成就故」 tr. "because all dharmas do not arise and are not accomplished," and are not reached in a single leap; and for one who is “not apart,” there 「必有果報」 tr. "will surely be fruit and recompense," and the practice is not in vain—therefore at the end the sūtra urges again and again that one should practise thus, and train thus.

Further Resonances

Later readers of the Last Part of the Chapter on Gathering and Dispersal have each received a section according to what they themselves valued. There were those who singled out the one phrase 「離是二邊行中道」 tr. "leaving these two extremes, walking the middle way," adapting its sentence pattern in other writings to make clear the purport of the middle way; this use is recorded alongside, without judging which is higher—another ancient master had a comprehensive explanation of his own of this chapter’s name and meaning, the details of which are left to the general account at the end of the chapter. Brought back to our own proper task, what is most worth keeping is still the sense that the sūtra and the treatise return to again and again: the substance of prajñā cannot be broken or destroyed, yet it is non-existent and unfindable; it leaves the two extremes and walks the middle way; the eighteen emptinesses break dharmas as wind breaks clouds and fire burns grass; it is foremost among all wisdom, yet belongs only to bodhisattvas, and in the end returns to 「一切種智」 tr. "omniscience of all kinds"—the reason no gathering can be seen in any dharma, and no dispersal can be seen, finds its direct statement precisely here.

Further Resonances

The vein of meaning in the chapter on Gathering and Dispersal has something it inherits before it and something it opens after it. What it inherits is the preceding chapter, Exhortation to Train—that chapter had already said that one does not see the bodhisattva, the word “bodhisattva,” or prajñāpāramitā, and that all dharmas are not inside, not outside, and not in between. This chapter follows at once with a question: since not seeing has already been spoken, why is it spoken again now? One can see that Gathering and Dispersal does not start over from nothing; rather, it pushes the not seeing established in the preceding chapter one layer deeper. The preceding chapter says 「菩薩字不見」 tr. "the word ‘bodhisattva’ is not seen"; this chapter goes a step further and speaks of not being aware and not obtaining: it is because one is not aware of it and does not obtain it that one does not see it, not that one fails to see it because the power of wisdom is weak; and then, from not obtaining gathering and dispersal, it forces out the eye of the whole chapter: because dharmas have neither gathering nor dispersal they are ultimately empty, and because they are ultimately empty, names do not abide, not a single dharma is abided in, and no mark at all is received. What it opens is the chapter that comes after, Modes of Practice. The end of this chapter has already said again and again not to grasp marks, to abide in practising in faith, to receive no mark at all, and points straight at it: 「取相著故，生諸結使」 tr. "Because one grasps marks and is attached, the fetters arise." Since marks are the root of the fetters, what follows naturally turns to a gate devoted to making clear that all marks are unfindable. The preceding chapter speaks of not seeing, this chapter speaks of not obtaining gathering and dispersal and so not abiding, the following chapter speaks of all marks being unfindable: the three chapters are the successive deepening of one and the same path of prajñā.

Later an ancient master wrote a passage-by-passage commentary on this chapter, and where he put his greatest effort was, time and again, in assigning this chapter to the first of the three gates of liberation—the gate of emptiness—making clear that where many conditions come together, what exists is itself without anything that exists; and within the chapter he divides the teaching of prajñā into three gates: deference, non-abiding, and reflection. These three gates correspond exactly to the wording of this treatise’s own gate of deference and gate of non-abiding; they are not new names set up apart. The same ancient master, in another treatise-commentary of his own, also adapts this chapter’s simile of space and its sentence-pattern of leaving the two extremes, citing them in his own wording—showing the lingering trace of how he read this chapter elsewhere. Another ancient master, who also wrote a passage-by-passage commentary on this chapter, squarely resolves at the very opening an apparent paradox: the sūtra text plainly says that one does not see the gathering and dispersal of dharmas, so why is the chapter named Gathering and Dispersal? His answer is that the chapter title is named according to ‘what is to be remedied’ (the gathering and dispersal that are refuted), while the sūtra text is worded according to ‘what remedies’ (the teaching of not seeing gathering and dispersal); the two do not conflict, but are two norms of naming convention. He also singles out this chapter as the only whole chapter that Subhūti expounds entirely on his own from beginning to end, to show its special place in the whole collection. As for citing this treatise directly under the title of the chapter on Gathering and Dispersal, a search through the writings of the various masters has not found it: where another writer occasionally mentions a chapter on Gathering and Dispersal, he in fact means the chapter of the same name in another sūtra; and there is a further kind of writing that only echoes this chapter’s meaning by adapting such words as ‘awakening to the fact that the gathering and dispersal of dharmas is neither gathering nor dispersal,’ rather than citing it directly by title. Here only the approaches by which the various masters read and cited it are recorded; their interpretations are not judged higher or lower, nor is one master’s judgement taken to settle the meaning of this chapter.

Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a still more detailed classification of gathering and dispersal, but its rewriting of the two words 「集散」 tr. "gathering and dispersal." Gathering and dispersal in the ordinary person’s manner takes it as a real matter that dharmas really come together and really disperse: when they come together one clings to their coming, when they disperse one clings to their going; this chapter reverses that: the more clearly one sees that gathering has no place it comes from and dispersal no place it goes to, the more one can, amid all names, all that is abided in, and all marks that are received, not grasp a single mark. Eye and form give rise to consciousness, unfolding in succession without end, and so gathering is spoken of; each moment perishes of itself and, once the conditions part, dispersal is spoken of—yet when arising there is nowhere it comes from, and when ceasing nowhere it goes to. Names abide in dharmas, yet dharmas are fundamentally empty, so names neither abide nor do not abide; and so on up to receiving no mark at all, while prajñā 「但屬菩薩」 tr. "belongs only to the bodhisattva." Each passage of not obtaining gathering and dispersal is the same one matter at a different depth: because dharmas have neither gathering nor dispersal they are ultimately empty; because they are ultimately empty one abides in not a single dharma and walks the middle way everywhere.

Therefore, the chapter on Gathering and Dispersal in the end does not teach people to deny the coming together and dispersing before their eyes; rather, it leaves behind a way of questioning that can be used again and again. Is the gathering and dispersal I am clinging to at this moment the really existent coming and going of dharmas, or names and marks forcibly set up within the unfindable? Do the names I set up tacitly allow a dharma that can gather and disperse, or do I know that they neither abide nor do not abide? Can I neither read gathering and dispersal as a really existent coming together and dispersing, nor read not seeing gathering and dispersal as an annihilation that strikes everything out at a stroke? To answer these few questions well in each present moment is already to be walking the middle path that has neither gathering nor dispersal and abides in not a single dharma—to leave the two extremes of gathering and dispersal and walk the middle way: this is prajñā.

Modes of Practice: All Dharmas Are Originally without Marks—Why Practising Prajñā and Making Right Contemplation Turn Instead into the Bondage of Practising Marks

What Is Being Asked

This chapter opens with Subhūti setting out before the Buddha something quite unexpected: if a bodhisattva is without skilful means, then his practising form, his practising feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and even his contemplating form as permanent, as impermanent, as pleasure, as suffering, as self, as non-self, as empty, as quiescent—all these contemplations, which are just what a practitioner ought to make—every one of them becomes 「行相」 tr. "practising marks," becomes one more bond on the path of prajñā. Even to raise the single thought 「我行般若波羅蜜有所得行」 tr. "I practise prajñāpāramitā as a practice with something to be attained," even to raise the single thought “being able to practise in this way is cultivating prajñāpāramitā”—these too are practising marks. With these first words the difficulty of the whole chapter is forced before our eyes. First, what exactly is “practising marks”? Why should practising wholesome dharmas and making right contemplation turn instead into bondage? Second, what does “having skilful means,” the counterpart of “being without skilful means,” look like? The sūtra answers next, cleanly and decisively: having skilful means is “not practising” form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, not grasping their marks, all the way to 「行亦不受，不行亦不受，行不行亦不受，非行非不行亦不受，不受亦不受」 tr. "practising too is not received, not practising too is not received, practising-and-not-practising too is not received, neither-practising-nor-not-practising too is not received, not receiving too is not received"—these five phrases of nothing received are the very eye of the whole chapter, and also the phrase most easily read awry. Third, the previous chapter used “the gate of emptiness” to refute dharmas; this chapter switches to “the gate of signlessness” to refute dharmas—how do the two gates differ? Fourth, what is the relation between the samādhi and the three gates of liberation—emptiness, signlessness, and non-action? Why is it said that to grasp the mark of a samādhi is, on the contrary, “no prediction”? Fifth, pressing all the way to “ultimately pure,” “cannot be attained,” “nothing to be trained in, nothing to be attained,” and even to the saying that in training in prajñā, 「不見般若波羅蜜」 tr. "not seeing prajñāpāramitā" is alone the true training—will these words fall into a blank emptiness where nothing at all exists? Sixth, what, in the end, is “ignorance”—is it really the not-knowing of this one matter, 「諸法無所有，如是有」 tr. "all dharmas are without anything that exists, and so they exist"? What this chapter sets out to answer is this: prajñā must not only be practised, it must be practised without being grasped as something received; all dharmas are originally without marks, and to grasp any single mark—even emptiness, even signlessness, even the highest good dharma—is to fall into marks, is to be without skilful means; true practice is to enter the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas and not to see that there is a prajñā to be attained.

Passage by Passage

First, the sūtra’s first section. Subhūti first establishes the meaning from the negative side: when a bodhisattva practises “without skilful means,” to practise form is to practise marks; to contemplate form as permanent, impermanent, pleasure, suffering, self, non-self, empty, separated, and quiescent is also to practise marks; and even to practise the four foundations of mindfulness and the eighteen unshared dharmas while taking them as marks, even the thought of oneself as having something attained, of oneself as able to practise in this way—this too is practising marks. He further declares to Śāriputra the fault of this lack of skilful means: toward form, and on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, one falsely gives rise to receiving and to thoughts that bind, and so makes practice for the sake of form, for the sake of dharmas; making practice, one does not escape birth, old age, sickness, and death, and cannot attain even the realised fruits of the two vehicles, let alone awakening. Śāriputra then asks: what counts as “having skilful means”? Subhūti’s answer is exceedingly steep: having skilful means is “not practising” form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, not practising their marks, not practising their permanence or impermanence and the rest; and he brings out the phrase 「色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "form is emptiness, emptiness is form," all the way to “practising too is not received” and on to “not receiving too is not received.” Śāriputra presses: why are they not received? Subhūti answers: the own-nature of prajñā cannot be attained, the nature of all dharmas is without anything that exists; not going along with dharmas in practice, not receiving the marks of dharmas—this is called 「諸法無所受三昧」 tr. "the samādhi in which no dharma is received," whose 「廣大之用」 tr. "vast and great function" 「不與聲聞、辟支佛共」 tr. "is not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas"; one who practises this samādhi without departing from it swiftly attains awakening. The whole skeleton of this section lies in two words, “practising marks” and “not receiving”: to raise the mind to practise, to contemplate, to grasp, is to fall into one mark; not grasping anything as received is alone the practice that has skilful means.

Next, the treatise-author opens it out. In a single sentence he points out the method of the whole chapter: the previous chapter used “the gate of emptiness” to refute all dharmas; this chapter means to refute all dharmas with “the gate of signlessness”; contemplating form without skilful means, one “falls into marks,” and falling into marks one loses the practice of prajñā, because all dharmas are empty and there is originally no mark to be grasped. After this the treatise-author sets himself several questions and cuts the principle open layer by layer. It is asked: only by grasping the marks of good and evil fruits of recompense can a person discriminate what to receive and what to reject, and so practise the path—why then speak of signlessness? The answer: grasping marks is spoken for beginners, signlessness is spoken for those practising the path; the practitioner first grasps good marks to break bad marks, then breaks good marks with signlessness, and at the last “signlessness too breaks itself”—because signlessness too is included among wholesome dharmas, and once everything has been broken there is nothing left to break, just as 「雹墮害穀，雹自消滅」 tr. "hail falls and harms the grain, and the hail melts away of itself." The treatise-author further says 「一切法無相相為實」 tr. "for all dharmas, the mark of signlessness is the real," and gives a string of similes: the body is originally impure, yet people force themselves to take it as pure, like a small child who grasps a mark of purity in something impure; like 「頗梨珠，隨前色變，自無定色」 tr. "a crystal bead, which changes with the colour set before it and has no fixed colour of its own"; like the angry mind seeing a person as vile, the desiring mind seeing a person as lovely, the proud mind seeing a person as base—hatred and love turn with the mind, and all are false recollection and imagining; apart from false and deceptive marks, even the mark of emptiness, the mark of signlessness, and the mark of non-action have nothing that can be set up. The treatise-author then brings this principle of breaking marks down to the root of form: 「是色從種種因緣和合而有，譬如水沫，如幻、如夢；若菩薩於色中取一相，即失般若波羅蜜，色性是無相相故。」 tr. "This form exists from the coming together of all kinds of causes and conditions, like foam on water, like an illusion, like a dream; if a bodhisattva grasps a single mark in form, he at once loses prajñāpāramitā, because the nature of form is the mark of signlessness." Form is by origin a lump pieced together from many conditions, gathering and scattering without anything real, like foam on the surface of water, like an illusion, like a dream, having in itself no fixed mark to be held; once a practitioner grasps a fixed mark on form—whether he grasps it as permanent or grasps it as impermanent—he at that very moment runs against form’s nature of signlessness, and it is right here that prajñā leaks away. This sentence points out the chain of cause and effect by which grasping marks loses prajñā: it is not that prajñā is snatched away by someone, but that grasping marks obstructs itself; the nature of form is originally without marks, and when a mark is forcibly placed upon it, the prajñā that is able to illuminate has nothing on which to act. Below this the treatise-author distinguishes two kinds each of permanence and impermanence. Permanence is of two kinds: the first is that which, though it abides a hundred years, a thousand myriad koṭi years, even one kalpa or eighty thousand kalpas, after long abiding in the end returns to destruction; the second is that which is reckoned as “abiding permanently and indestructible.” If a practitioner has not cut off the two views, of annihilation and of an extreme, then on seeing form abide long he takes it as truly permanent, and gives rise to the thought 「草木零落還歸為土，但離合有時」 tr. "grass and trees wither and fall and return to become earth; there are only times of parting and meeting," supposing that withering and falling are only gathering and scattering while their substance is permanently there—this is precisely to mistake long abiding for true permanence. Impermanence too is of two kinds: the first is 「念念滅」 tr. "ceasing from thought-moment to thought-moment," all conditioned dharmas abiding no more than a single thought-moment; the second is 「相續法壞故名為無常」 tr. "because a continuing dharma is destroyed, it is called impermanent," as when a person’s life comes to an end, as when fire burns grass and trees, as when boiling water is used up. Bodhisattvas of the first arousing of the mind mostly contemplate this coarse impermanence, the cutting off and ceasing of a continuum, and give rise to weariness and turning away; only bodhisattvas long in practice can contemplate the subtle impermanence of arising and ceasing from thought-moment to thought-moment. The treatise-author points out: the two kinds of bodhisattva, the one clinging to true permanence and the one clinging to impermanence, have in fact both fallen into grasping marks, because the mark of permanence and the mark of impermanence cannot originally be attained—coarse and subtle differ, yet both alike set up a mark. The treatise-author then gathers it in with a sentence of extension: not only are form’s permanence and impermanence so, but 「受、想、行、識亦如是。苦、樂、我、非我亦爾」 tr. "feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are also like this; suffering, pleasure, self, and non-self are likewise"—each of the five aggregates, contemplated through the gates of permanent and impermanent, suffering and pleasure, self and non-self, can one by one fall into grasping marks, and the principle is wholly the same as for form; therefore there is no need to say it again aggregate by aggregate and gate by gate—raise the one instance of form and the whole is seen. This kind of extension is not an abbreviation of the text, but the pushing of one and the same criterion, ‘to grasp a mark is to lose it,’ across all five aggregates and ten gates. Again he sets three questions, pressing out the move that matters most: since it is said that the five aggregates can be contemplated as permanent and impermanent, why is it also said that the five aggregates are quiescent and far removed? The answer: when the practitioner does not see the marks of permanence and impermanence, he knows that the five aggregates are apart from their own marks, and are then quiescent, like nirvāṇa. Since all dharmas are of themselves originally without marks, why is it also said that one without skilful means falls into marks? The answer: bodhisattvas of dull faculties, only just parted from attachment to the five aggregates, 「於無相中而生著」 tr. "give rise to attachment within signlessness"—this sentence is the pivot of the whole section: the sickness lies not in marks or signlessness, but in the one word “attachment”; even signlessness and quiescence can be received and clung to. The treatise-author follows at once with a sentence of extension that pushes this principle out over the whole Dharma of the path: 「三十七品乃至十八不共法，亦應如是隨義分別。」 tr. "The thirty-seven limbs of the path, up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, should likewise be discriminated in this way according to their meaning."—not only can the permanence and impermanence of the five aggregates become the grasping of marks; the thirty-seven limbs of the path, up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, these highest of the Buddha’s dharmas, are also to be discriminated one by one according to their meaning, guarding in the same way against the sickness of grasping marks; the more excellent the dharma, the more it must be looked at by this single criterion—one may not grasp it at ease just because it is a limb of the path or a dharma of the Buddha. So even if a bodhisattva contemplates outer dharmas as all without marks, yet gives rise to “I am able to make this contemplation,” he still falls into marks because the mind of self remains; even if he practises true and pure signless wisdom, yet gives rise to the thought 「能如是內外清淨行，是為修行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "being able to practise inner and outer purity in this way is cultivating prajñāpāramitā," he still falls into marks—「不可著而著、不可取而取」 tr. "attaching to what cannot be attached to, grasping what cannot be grasped"; this is called being without skilful means. The treatise-author further speaks the outcome of lacking skilful means through to its end: 「是菩薩雖有福德，亦不得離老病死、憂悲苦惱；雜行道故，尚不能得小乘，何況大乘！」 tr. "Though this bodhisattva has merit, he still cannot escape old age, sickness, and death, sorrow, grief, suffering, and distress; because he practises a mixed path, he cannot attain even the Small Vehicle, let alone the Great Vehicle!"—such a bodhisattva, even if he accumulates merit, still does not escape old age, sickness, death, sorrow, and grief, because the path he practises is mixed with grasping and attachment and is not a pure and single signless practice; with such a mixed practice he cannot attain even the realised fruits of the Small Vehicle, let alone the unsurpassed Great Vehicle. Only what runs contrary to this is called having skilful means: “not receiving and not attaching to any dharma,” penetrating that all dharmas arise only from the coming together of many conditions, “because they are without own-nature”—only so can one practise without grasping. At the end the treatise-author distinguishes the difference between 「無受三昧」 tr. "the samādhi of no receiving" and 「不受三昧」 tr. "the samādhi of not receiving"—「前者為空故，此為無相故」 tr. "the former is for the sake of emptiness, this one is for the sake of signlessness"—and explains that swiftly attaining the Buddha’s path means that entering this samādhi one is without obstruction and can attain it by leaping over kalpas, as Śākyamuni, through praising Puṣya Buddha, leapt over nine kalpas.

The sūtra’s second section turns to the samādhi. Śāriputra asks: is it only by not departing from this samādhi that one swiftly attains awakening, or are there other samādhi? Subhūti answers that there are, and counts off, beginning from the Śūraṃgama, more than a hundred kinds of samādhi-gates and dhāraṇī-gates. Then the venerable Subhūti, receiving the Buddha’s mind, says: for the bodhisattva who practises these samādhi, the buddhas of the past and present all give him prediction, precisely because he 「不見是諸三昧，亦不念是三昧」 tr. "does not see these samādhi, nor think of these samādhi," being wholly without discriminating thought. Śāriputra then challenges him: does the bodhisattva, then, abide in samādhi and grasp the mark of samādhi, and so obtain prediction? Subhūti answers that prajñā, samādhi, and the bodhisattva, these three, are not different and are one with one another; when the bodhisattva enters samādhi he does not give rise to the thought “by this dharma I enter this samādhi,” “because the samādhi are without anything that exists,” and so with respect to the samādhi he neither knows nor thinks. The Buddha thereupon praises Subhūti, saying that his being “foremost in the samādhi of non-contention” accords with this meaning, and urges bodhisattvas to train in this way in the six perfections, up to the eighteen unshared dharmas. In explaining this section, the treatise-author first explains why Śāriputra, beyond the single path of nirvāṇa, still asks about other samādhi: while one is not yet near nirvāṇa there are many other paths; when one is near nirvāṇa there is only the single path of emptiness, signlessness, and non-action—「諸餘三昧，皆入此三解脫門」 tr. "all the other samādhi enter these three gates of liberation," as through the many gates of a great city all alike can enter the city, as the ten thousand streams all return to the sea. As for the places in these samādhi that are deep and hard to understand, the treatise-author points out that the Buddha himself speaks of them in the “Mahāyāna” chapter, and leaves them to be explained in detail in that chapter—this chapter only lists their names in brief. The treatise-author further declares that one able to practise “the hundred and eight samādhi” and the other dhāraṇī-gates receives prediction from all the buddhas of the ten directions, and that the key lies still in “being without any recollection, imagining, and discrimination, without any mind of self”; and he closes the doubt about obtaining prediction by grasping the mark of samādhi: precisely because the three things are not different and their marks cannot be grasped, 「若三昧、菩薩異者，諸佛授其記；不異故，無授記」 tr. "if samādhi and the bodhisattva were different, the buddhas would give him prediction; because they are not different, there is no prediction"—this sentence above all must be seen clearly: “no prediction” is not a denial of prediction; it wards off the misunderstanding of receiving prediction by grasping marks. Śāriputra asks again: then are samādhi and all dharmas equal and not different? Subhūti answers 「諸菩薩有諸法等三昧，入是三昧中，諸法無異」 tr. "bodhisattvas have the samādhi of the equality of all dharmas; within this samādhi, all dharmas are without difference"—entering this samādhi, the dharmas contemplated are of one flavour and equal, and there is no longer any difference of this and that to be divided. The treatise-author then restates a sentence: with respect to the samādhi, “one does not make recollection, imagining, and discrimination of being aware and not being aware,” because the own-nature of samādhi is originally without anything that exists, and so the bodhisattva neither knows nor thinks of samādhi—he does not raise even this layer of discrimination, ‘I am aware, I am not aware.’ At the end the treatise-author points out the reason for the Buddha’s second praise, which differs from the first: precisely because Subhūti, though not yet having himself attained this subtle and wondrous samādhi, was able skilfully to speak of the bodhisattva’s subtle and wondrous samādhi and dhāraṇī, and within prajñā neither thought of them nor was attached, the Buddha praised him: 「善哉！我說汝得無諍三昧第一，如我所讚不虛」 tr. "Excellent! I said that you have attained the samādhi of non-contention and are foremost; as I praised you, it was not in vain"—what is praised is not that he has attained the samādhi, but that, attaining nothing, he can speak well, and in not being attached to dharmas this point accords exactly with the meaning of non-contention.

The sūtra’s third section draws straight in toward ultimate emptiness. Śāriputra asks whether training in this way is training in prajñā, and the Buddha answers that it is—because these dharmas, prajñā and on to the perfection of giving, the four foundations of mindfulness, and the eighteen unshared dharmas, “cannot be attained.” Śāriputra asks which dharmas cannot be attained, and the Buddha counts off self, the knower and the seer, the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the twelve links of causes and conditions, the four truths, the three realms, the limbs of the path, the six perfections, the four fruits and the two vehicles, up to the bodhisattva and the Buddha—one by one they cannot be attained, because they are ultimately pure. What is ultimately pure? The Buddha answers: 「不出、不生，無得、無作，是名畢竟淨」 tr. "not emerging, not arising, without attainment, without making—this is called ultimately pure." Training in this way, what dharma does the bodhisattva in the end train in? The Buddha answers that with respect to all dharmas there is nothing he trains in, because the marks of dharmas are not as ordinary people are attached to them. Śāriputra asks how the real mark of all dharmas exists, and the Buddha answers 「諸法無所有，如是有」 tr. "all dharmas are without anything that exists, and so they exist"; not to know this one matter is “called ignorance.” This sentence is the deepest move in the whole chapter: the real mark is not some other thing set apart; it is exactly that ‘so they exist’ of being without anything that exists; not to be clear about this is ignorance. The Buddha goes on to count out in detail how ordinary people, through ignorance and craving thirst, falsely cling, making consciousness, knowing, and seeing upon dharmas that are originally without anything that exists; and so they do not know and do not see, do not leave the three realms, do not believe in the emptiness of dharmas, do not abide in the six perfections—「名為凡夫，如小兒，亦名著者」 tr. "they are called ordinary people, like small children, and also called those who are attached." Śāriputra questions again and again: if the bodhisattva trains in this way, does he not end up not training in prajñā and not attaining sarvajñā? The Buddha first answers yes, going along with the question, making clear that one without skilful means thinks, recollects, and discriminates, and is attached to prajñā and on up to the omniscience of all kinds, and therefore does not attain sarvajñā; then he turns out the true meaning: when the bodhisattva trains in prajñā, 「不見般若波羅蜜」 tr. "he does not see prajñāpāramitā"; only training in this way is the true training, only so does he attain sarvajñā, because it cannot be attained; and what is called cannot be attained is precisely because of the inner emptiness of all dharmas, up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas.

At the end the treatise-author gathers it all in. He first looks back over the three sections—Śāriputra’s asking, Subhūti’s answering, the Buddha’s praising—and points out the doubt in Śāriputra’s mind: prajñā has the mark of emptiness, samādhi has the mark of discrimination—why is training in samādhi training in prajñā? The treatise-author answers that the 「氣分相」 tr. "mark of its breath and share" of prajñā is present throughout the samādhi, and to be able to train in this way is to train in prajñā. The treatise-author then explains “ultimately pure,” layer by layer: because nothing arises on the side of causes, it is called “not emerging”; because nothing arises on the side of conditions, it is called “not arising”; because of not emerging and not arising, “it cannot be attained”; because it cannot be attained, “there is no making and no rising up”; all dharmas that rise up and are made are false and deceptive, and to be apart from these marks is ultimately pure. He also explains the inversion of ordinary people: all dharmas are originally without anything that exists, yet ordinary people 「於無所有處亦以為有」 tr. "even in the place where nothing exists take there to be something"; clinging to what does not exist, this is called ignorance—“as when an empty fist is used to fool a small child, and the small child, because he is attached, supposes there is something in it.” Here the treatise-author uses the most famous simile of this chapter—「如人以指示月，愚者但看指，不看月」 tr. "as when a person points at the moon with a finger, the fool only looks at the finger and does not look at the moon": the buddhas and the worthies and sages speak the Dharma for ordinary people, but ordinary people are attached to the sounds and words, “do not take the sages’ intent, do not attain the real meaning,” and on the contrary give rise to attachment within the real. Finally Śāriputra asks the reason for not seeing, and the treatise-author concludes the whole chapter in one sentence: the bodhisattva 「入十八空故不見，非以無智故不見」 tr. "does not see because he has entered the eighteen emptinesses, not because he lacks wisdom that he does not see"—not seeing is not dullness and ignorance; it is just what the wisdom that illuminates ultimate emptiness to the bottom brings about.

Do Not Misread

First, do not read “practising marks” as meaning that all practice and all contemplation are at fault. The sickness is not in practising wholesome dharmas or making right contemplation, but in grasping marks and receiving them without skilful means—raising the mind to cling to what is practised and what is contemplated as one real mark, to cling to it as something attained. So the “not practising” of the “having skilful means” set against it is also not doing nothing at all, withered wood and dead ashes; it is practising without grasping the marks, without receiving them as something possessed. The sūtra says it clearly: the bodhisattva who has skilful means practises prajñā all the same, and swiftly attains awakening all the same.

Second, do not read “not receiving” and “nothing received” as passive annihilation, as brushing away everything. All five phrases, down to the last, “not receiving too is not received,” must be dismissed: no single dharma is set up as an object to be received, and not even not-receiving itself is allowed to knot again into a mark that can be clung to; this is warding off grasping to the end, not denying practice. The treatise says it clearly: this is exactly the “vast and great function” of “the samādhi in which no dharma is received,” a positive great function, not withered stillness.

Third, do not read “the gate of signlessness” as setting up yet another principle of signlessness that can be realised and attained. The whole work of signlessness lies in the one word “break”; only when the breaking reaches “signlessness too breaks itself” is it complete. If signlessness, quiescence, and being far removed are again taken as a thing to cling to, this is exactly what the treatise warns against, “giving rise to attachment within signlessness”—it is still falling into marks, still being without skilful means. Not even the highest pure practice may be clung to as something attained.

Fourth, do not read “no prediction” as meaning that the Buddha does not give prediction, or that practice has no fruit. Sūtra and treatise say 「不異故，無授記」 tr. "because they are not different, there is no prediction"; what this wards off is the misunderstanding of receiving prediction by grasping the mark of samādhi: precisely because prajñā, samādhi, and the bodhisattva, these three, are not different, and cannot be discriminated by grasping marks, it is said that there is no graspable prediction to be attained; this is “no” spoken with respect to marks that cannot be grasped, not “no” spoken with respect to there being no fruit.

Fifth, do not read “ultimately pure,” “cannot be attained,” “nothing to be trained in, nothing to be attained,” and even “not seeing prajñāpāramitā” as a blank emptiness where nothing at all exists. Not emerging and not arising is being apart from false and deceptive marks, not annihilation; not seeing prajñā is “not seeing because he has entered the eighteen emptinesses,” what the wisdom that illuminates to the bottom brings about—「非以無智故不見」 tr. "not because he lacks wisdom that he does not see." Nor should one mix up the ordinary person’s 「於無所有處亦以為有」 tr. "even in the place where nothing exists taking there to be something" with the real mark’s 「諸法無所有，如是有」 tr. "all dharmas are without anything that exists, and so they exist": the former is inverted false clinging, the latter is the originally-so of all dharmas. Between the two lies the difference of a single character—one deluded, one awakened, as far apart as heaven and earth.

Bearing on Practice

Where this chapter comes closest to our effort is in giving the practitioner a mirror that shows up the grasping of marks. The moment a person exerts himself and gains even a little accord, it is easiest of all quietly to grasp marks in what he practises and what he gains, quietly to exalt himself—this chapter sees this sickness to the root: even “I am able to make this contemplation,” even supposing oneself able to practise in inner and outer purity, is grasping marks; even a single thought of attachment toward emptiness, toward signlessness, toward the highest good dharma, is falling into marks, is being without skilful means. The medicine it prescribes is a single word—not receiving: practise without grasping it as something received, contemplate without clinging to it as really existing, and on gaining a little accord at once lift up awareness and do not come to rest upon the dharma. Next is the measure of using emptiness and signlessness together, and of needing to carry skilful means with them. Without skilful means one falls into marks, and with a mixed practice of the path one does not attain even the Small Vehicle; if the contemplation of emptiness goes on alone and is not joined with great kindness and compassion and with skilful means, it will stall halfway. When in daily life one cultivates emptiness, cultivates ultimate emptiness, remember to pair it with the compassionate vow to liberate beings; as the treatise says, one practises constantly without ceasing because of the mind of great kindness and compassion—compassion and wisdom going together is alone the road that does not fall into marks. Next again is a reminder for treating attachment to dharmas: prajñā, which one should hold closest, and even the omniscience of all kinds—once one is attached to them with recollection, imagining, and discrimination, with a mind of afflictions, one does not attain sarvajñā after all; the higher the dharma, the more one must guard against this—this is the one flavour of coolness this chapter gives. Last is the practical use of the simile of the finger and the moon: in reading the sūtras and hearing the Dharma, never die in the sounds and words, taking the finger for the moon, taking what is said for the real meaning; the Buddha’s teaching in words is the cause and condition for knowing the moon, and only by following it to see the real mark it points to does one not fail the intent of the one who speaks the Dharma.

Further Resonances

Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter phrase by phrase, and, following this treatise’s thread of the gate of emptiness in the previous chapter and the gate of signlessness in this one, matched the three chapters that follow one after another to the three gates of liberation—emptiness, signlessness, and non-action—judging that this chapter stands in the position of the gate of signlessness; the ancient master and the treatise-author speak each independently and yet say the same thing, which shows that this judgement is not something later people forced upon it. Another ancient master unpacks this chapter’s five phrases of nothing received one by one, and pairs each with what it breaks: the first phrase breaks attachment to existence, the second breaks lingering in non-existence, the third breaks attachment to both existence and non-existence, the fourth breaks attachment to neither existence nor non-existence, and the last, “not receiving too is not received,” further dismisses the fourth phrase itself, completing the ultimate meaning of being apart from the four alternatives and dismissing grasping altogether. This five-phrase “nothing received” was handed down very widely and later became a standard formula quoted again and again in both the Sanlun and the Tiantai lines; even an ancient master commenting on the Heart Sūtra cites this sentence of this chapter as his ground; and this chapter’s “form is emptiness, emptiness is form” is the same wording as in the Heart Sūtra—some ancient masters explain “form is emptiness” by the absence of own-nature and “emptiness is form” by dependent arising, the two truths explaining each other, which can well throw light on how the Heart Sūtra is read. Another ancient master reminds us that where the sūtra speaks of swiftness, of swiftly attaining awakening, it means leaping over ages and kalpas, not leaping over the stages of practice, lest people misread it as attaining without cultivating. The various schools divide this chapter into sections—some into five parts, some into several sections—each cutting it differently; here only their coexistence is recorded, without judging which is higher. Brought back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is still that one reminder: all dharmas are originally without marks; the greatest danger is not ignorance and affliction, but the single thought of attachment raised toward the highest dharma—the gate of signlessness, breaking to the very last, breaks precisely this one thought.

The Illusory Person Makes Nothing: The Illusory Person Is Originally Empty and Makes Nothing—How, Then, Can a Bodhisattva Who Practises Prajñā like an Illusory Person Attain Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi?

What Is Being Asked

This chapter opens with Subhūti setting down a question on others’ behalf: 「幻人學般若波羅蜜，當得薩婆若不」 tr. "if an illusory person trains in prajñāpāramitā, will he attain sarvajñā?"—the illusory person is false and deceptive, without reality; can he train and attain the fruit? This one question presses the difficulty of the whole chapter right before our eyes. The Buddha does not answer directly, but instead tightens it with a long series of counter-questions: form, and so on through feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; the eye and so on through the mind—the faculties, the objects, the eighteen elements, the six contacts, and the feelings; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on through the noble eightfold path; and so on to the three gates of liberation, “emptiness, signlessness, non-action”; the six perfections and so on through the eighteen unshared dharmas—pressing all the way up to the highest, anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening; of each one he asks, “Is it different from an illusion?”, and to each one Subhūti answers, “No.” He goes on to state the reason himself, voicing the string of identities 「色不異幻，幻不異色，色即是幻，幻即是色」 tr. "form is not different from illusion, illusion is not different from form; form is precisely illusion, illusion is precisely form", on up to unsurpassed awakening also being precisely illusion; and he says as well 「五陰即是幻人，幻人即是五陰」 tr. "the five aggregates are precisely the illusory person; the illusory person is precisely the five aggregates". And so the several difficulties of the whole chapter all come to the surface. First: the illusory person has no mind or consciousness and cannot truly perform merit—how can he be said to “practise,” how can he train and attain the fruit? Second: if the illusory person is no different from a real bodhisattva, and all dharmas are of one mark, false and deceptive, then why must a bodhisattva practise the path in all its kinds and seek awakening—would all this cultivation not come to nothing? Third: the sūtra says it is only 「以無所得故」 tr. "because there is nothing to be attained" that one will attain sarvajñā (omniscience), and says that within the provisional name there are 「無業、無業因緣」 tr. "no karma, and no causes and conditions of karma"—might this “non-action,” this “nothing to be attained,” be precisely a sweeping away of cause and effect, a negation of cultivation? Fourth: the sūtra turns out a further section: why does a bodhisattva who has newly aroused the intent for the Great Vehicle become alarmed, frightened, and afraid on hearing prajñā taught; what is the “skilful means” that keeps one from alarm and fright; and where does the difference between the good friend and the evil friend lie? What this chapter sets out to answer is this one matter: the bodhisattva ought precisely to practise prajñā “like an illusory person”—the illusory person is originally empty and makes nothing, and the bodhisattva practising prajñā likewise blocks off entirely the attachment to a really existent doer and deed, yet this is not non-practice, not annihilation; precisely because there is nothing to be attained, one can attain; precisely because one is like an illusion and makes nothing, one can accomplish the Buddha-path and liberate beings.

Passage by Passage

First, look at the first section of the sūtra text. Subhūti poses the question whether an illusory person can train and attain the fruit. The Buddha does not answer directly, but asks in return whether form and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi “is different from an illusion,” pushing all the way to the extreme; Subhūti answers each time that it is not different, and lays out in full that string of identities: “form is not different from illusion, illusion is not different from form; form is precisely illusion, illusion is precisely form”—not only form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, but even the eye, the feelings born of the contacts, the four foundations of mindfulness, and so on to unsurpassed awakening: not one of them is not identical with illusion. The Buddha then tests this by illusion’s having no defilement or purity and no arising or ceasing, and presses out a question: can a dharma that neither arises nor ceases train and attain the fruit? The answer is that it cannot. Here, however, the Buddha inserts the one affirmative answer: the provisional name of the five aggregates of clinging “is a bodhisattva”; yet whether this dharma of a provisional name has arising and ceasing, defilement and purity, and whether a dharma that is only a name can train and attain the fruit—the answer is still that it cannot. Thereupon the Buddha sets forth the meaning directly: if a bodhisattva can train in prajñā in this way, he will attain sarvajñā, “because there is nothing to be attained.” Subhūti at once responds: the bodhisattva should train like an illusory person, because “the five aggregates are precisely the illusory person; the illusory person is precisely the five aggregates.” The Buddha further tests this in sequence with the five aggregates, the five aggregates like a dream, and the five aggregates like an echo, like a shadow, like a mirage, like a conjuration—none can attain, because “their nature has nothing at all”—the sinews of this section lie wholly in two places, “is precisely illusion” and “nothing to be attained”: all dharmas are identical with illusion and originally empty, and precisely because they are originally empty and there is nothing to be attained, there is real training and real attaining.

Next the treatise-author opens up the explanation. The treatise-author first explains why Subhūti took this easily answered matter to the Buddha: because of the very deep meaning of emptiness in the previous chapter, Subhūti doubted—all dharmas are of one mark, and the illusory person is no different from a real bodhisattva; yet he also saw that a bodhisattva performs merit and so comes to become a buddha, while an illusory person, having no reality, cannot become a buddha; between the two he could not settle. When it is asked how an illusory person, having no mind or consciousness, can be said to “practise,” the treatise-author answers 「雖實不行，人見似行，故名為行」 tr. "though in reality he does not practise, people see him seeming to practise, and so it is called practising"—the illusory person can display the appearance of giving, keeping the precepts, and so on to teaching the Dharma, and people without wisdom take it for real practice. The treatise-author further points out why the Buddha did not answer directly but asked in return: Subhūti had the wisdom of emptiness and could contemplate the five aggregates as empty, yet because of the residual habits of the afflictions he still held the Buddha-Dharma precious, and could not contemplate the Buddha-Dharma as also like an illusion; so the Buddha took the emptiness of the five aggregates as a simile to let him understand for himself. Then comes the most central simile of the whole chapter: a conjurer, taking only a few spells, implements, and words as his basis, makes appear walled cities, towers, pavilions, and scenes of every kind; the five aggregates of clinging likewise, from only the causes and conditions of a little conjuring art of ignorance in former lives, make appear constructions, consciousness, name-and-form, bodies and minds of every kind—the simile of the conjuring art is meant precisely to make people know that the five aggregates of clinging are false and deceptive like an illusion, and to give rise to no view of real existence toward the five aggregates of clinging, just as one watches an illusion without being attached to the illusion, so that when impermanence destroys them one will not regret having lost something real. From here the treatise-author further presses out where “non-action” lands in the text: why must a bodhisattva practise the path in all its kinds and seek awakening? The Buddha answers 「五眾虛誑，但以假名故，號為菩薩。是假名中，無業、無業因緣，無心、無心數法，無垢、無淨，畢竟空故」 tr. "the five aggregates are false and deceptive; only by way of a provisional name is one called a bodhisattva. Within this provisional name there is no karma and no causes and conditions of karma, no mind and no mental factors, without stain and without purity, because of ultimate emptiness"; and he also says 「菩薩應如幻人行般若波羅蜜，五眾即是幻人無異，從先世業因緣、幻業出故」 tr. "the bodhisattva should practise prajñāpāramitā like an illusory person; the five aggregates are precisely the illusory person, no different, because they come forth from the causes and conditions of karma in former lives, from illusory karma", and the five aggregates too cannot become a buddha, “because their nature has nothing at all.” Finally the treatise-author explains 「識即是六情，六情即是五眾」 tr. "consciousness is precisely the six faculties; the six faculties are precisely the five aggregates", extending it by three meanings—the third member of the twelve causes and conditions; the six faculties’ being able to produce offence and merit; and the successive continuity from former lives—and concludes that this dharma is unfindable in every emptiness from inner emptiness up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas.

The second section of the sūtra text turns to “skilful means.” Subhūti asks whether a bodhisattva who has newly aroused the intent for the Great Vehicle, on hearing prajñā, 「將無驚、怖、畏」 tr. "might not be alarmed, frightened, afraid"; the Buddha answers: without skilful means and without a good friend, one is either alarmed, or frightened, or afraid. As for what skilful means is, the Buddha enumerates: with a mind in accord with sarvajñā, contemplating form and so on through consciousness under all their marks—impermanent, suffering, not-self, empty, signless, without action, quiescent, separated—and yet “this too is unfindable”; he further matches this contemplation to the six perfections—vowing to teach this Dharma for beings, and yet it is unfindable, is giving (dāna); contemplating without the mind of the two vehicles is morality (śīla); acceptance and delight toward all dharmas is patience (kṣānti); not abandoning and not resting is vigour (vīrya); not giving rise to the mind of the two vehicles or to unwholesome minds is meditation (dhyāna); and last, with 「不以空色故色空，色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "it is not by emptying form that form is empty; form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form", he points out the skilful means of original emptiness, and so one is not alarmed, not afraid, not frightened. Asked further about the good friend, the Buddha answers: one who can teach that all dharmas—impermanent and so on to separated—are all unfindable, and who takes these roots of goodness only toward omniscience, is a good friend.

The treatise-author explains this section. First he explains how Subhūti’s doubt arose: he had heard that there is no bodhisattva who can practise prajñā, and that the empty five aggregates cannot practise either, and so he doubted who could practise. The Buddha shows that the cause of fear lies precisely in 「內外因緣不具足」 tr. "the inner and outer causes and conditions not being complete"—inwardly, lacking right recollection, sharp wisdom, and a mind of deep compassion; outwardly, not being born in the central lands, not hearing prajñā, not meeting a good friend. The treatise-author further distinguishes: why is it said only that contemplating dharmas with a mind in accord with sarvajñā frees one from fear? Because the bodhisattva’s earlier mind contemplating emptiness was coarse and gave rise to attachment; now, in accord with the Buddha’s intent, he arouses great compassion, is attached to no dharma whatever, and wishes only to liberate beings; from this he brings in the simile of a physician compounding medicine—the physician gives hot medicine to a patient who suffers from cold, but in a fever this hot medicine becomes, on the contrary, no medicine; dharmas have no fixed dharma, and medicine is given according to the illness, so the mind is not attached and does not see a single dharma as fixed and real. From this one meaning—giving medicine according to the occasion, the mind not attached to dharmas—the treatise-author goes on to match the six perfections: the bodhisattva turns the various contemplations of impermanence, emptiness, and the rest into skilful means for liberating beings, and among these 「二施中法施大故，是名檀波羅蜜」 tr. "because of the two kinds of giving the gift of Dharma is the greater, this is called the perfection of giving"—comparing the two, material giving and the gift of Dharma, the gift of Dharma can give people wisdom-life and its benefit is the greatest, so here teaching the Dharma to liberate beings is gathered in as the perfection of giving; 「五波羅蜜亦如是隨義分別」 tr. "the five perfections are likewise distinguished according to their meaning"—morality and so on through prajñā are likewise all matched, each according to its meaning, into this contemplation of skilful means, and are not set up as a separate set of practices. Finally the treatise-author picks out the meaning of original emptiness: the bodhisattva’s skilful means is 「非十八空故令色空」 tr. "not making form empty by means of the eighteen emptinesses"; 「是色從本已來常自空，色相空故，空即是色」 tr. "this form, from the very beginning, has always been empty of itself; because the mark of form is empty, emptiness is precisely form"; and the essential point of the good friend lies only in teaching people to “dedicate” this wisdom to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.

The third section of the sūtra text shows the evil friend by contrast. The Buddha first states the marks of lacking skilful means: cultivating prajñā and the six perfections apart from the mind of omniscience, and toward the emptiness of dharmas 「有所念、有所得」 tr. "having something thought of, having something attained"; because of lacking skilful means, on hearing prajñā one is alarmed, frightened, and afraid. Then he states the marks of the evil friend, several layers in a row: teaching one to depart from the six perfections, and not exposing the deeds of Māra; the evil Māra taking the form of a buddha to teach the sūtras of the two vehicles, to say that you are not a true bodhisattva and not avaivartika, to say that all is empty, so what use is awakening; taking the body of a pratyekabuddha to say that in the ten directions there are no buddhas, bodhisattvas, or śrāvakas; taking the form of a preceptor or an ācārya to teach one to leave the bodhisattva path and enter the two vehicles; taking the form of father and mother to say that seeking awakening means suffering, for immeasurable kalpas, the pain of having one’s hands cut off and one’s feet cut off; taking the form of a bhikṣu to teach the Dharma with something to be attained and with the grasping of marks—none of these tells the bodhisattva of the deeds of Māra and the offences of Māra; 「知已，當遠離之」 tr. "having recognised them, one should keep far from them".

At the end the treatise-author gathers it all up. He first speaks at length of lacking skilful means: apart from a mind in accord with omniscience of all kinds, grasping a fixed mark of prajñā—this is lacking skilful means oneself, and on top of that meeting the teaching of a evil friend. Next he says the evil friend 「大失利益，種種壞人」 tr. "brings great loss of benefit and ruins people in all kinds of ways"—some not believing in offence and merit, some clinging to ultimate emptiness and saying there is nothing to practise, some praising the Small Vehicle and making one abandon beings; moreover he does not teach his disciples to recognise that 「魔是佛賊」 tr. "Māra is the Buddha’s bandit"—here the treatise-author makes clear Māra’s origin and limits: Māra is the lord of the desire realm, 「有大力勢，常憎行道者」 tr. "possessed of great power and might, always hating those who practise the path"; seeing people cultivate the path, he rises in hatred and jealousy and schemes in a hundred ways to ruin them; and yet 「佛威力大故，魔無所能，但能壞小菩薩」 tr. "because the Buddha’s majestic power is great, Māra can do nothing, and can only ruin minor bodhisattvas"—before the Buddha’s majestic power Māra in fact has no way to ply his craft; what he can ruin is only those minor bodhisattvas whose strength on the path is not yet firm. Therefore the good friend must expose this layer, so that disciples know both that Māra is to be feared and that Māra’s power is limited, and do not grow timid and retreat; the evil friend precisely covers over these deeds of Māra and offences of Māra and does not speak of them. The treatise-author then goes through, one after another, the marks of Māra ruining people in all kinds of forms—the body of a buddha, the body of a pratyekabuddha, preceptor and ācārya, father and mother, arhat and bhikṣu. Last, he explains the phrase “keep far from them” to conclude the whole chapter: the evil friend is 「如軟語賊，轉來親近，近則害人」 tr. "like a soft-spoken bandit who comes round to draw close, and once close, harms people", and his harm is worse than a bandit’s—「賊但能害命、奪財，惡知識則害慧念命根，奪佛法無量寶」 tr. "a bandit can only harm one’s life and seize one’s wealth; a evil friend harms the life-faculty of wisdom and mindfulness and seizes the immeasurable treasure of the Buddha-Dharma"; therefore 「知已，急當身、心遠離」 tr. "having recognised him, one should at once keep far from him in body and in mind".

Do Not Misread

First, do not read “non-action” and “nothing to be attained” as not cultivating, or as annihilation. When the sūtra says that within the provisional name there are “no karma, and no causes and conditions of karma,” what it blocks is attachment to a really existent doer and deed, attainer and attained; it does not say that there is no giving and keeping of precepts, no continuity of karma and its recompense. The simile of the illusory person is exactly this sense of proportion: the illusory person is originally empty and makes nothing, yet vividly displays the appearance of the six perfections and the myriad practices; the bodhisattva “practises prajñā like an illusory person,” and just so practises the path, becomes a buddha, and liberates beings, only practising without taking it as real. The sūtra says plainly that it is only “because there is nothing to be attained” that one “will attain sarvajñā”—nothing to be attained does not obstruct attaining: this is precisely the eye of this chapter.

Second, do not read “like an illusory person” as meaning that the bodhisattva’s cultivation is false, a deception. The simile of illusion blocks attachment to the real; it does not disparage the bodhisattva; when the sūtra says the five aggregates are precisely the illusory person, it is to have people give rise to no view of real existence toward the five aggregates, just as one watches an illusion without being attached to the illusion. If one reads “like an illusion” as meaning that everything is void and nothing, and cultivation is useless, one falls precisely into that very view of the evil friend which the treatise refutes: 「諸法畢竟空，汝何所行」 tr. "all dharmas are ultimately empty—what is there for you to practise?"

Third, do not read ‘original emptiness’ as an emptiness produced by contemplating form as empty, something cultivated into being. The treatise says it decisively: the bodhisattva’s skilful means is “not making form empty by means of the eighteen emptinesses”; “this form, from the very beginning, has always been empty of itself”; emptiness is not something “made” by the contemplation of emptiness, but is the dharma-nature as it originally is. The sūtra too says, “it is not by emptying form that form is empty; form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form.” If one supposes that one must use a mark of emptiness to compel form to be empty, that is precisely what the treatise blocks—using the mark of emptiness to “force it to be empty”—and it turns instead into contrivance.

Fourth, do not read “no karma, and no causes and conditions of karma” within the provisional name as sweeping away cause and effect. This blocks a really existent karmic substance with respect to the provisional name and to ultimate emptiness; it does not deny karmic recompense. The treatise says at once that the five aggregates “come forth from the causes and conditions of karma in former lives, from illusory karma,” and says too that the mind of former lives abides in the six faculties and continues in succession, giving rise to the bodies of this life and later lives—karmic recompense is vividly present; only no really existent doer or receiver can be found. Non-action and dependent arising are precisely two faces of one body.

Fifth, do not read ‘keeping far from evil friends’ as rejecting teachers and companions and living apart from the community. What sūtra and treatise keep far from is the evil friend who robs people of wisdom-life, teaches them to leave the bodhisattva path, and conceals the deeds of Māra; opposite him there is precisely the good friend of 「持是善根，不向聲聞、辟支佛道，但向一切智」 tr. "take these roots of goodness and direct them not toward the path of the śrāvaka or the pratyekabuddha, but only toward omniscience", who should be drawn near. The criterion for keeping far lies in whether there is benefit—keep far from those who harm wisdom-life, draw near to those who benefit one’s work on the path; it is not a blanket rejection.

Bearing on Practice

Where this chapter comes closest to one’s practice is in giving the practitioner the single coolness of ‘being like an illusion, making nothing.’ As soon as one gains a little accord, it is easiest to cling secretly to what one practises and what one attains as real—clinging to an I that is practising prajñā, clinging to an I that has attained something. This chapter’s medicine lies only in the three words “like an illusory person”: giving, keeping the precepts, and so on to sitting in meditation and teaching the Dharma—all are like the practice an illusory person displays, practised without being taken as really existent; on gaining a little accord, at once raise awareness, and do not stop at ‘I can act, I have attained.’ Next is making ‘original emptiness and non-action’ concrete: emptiness is not a state to be cultivated into being; form, from the very beginning, has always been empty of itself; in practice there is no need to manufacture an emptiness—only do not add an attachment to real existence onto dharmas, and right where you are, that is it. Next again is self-examination in terms of inner and outer causes and conditions: whether one fears or does not, retreats or does not, hinges on whether inwardly there is right recollection, sharp wisdom, and a mind of deep compassion, and outwardly whether one hears prajñā and meets a good friend; compassion and wisdom completing each other, and drawing near to good friends, are precisely the provisions for not being alarmed or frightened. Last is the reminder to guard against attachment to the Dharma and to discern false teachers: the highest prajñā, omniscience of all kinds—once one attaches to it with recollection, imagining, and discrimination, with a mind that grasps marks, one on the contrary does not attain sarvajñā; and those who conceal the deeds of Māra, who teach people to give up awakening and enter the Small Vehicle, and who even ruin people’s mind for the path with “all dharmas are ultimately empty—what is there for you to practise?”—they are precisely that soft-spoken bandit who seizes the immeasurable treasure of the Buddha-Dharma, and one should at once keep far from them in body and mind.

Further Resonances

Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter phrase by phrase and, following the thread of the three chapters before and after, matched the three chapters of Gathering and Dispersal, of Marks and Practice, and of Illusory Training to the three gates of liberation—emptiness, signlessness, and non-action—judging that this chapter corresponds precisely to the gate of non-action among the three gates of liberation: the preceding chapter is the gate of signlessness, and the chapter before that the gate of emptiness. The ancient master himself states of this treatise at this point: 「論無明文，義次應爾」 tr. "the treatise has no explicit text; by the sequence of meaning it should be so"—it is inferred only from the order of the three gates, which shows that this classification is set up on the sequence of meaning and is not forced on by a later hand. Another ancient master divides this chapter into two parts, directly naming the first part 「如幻人本空無作之義」 tr. "the meaning of being like an illusory person, originally empty and making nothing", and uses the four characters for ‘originally empty, making nothing’ directly to explain the chapter title’s “the illusory person makes nothing”; he further states that the illusory person is originally empty and has no mark of mind, therefore 「無取無作無行亦無所得」 tr. "there is no grasping, no making, no practising, and also nothing attained", which illuminates exactly the sūtra’s phrases within the provisional name, “no karma, and no causes and conditions of karma” and “because there is nothing to be attained.” Yet another ancient master glosses the chapter name “Illusory Training,” saying that it exhorts the bodhisattva, in training in prajñā, to train as an illusion trains, and that illusory training in fact trains in nothing—training in nothing and making nothing are inside and outside of each other. As for this chapter’s name, what the ancient masters transmit was never uniform: some have “The Illusory Person Makes Nothing,” some “Illusory Training,” some “Illusion,” some “The Simile of Illusion”; here we only record that they coexist, without judging which is higher. And this chapter’s 「色即是幻，幻即是色」 tr. "form is precisely illusion, illusion is precisely form" has the same sentence pattern as 「色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "form is precisely emptiness, emptiness is precisely form" in the Prajñāpāramitā Heart Sūtra; the two places can well be read together, each illuminating the other. Bringing these readings back to this chapter, what is most to be kept is still that one line: the bodhisattva ought precisely to practise prajñā like an illusory person, practising yet making nothing, attaining yet attaining nothing—when the gate of non-action has refuted to the very end, what it refutes is exactly that single thought that clings to a real doer and a real attaining.

The Meaning of the Phrase: The Bodhisattva’s ‘Meaning’ Lies Precisely in ‘No Meaning of the Phrase’—In Unsurpassed Awakening There Is No Place of Meaning and No Self, and So No Meaning of the Phrase Is the Bodhisattva’s Meaning of the Phrase

What Is Being Asked

At the very opening of this chapter Subhūti asks, 「云何為菩薩句義」 tr. "what is the bodhisattva’s meaning of the phrase?"—“meaning of the phrase” is, at root, a question about the meaning expressed by the name “bodhisattva,” the fixed mark it points to: what, after all, is a bodhisattva, and where does its meaning lie? And the Buddha, the moment he opens his mouth, answers 「無句義是菩薩句義」 tr. "no meaning of the phrase is the bodhisattva’s meaning of the phrase," and at once points out the reason: 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提中無有義處，亦無我」 tr. "in anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi (unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening) there is no place of meaning, nor is there a self." This answer is not a refusal to answer; it pulls the question up by the root: what makes a bodhisattva a bodhisattva—its “meaning”—does not lie in there being a fixed mark that can be clung to or a place of meaning that can be attained, but precisely in there being nothing at all. The several difficulties of the whole chapter are forced out from here. First: since it is said that there is no meaning of the phrase, why does the Buddha nonetheless expound at length, over and over, by the simile of a bird flying through space and so on through fourteen rounds of similes—if there is no meaning to be spoken, what need is there of all this speaking? Second: will “no meaning of the phrase” not simply collapse into everything being void and nothing, wiping out along with it even the name of bodhisattva and the bodhisattva’s practice? Third: the latter half of the sūtra suddenly turns to ask 「何等是一切法」 tr. "what are all dharmas?" and lists in one breath ten pairs—the wholesome and the unwholesome, the determinate and the indeterminate, the worldly and the world-transcending, those with outflows and those without outflows, the conditioned and the unconditioned, the shared and the unshared—each with its name, its mark and its definition; does this not stand in direct contradiction to the “no meaning of the phrase” of the first half? Fourth: at the end the treatise further discusses how form is conditioned and yet also unconditioned—the conditioned and the unconditioned are clearly distinct, and yet it is said that form is not apart from suchness, and that form, entering suchness, no longer arises or ceases; how, after all, is the boundary between the conditioned and the unconditioned to be established? What this chapter sets out to answer is this one matter: the bodhisattva ought precisely to have “no meaning of the phrase” with regard to all dharmas—screening off entirely any fixed mark that can be clung to and any place of meaning that can be attained, and yet this is not not-practising, not annihilation; precisely because there is nothing to be attained, he is able, within the unobstructed mark of all dharmas, to train and to know, without falling into clinging to the real.

Passage by Passage

First, the first passage of the sūtra. Subhūti asks what the bodhisattva’s meaning of the phrase is; the Buddha answers “no meaning of the phrase is the bodhisattva’s meaning of the phrase,” and at once explains that the reason lies in “in anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi there is no place of meaning, nor is there a self.” Then comes a long chain of similes: first, 「譬如鳥飛虛空無有足跡」 tr. "just as a bird flying through space leaves no footprints"—this is the most central simile of the whole chapter: a bird passing across the long sky leaves not a single trace, and the nothing-at-all of the bodhisattva’s meaning of the phrase is just so; next, what is seen in a dream has no location; an illusion, a mirage, an echo, a reflection, and what the Buddha conjures by transformation have no real meaning; suchness, dharma-nature, dharma-mark, dharma-position and the reality-limit have no meaning. Then it advances by two layers: the five aggregates, the six sense faculties, the six objects, the emptinesses, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas of an illusory person all have no meaning; and further it pushes from the level of the illusory person to the level of the Tathāgata—the five aggregates, the six sense faculties, and so on up to the thirty-seven limbs of the path of the tathāgata likewise have no location. This step shows the most backbone: the original emptiness of the illusory person and the fruit-virtues of the Tathāgata are, in “no meaning of the phrase,” without two and without difference; ordinary and noble do not become higher or lower on account of no meaning of the phrase. Below this: the conditioned and the unconditioned do not include one another; non-arising and non-ceasing have no location (Subhūti presses on this point, asking “what dharma is it that, because it does not arise and does not cease, has no location?”, and the Buddha answers that form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, together with the sense-fields, the elements, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, all have no location because they neither arise nor cease, and so on up to being neither stained nor pure—restating it once, category by category); the meaning of purity of the four foundations of mindfulness is ultimately unfindable; within purity a self is unfindable; when the sun rises there is no darkness; when the kalpa burns there is no thing; within the Buddha’s precepts there is no breaking of precepts; within the Buddha’s light the lights of the sun, the moon and the gods all fail to appear—simile after simile, each says that within this there is no meaning of that, within this there is no location. At the end it gathers everything up in a general conclusion, 「一相，所謂無相」 tr. "one mark, namely the signless," and enjoins, 「菩薩摩訶薩一切法無礙相中應當學，亦應當知」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should train within the unobstructed mark of all dharmas, and should also know it." The skeleton of this passage lies wholly in this: no meaning of the phrase is not an empty void with nothing in it; it is no fixed mark, no location, nothing to be attained.

Next, the treatise-author opens up the explanation. The treatise-author first explains why Subhūti, after refuting the word “bodhisattva” by all kinds of causes and conditions, turns round to ask about its meaning of the phrase. He sets himself a question, 「上來佛與須菩提種種因緣破菩薩字」 tr. "above, the Buddha and Subhūti refuted the word ‘bodhisattva’ by all kinds of causes and conditions," and answers that Subhūti refuted the word “bodhisattva” while the Buddha did not refute it, because 「菩薩字從本已來畢竟空，但五眾中數假名菩薩」 tr. "the word ‘bodhisattva’ is from the very beginning ultimately empty; it is only within the five aggregates that one reckons and provisionally names a bodhisattva"—whereas beings cling to this provisional name as real. The treatise-author then adds two further causes and conditions for asking about the meaning of the phrase. One: earlier Subhūti 「因菩薩字空說般若波羅蜜相」 tr. "spoke of the mark of prajñāpāramitā on the basis of the emptiness of the word ‘bodhisattva’," whereas here 「今欲聞佛說菩薩字義」 tr. "now he wishes to hear the Buddha speak of the meaning of the word ‘bodhisattva’," so as to speak of prajñā once more by way of the meaning of “bodhisattva.” Two: the Buddha’s “voice has sixty kinds of adornment,” able to make the gods listen single-mindedly and people delight to hear, and so by means of this question and answer he bestows benefit widely—those who have not yet aroused the intent he causes to arouse the mind of awakening; those who have aroused the intent but do not yet practise the six perfections he causes to practise them; those who practise but not purely he causes to attain purity; those who are pure he causes to abide on the ground of avaivartika, bringing beings to maturity and perfecting the Buddha-dharmas, “up to being bound to buddhahood in one more birth”—it is precisely for these manifold benefits that the Buddha takes Subhūti as the questioner and so addresses all the beings in the assembly. Then comes this chapter’s philology: the grammar of India, 「天竺語法，眾字和合成語，眾語和合成句」 tr. "in the grammar of India, many syllables come together to form a word, and many words come together to form a phrase"; the two syllables bo and dhi come together to form bodhi, which 「秦言無上智慧」 tr. "in the language of Qin is ‘unsurpassed wisdom’"; and sattva 「或名眾生，或是大心」 tr. "is sometimes called ‘beings’, and sometimes is ‘the great mind’"; together they make bodhisattva—one who, for the sake of unsurpassed wisdom, puts forth the great mind and vows to cause beings to walk the unsurpassed path together with him. He further points out that what India calls pada is in the language of Qin “phrase.” This round of philology makes clear where the term “meaning of the phrase” comes from: the phrase is the name that expresses, the meaning is the reality expressed; and the “no meaning of the phrase” that the Buddha gives as his answer says precisely that neither what expresses nor what is expressed has any fixed mark that can be clung to. The treatise-author further asks himself why, when one simile would already suffice, all kinds of expanded explanation are given, and answers, 「眾生聽受種種不同，有好義者，有好譬喻者」 tr. "beings differ in all sorts of ways in how they hear and receive: some love the meaning, some love similes"—similes are for explaining the meaning to different dispositions, not mere display; and further, those who love similes come, through the similes, to delight in and take pleasure in the Dharma, as a person who is already naturally handsome, with adornment added, gains in splendour—similes are precisely for increasing people’s joy in receiving the Dharma. Within this, the simile of washing a stinking dead dog explains “the purity of self”: searching for the mark of a self in every way and not finding it—this is the purity of self; wash the dog until skin, hair, blood, flesh, bone and marrow are all gone, and it is neither dog nor pig, and one cannot say it is pure, nor can one say it is impure. At the end he comes home in one sentence: 「因是譬喻，教諸菩薩，當學一切法不取相，無所得故」 tr. "by means of these similes he teaches the bodhisattvas that they should train in all dharmas without grasping marks, because there is nothing to be attained"—this is the eye the treatise-author sets for the first half.

The second passage of the sūtra turns to ask “what are all dharmas?”, and the Buddha lists ten pairs, from the wholesome and the unwholesome up to the shared and the unshared, giving each one its name, mark and definition. What most needs to be harmonised here is this: why, after “no meaning of the phrase,” are the names and marks of all dharmas suddenly listed at length? The key lies in the one sentence the sūtra itself points out—the bodhisattva must consider 「云何一切法中無礙相應學、應知」 tr. "how, within all dharmas, he should train in and know the unobstructed mark." Although all dharmas each have the names, marks and definitions of wholesome and unwholesome, with outflows and without outflows, and so on up to conditioned and unconditioned, the bodhisattva 「自相空法中不應著，不動故」 tr. "should not be attached within dharmas empty of specific marks, because they are unmoving," and knows that 「一切法不二相，不動故」 tr. "all dharmas are of the mark of non-duality, because they are unmoving." The first half refutes the clinging to the real and speaks of no meaning of the phrase; the second half establishes what should be trained in and lists all dharmas; the two do not contradict each other but are one body: precisely because nothing is attained in any dharma and no fixed mark is grasped, one is able to train in and know all dharmas without obstruction and without being obstructed by names and marks. This passage closes with 「是名菩薩義」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva’s meaning"—the bodhisattva’s meaning falls precisely on this being unobstructed and unattached.

Last, the treatise-author explains this passage. First he explains the order of question and answer, 「先問麁，後當問細」 tr. "first he asks about the coarse; afterwards he will ask about the subtle"—first one knows the marks of the worldly, and afterwards one can know the marks of the world-transcending; then item by item he explains the meaning of each dharma: worldly wholesome dharmas, the unwholesome and the indeterminate, the worldly and the world-transcending, those with outflows and those without, the conditioned and the unconditioned, the shared and the unshared. The final turn of the whole chapter lies in the distinction of conditioned and unconditioned: the treatise sets itself a question, 「色如，色不離如，如不離色；色是有為，云何是無為」 tr. "the suchness of form—form is not apart from suchness, and suchness is not apart from form; form is conditioned, so how is it unconditioned?" and answers, 「色有二種：一者、凡夫肉眼憶想分別色，二者、聖人心所知色實相如涅槃」 tr. "form is of two kinds: first, the form of the ordinary person’s fleshly eye, of recollection, imagining, and discrimination; second, the real mark of form known by the mind of the noble ones, which is like nirvāṇa"—form is not apart from suchness, and the difference between conditioned and unconditioned is the difference between the form of the ordinary person’s recollection, imagining, and discrimination and the real mark of form known by the noble one’s mind; form, entering suchness, then no longer arises or ceases. The last sentence gathers up the whole chapter: 「菩薩分別知此諸法各各相，是法皆從因緣和合生故無性，無性故自性空」 tr. "the bodhisattva discriminatingly knows the respective marks of these dharmas; these dharmas all arise from the coming together of causes and conditions and so are without nature; being without nature, they are empty of own-nature," and so the bodhisattva 「住是無障礙法中不動，以不二入法門，入一切法不動故」 tr. "abides unmoving within this unhindered Dharma, because by the Dharma-gate of entering non-duality he enters all dharmas unmoving"—knowing their respective marks and knowing that they are without nature, their own-nature originally empty: this is exactly what gathers the “no meaning of the phrase” of the first half and the “all dharmas” of the second half into one.

The Ten Pairs of All Dharmas, Explained Member by Member

The passage-by-passage explanation above harmonised only the broad meaning of the ten pairs of “all dharmas” in the second half—the bodhisattva is unattached and unmoving within the emptiness of the specific marks of all dharmas, and so listing names and marks does not obstruct no meaning of the phrase. Yet under the ten pairs the sūtra and the treatise in fact give each member its name, mark and definition; if the general rule is not brought down to every member, readers will remember only ten pair-names without ever having seen for themselves what each member itself points to. What follows, then, walks through the ten pairs one pair at a time in the order of the sūtra text; wherever sūtra or treatise carries its own definition, that definition is explained in present-day language, with no meaning added.

1. Wholesome dharmas / unwholesome dharmas. Worldly wholesome dharmas—the sūtra lists their items: 「孝順父母，供養沙門、婆羅門，敬事尊長」 tr. "filial obedience to father and mother, making offerings to śramaṇas and brahmins, reverently serving elders and superiors"—this is the goodness of human relations; giving, keeping the precepts and cultivating meditation, the three grounds of merit, together with the work of merit of encouraging and guiding others—these are the three works of merit; further there is the merit born of skilful means, and the ten wholesome paths of the world. Beyond these are several groups of contemplative practices and absorptions—the nine marks (the bloated mark, the bloody mark, the broken-apart mark, the festering mark, the bluish mark, the gnawed mark, the scattered mark, the bone mark, the burnt mark, that is, the nine kinds of impure marks in contemplating a corpse as it decays stage by stage), the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, and the ten recollections (recollection of the Buddha, of the Dharma, of the Saṅgha, of the precepts, of relinquishment, of the gods, of the good, of ānāpāna, of the body, of death). The treatise-author further adds explanations: a śramaṇa is one who has left home to seek the path, a brahmin is one who pursues learning while at home; the two do in the world what is hard to do and benefit beings, so they should be given offerings; elders and superiors means uncles, elder sisters, elder brothers and the like; the details of giving, keeping the precepts, cultivating meditation, and encouraging and guiding are as already stated in the first chapter; merit born of skilful means is such as repentance, rejoicing, requesting the buddhas to remain long and not enter nirvāṇa, requesting them to turn the wheel of the Dharma, and even practising emptiness without being attached to emptiness and still cultivating all goods—all these are merit born of skilful means; among the ten recollections, the recollection of the good is to reflect on and discriminate the causes and conditions of wholesome karma so as to subdue one’s mind, and since nirvāṇa is the true wholesome dharma, to keep the mind constantly on nirvāṇa is the recollection of the good; the recollection of the body is the foundation of mindfulness of the body. Unwholesome dharmas: the sūtra lists the ten unwholesome paths—taking another’s life, taking what is not given, sexual misconduct, false speech, divisive speech, harsh speech, untimely speech, covetousness, malice, wrong views; the treatise-author settles them in a single sentence: what runs contrary to wholesome dharmas is unwholesome dharma.

2. Determinate dharmas / indeterminate dharmas. Determinate dharmas: all wholesome and unwholesome dharmas are such—good and evil have a retribution that can be determined, hence the name “determinate dharmas.” Indeterminate dharmas are dharmas not determined as good or evil, about which there is nothing to be answered: the sūtra lists indeterminate bodily action, verbal action and mental action, the indeterminate four great elements, the indeterminate five aggregates, twelve sense-fields and eighteen elements, and indeterminate retribution. The treatise-author further points out several kinds of indeterminate mind—“the mind of deportment, the mind of craft, the mind of transformation”—together with the bodily and verbal action arising from these minds; and he says that, apart from the wholesome and unwholesome five aggregates, the remaining five aggregates, together with the unconditioned such as space and the cessation not due to deliberation, are all indeterminate.

3. Worldly dharmas / world-transcending dharmas. Worldly dharmas: the sūtra lists the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless absorptions. The treatise-author makes the divisions: the five aggregates are sometimes wholesome, sometimes unwholesome, sometimes indeterminate; of the twelve sense-fields, eight are indeterminate and four span all three—wholesome, unwholesome and indeterminate; of the eighteen elements, eight are indeterminate and ten span all three; and the ten wholesome paths, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables and the four formless absorptions, though wholesome dharmas, can be obtained and accomplished even by ordinary people, and cannot of themselves leave the world, so all are called worldly dharmas. World-transcending dharmas the sūtra lists in the greatest detail, and it is precisely here that this passage goes through the numbered lists member by member: first the thirty-seven limbs of the path—the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four bases of supernormal power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven limbs of awakening, and the eight limbs of the noble path; next the three gates of liberation—the gate of liberation of emptiness, the gate of liberation of signlessness, and the gate of liberation of non-action; next the three faculties without outflows—the faculty of “I shall know the not-yet-known,” the faculty of knowing, and the faculty of having known; next the three samādhi—the samādhi with initial and sustained thought, the samādhi without initial thought and with sustained thought, and the samādhi without initial thought and without sustained thought; next the five: clarity, liberation, recollection, wisdom, and right remembrance. Further on, the sūtra text lists the two gates of the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions item by item. The eight liberations are eight kinds of contemplation in absorption that turn away from and abandon greedy attachment stage by stage, turning the mind by means of contemplation: first, the inner mind has not yet removed the perception of form and contemplates outer forms (form contemplating form); second, inwardly there is no longer any perception of form yet one still contemplates outer forms (inwardly without the mark of form, outwardly contemplating form); third, the pure liberation, which takes pure forms as object and is realised in the body; fourth, passing beyond all marks of form, extinguishing the marks of resistance, and not attending to any marks of diversity, one enters the station of boundless space; fifth, passing beyond the station of space, one enters the station of boundless consciousness; sixth, passing beyond the station of consciousness, one enters the station of nothingness; seventh, passing beyond the station of nothingness, one enters the station of neither perception nor non-perception; eighth, passing beyond the station of neither perception nor non-perception, one enters the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception. The nine successive absorptions are the four dhyānas, the four formless absorptions and the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception, entered in nine continuous stages with no mixed thought in between: the first dhyāna (separated from desire, separated from evil and unwholesome dharmas, with initial and sustained thought, with joy and bliss born of separation), the second dhyāna (initial thought and sustained thought extinguished, inwardly pure, the mind one-pointed, without initial thought and without sustained thought, with joy and bliss born of absorption), the third dhyāna (separated from joy, practising equanimity, experiencing bliss in the body, dwelling in mindfulness and bliss), the fourth dhyāna (pain and pleasure cut off, grief and joy extinguished beforehand, neither painful nor pleasant, equanimity and mindfulness pure); above these come the station of boundless space, the station of boundless consciousness, the station of nothingness, and the station of neither perception nor non-perception, and last one enters the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception—the nine absorptions follow in order without confusion, hence the name “the nine successive absorptions.” In addition the sūtra supplements a further class of world-transcending dharmas: the eighteen emptinesses, from inner emptiness up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the ten powers of the Buddha, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and omniscience. The treatise-author gathers up their outline: the thirty-seven limbs, the three gates of liberation, the three faculties without outflows and the three samādhi are as already stated; clarity is the three clarities; liberation divides into conditioned liberation and unconditioned liberation; recollection is the ten recollections; wisdom is the eleven kinds of wisdom; right remembrance is contemplating in accordance with the real mark of dharmas; the eight liberations, the nine successive absorptions, the eighteen emptinesses, the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses and the eighteen unshared dharmas are as expounded at length before. And the reason they are named world-transcending is precisely that the eight liberations, the nine successive absorptions and the like cannot be obtained by ordinary people, and that the four foundations of mindfulness and the like are single-mindedly for the path alone.

4. Dharmas with outflows / dharmas without outflows. Dharmas with outflows: the sūtra lists the five aggregates of clinging, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the six constituents, the six contacts, the six feelings, and the four dhyānas up to the four formless absorptions—all of these are bound up with the afflictions and can leak down into birth and death. Dharmas without outflows: the sūtra lists the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas and omniscience of all kinds; the treatise-author further makes clear that dharmas without outflows are not worldly, that is, they are the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas.

5. Conditioned dharmas / unconditioned dharmas. Conditioned dharmas: the treatise-author briefly states the three marks—arising, abiding, ceasing; whatever has arising, abiding and ceasing and is bound to the three realms—the five aggregates up to the feeling born from the condition of mind-contact—and also the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas and omniscience, which, though without outflows, are still conditioned because they are brought about by making. Unconditioned dharmas: the sūtra lists non-arising, non-abiding, non-ceasing; the exhaustion of passion, the exhaustion of hatred, the exhaustion of delusion; and suchness, non-difference, dharma-mark, dharma-nature, dharma-abiding, and the reality-limit; the treatise-author further explains: what is contrary to the conditioned is the unconditioned; the extinction of the afflictions such as the three poisons, the five aggregates and the like no longer continuing in succession, together with suchness, dharma-mark, dharma-nature, dharma-abiding, the reality-limit and the like—these are called unconditioned dharmas.

6. Shared dharmas / unshared dharmas. Shared dharmas are the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions and the like: ordinary people and the noble ones share the same places of birth and the same places of entering absorption, common to ordinary and noble, hence the name “shared dharmas.” Unshared dharmas are the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas: they belong to the noble alone and are not shared with ordinary people, hence the name “unshared.”

Having walked through the ten pairs member by member, we come back to that same eye as before: this long list of names, marks and definitions is not there to make the bodhisattva grasp them, but is laid out distinctly precisely so that the bodhisattva “should train within the unobstructed mark of all dharmas, and should also know it”; discriminatingly knowing their marks, he at the same time knows that their specific marks are originally empty, non-dual and unmoving—the more detailed the names and marks, the more it shows that no meaning of the phrase pervades all dharmas without obstructing training and knowing.

Do Not Misread

First, do not read “no meaning of the phrase is the bodhisattva’s meaning of the phrase” as meaning that the name of bodhisattva is not established and that everything returns to void and nothing. The sūtra plainly speaks of no meaning of the phrase with respect to “in anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi there is no place of meaning, nor is there a self”—what it screens off is the fixed mark that can be clung to and the place of meaning that can be attained; this is ultimate emptiness, nothing to be attained, not a saying that there is no bodhisattva practice and no bodhisattva name. The treatise’s philology sets the name of bodhisattva in place with perfect clarity: one who puts forth the great mind for the sake of unsurpassed wisdom and vows to cause beings to walk the unsurpassed path is a bodhisattva—the bodhisattva is plainly there; it is only that there is no really existent fixed mark to be attained.

Second, do not read the fourteen rounds of similes as mere rhetorical display, to be kept or dropped at will. The treatise sets itself a question—one simile already suffices to make the meaning of the phrase clear, so why all kinds of expanded explanation?—and answers, “beings differ in all sorts of ways in how they hear and receive: some love the meaning, some love similes”—similes are for explaining the meaning to different dispositions; and each simile shows one face: the level of the illusory person shows original emptiness; the level of the Tathāgata shows that the fruit-virtues too are without meaning of the phrase; the conditioned and the unconditioned show that they do not include one another; the rising sun, the burning kalpa and the Buddha’s light show that when the strong appears, the weak of itself does not appear. Only when they are taken together is every meaning of “no meaning of the phrase” exhausted.

Third, do not read the “no meaning of the phrase” of the first half and the names, marks and definitions of all dharmas listed in the second half as two severed halves in contradiction. Although all dharmas each have names, marks and definitions, from wholesome and unwholesome up to shared and unshared, these are distinguished so that the bodhisattva “should train within the unobstructed mark of all dharmas, and should also know it”; and the bodhisattva here “should not be attached within dharmas empty of specific marks, because they are unmoving”—discriminatingly knowing their marks, he at the same time knows that their own-nature is originally empty. Names and marks are not two with emptiness—this is exactly what the sūtra calls “all dharmas are of the mark of non-duality.”

Fourth, do not read the distinction of conditioned and unconditioned as meaning that form has two substances, or that there is form apart from suchness. The treatise says that form is not apart from suchness and suchness is not apart from form; it says only that “form is of two kinds”—the form of the ordinary person’s fleshly eye, of recollection, imagining, and discrimination, and the real mark of form known by the noble one’s mind; it neither moves form outside suchness nor sets up a separate form within suchness. The difference between conditioned and unconditioned lies in the difference between recollection, imagining, and discrimination and the knowing of the real mark, not in placing some other thing outside the substance of dharmas.

Fifth, do not read the treatise’s closing words “they should train in all dharmas without grasping marks, because there is nothing to be attained” as not training and not knowing. The sūtra says plainly that within the unobstructed mark of all dharmas one “should train, and should also know it”—nothing to be attained does not obstruct training and knowing, just as no meaning of the phrase does not obstruct the bodhisattva. The difference between grasping marks and nothing to be attained lies only in whether, at the time of training and knowing, one is attached or unattached.

Bearing on Practice

What in this chapter lies closest to the place of effort is the coolness of an unmixed “nothing to be attained.” With regard to the marks of dharmas, to stages of fruition, to what one has oneself practised and realised, people most easily cling covertly to a fixed mark and acknowledge a real attainment—this is exactly ‘having a meaning of the phrase’; this chapter’s medicine lies only in the words “no meaning of the phrase”: practising without clinging to the practice as a fixed mark, attaining without acknowledging the attainment as a real attainment. Next is the carrying out of “should train, should know, within the unobstructed mark of all dharmas”—nothing to be attained is not not-training; one must precisely train in and know without obstruction the marks of all dharmas, from wholesome and unwholesome up to conditioned and unconditioned, only training without attachment; not deluded by names and marks, not cut off in emptiness—only this is non-duality. Next is the benefit of the similes: in daily life all dharmas appear plainly before one, and yet each is without a fixed mark—like a bird flying through space leaving no trace, like a dream, like a mirage, without a real place; when one does not grasp objects as real, the afflictions of themselves take no root. Last is the encouragement that ordinary and noble are alike in one no meaning of the phrase: the original emptiness of the illusory person and the fruit-virtues of the Tathāgata are alike within nothing at all; the practitioner need neither belittle himself for his own ordinariness and inferiority, nor raise over the Buddha’s fruit-virtues a separate thought of something that can be attained—being alike within ultimate emptiness, simply practise with nothing to be attained, and train with nothing to be attained.

Further Resonances

Later there were ancient masters who wrote commentaries on this chapter passage by passage and set it at a turning point in the whole sūtra. One ancient master, following the thread of the preceding chapters, says that the three chapters Gathering and Dispersal, Marks and Practice, and Illusion and Training speak of prajñā by taking the emptiness, signlessness and non-action of the word “bodhisattva” as the three gates of liberation—this is speaking by way of the word, and can be called the gate of the word; from this chapter, the Chapter on the Meaning of the Phrase, onward, it turns to speaking of prajñā by way of the meaning that the word “bodhisattva” expresses, and can be called the gate of the meaning of the word. And this turn corresponds exactly to the question the treatise-author of this treatise set himself—“above, the Buddha and Subhūti refuted the word ‘bodhisattva’ by all kinds of causes and conditions,” so why does he now ask about the meaning of the phrase; the ancient master’s division and this treatise’s own question confirm each other exactly. Again, an ancient master judges what follows to be the head of a new round, the gate of extolling praise, saying that the speaking of prajñā by way of the three gates of liberation is now complete, and that what follows from here praises the person and extols the Dharma—praising the person able to practise prajñā, namely the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, and extolling the Dharma that is practised, namely prajñā; this round spans thirteen chapters from the Chapter on the Meaning of the Phrase onward. Yet another ancient master takes this chapter as the head of the portion on “the greatness of the person,” saying that this great portion makes prajñā clear by way of the greatness of the person—one who has come to know the great Dharma is therefore called a great person—and that the first chapter here makes clear the meaning of “bodhisattva” and the next chapter makes clear the meaning of “mahāsattva,” corresponding exactly to “this is called the bodhisattva’s meaning” at the end of this chapter’s sūtra passage and to the next chapter’s making clear of mahāsattva. As for the philology set up in this chapter, it too was taken up by the ancient masters—an ancient master cites this chapter’s words “in the grammar of India, many syllables come together to form a word, and many words come together to form a phrase” in order to distinguish syllable, phrase and word. And this chapter’s simile “just as a bird flying through space leaves no footprints” and its sentence “no meaning of the phrase is the bodhisattva’s meaning of the phrase” are cited again and again by the ancient masters above all, to show that dharmas have no support and no trace to be sought. Bringing these readings back to this chapter, what most needs to be kept is still that one sentence: the bodhisattva’s meaning lies precisely in no meaning of the phrase—from refuting the word “bodhisattva” to asking about the bodhisattva’s meaning of the phrase, what is refuted and what is revealed are both that one thought which clings to there being a fixed mark and acknowledges a real attainment; no meaning of the phrase does not obstruct the bodhisattva, just as nothing to be attained does not obstruct being able to attain and being able to train.

Mahāsattva: Why the Bodhisattva Is Further Named “Mahā” (Great)—Foremost in the Assembly of the Assured, He Is Therefore Called Mahāsattva; Giving Rise to a Great Mind Indestructible as Vajra, Eight Minds Threaded into One, Suffering in Beings’ Place while the Mind Has Nothing to Be Attained

What Is Being Asked

At the very opening of this chapter Subhūti asks, “For what reason is one called a mahāsattva?”—the bodhisattva already has his name, so why add one more word, “mahā” (great)? And the Buddha, at the very first word, answers: 「是菩薩於畢定眾中為上首，是故名為摩訶薩」 tr. "this bodhisattva is foremost in the assembly of the assured; for this reason he is called a mahāsattva." This answer pins down exactly where the word “great” comes to rest: what is called great lies not in greatness of form or measure, nor in numbers of followers, but precisely in being able to be foremost within “the assembly of the assured.” The chapter’s several difficulties are forced out from here. First, what is “the assembly of the assured,” and why does being able to be foremost within it earn the name great? The Buddha lists nine ranks of an assembly settled and bound to enter the noble stages—persons at the stage of nature, the person of the eight, and so on up to the avaivartika—and only when the bodhisattva can be the head of this assembly is his greatness seen. Second, in what, after all, does this “greatness” consist? The treatise-author glosses “mahā” as meaning great in the language of Qin, and “sattva” as meaning mind, or beings, in the language of Qin, and brings out two senses: one, being first and highest among all the beings of the world; two, knowing all dharmas with a great mind and wishing to liberate all beings. Third, the Buddha answers that this foremost mind is 「生大心不可壞如金剛」 tr. "giving rise to a great mind, indestructible as vajra," and then, opening with a question and answer and following with seven successive “furthermores,” lists eight kinds of mind one by one (the great mind like vajra, the mind of great gladness, the unmoving mind, the mind of benefit and ease, the mind that desires the Dharma, rejoices in the Dharma, and delights in the Dharma, abiding in the eighteen emptinesses, abiding in the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and abiding in the vajra-like samādhi)—are these eight minds one or different, and how are they threaded into a single piece? Fourth, once it has been said that the “vajra mind” cannot be moved by any fetter or affliction and is already firm and unmoving, why is an “unmoving mind” set up separately later on—is that not a repetition? What this chapter sets out to answer is this one matter: the bodhisattva’s name “mahāsattva” in fact rests on one place only—being able to be foremost for the assembly of the assured; and the root of being able to be foremost is that great mind which suffers in beings’ place, firm as vajra and yet with nothing to be attained.

Passage by Passage

First look at this long section of the sūtra. Subhūti asks, “For what reason is one called a mahāsattva?” and the Buddha answers, “This bodhisattva is foremost in the assembly of the assured; for this reason he is called a mahāsattva”—the word “great” first comes to rest on the word “foremost.” Subhūti presses further, asking what the assembly of the assured is, and the Buddha lists it rank by rank: persons at the stage of nature, the person of the eight, the srota-āpanna, the sakṛdāgāmin, the anāgāmin, the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, the bodhisattva of the first arousing of the mind, and so on up to the bodhisattva at the stage of avaivartika—this whole series are people whose direction is already settled and who will certainly enter the noble stages; only when the bodhisattva can be the head of this assembly does the weight of the word “great” show. Next the Buddha points out that what makes the foremost foremost lies in “giving rise to a great mind, indestructible as vajra,” and in one breath lays out the content of this great mind: from “the adornment of the great vow,” giving up all one possesses, a mind equal towards all beings, and liberating them by the three vehicles so that they enter nirvāṇa without remainder, to having liberated beings and yet not one person really entering nirvāṇa, understanding the unarisen mark of all dharmas, practising the six perfections purely with the mind of sarvajñā, and penetrating the gates of knowledge of the single mark and so on up to immeasurable marks—ten vows of self-pledge in all; and going a layer further, “in place of all beings of the ten directions” receiving the sufferings of the hells, of animals, and of hungry ghosts, and for each single being receiving in his place the suffering of the hells for immeasurable kalpas, until beings enter nirvāṇa without remainder, and only after that planting his own roots of goodness and passing through immeasurable kalpas to become a buddha. This section shows the most backbone: the firmness of the great mind called like vajra lies not in guarding oneself but precisely in being willing to receive suffering in place of all beings without regret. Below this the Buddha, opening with a question and answer and following with seven “furthermores,” establishes the eight minds one by one—the mind of great gladness (not giving rise to tainted, angry, deluded, or vexed minds, or to the minds of the two vehicles), the unmoving mind (always keeping in mind the omniscience of all kinds), the mind of benefit and ease (rescuing and never abandoning all beings), the mind that desires the Dharma, rejoices in the Dharma, and delights in the Dharma, abiding in the eighteen emptinesses, abiding in the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and abiding in the vajra-like samādhi—and every one of these minds is gathered under the same sentence, “he is able to be foremost for the assembly of the assured, because these dharmas are applied with nothing to be attained.” At the end the sūtra gathers it all up: “Abiding in these dharmas, he is able to be foremost for the assembly of the assured. For this cause and condition he is called a mahāsattva”—the word “mahāsattva” is tied precisely to this “being foremost” and “nothing to be attained.”

Next the treatise-author opens up the meaning. He first takes up Subhūti’s question, saying that he “has already heard from the Buddha the meaning of ‘bodhisattva,’ and now asks the meaning of ‘mahāsattva,’” and at once gives the glosses: 「摩訶者，秦言大」 tr. "‘mahā’ means, in the language of Qin, great," and 「薩埵，秦言心，或言眾生」 tr. "‘sattva’ means, in the language of Qin, mind, or else beings"—“great” has two senses: one, “these beings are first and highest among all the beings of the world, and so are called great”; two, “knowing all dharmas with a great mind and wishing to liberate all beings—this is called great.” He adds a further layer of mutual gloss: “The bodhisattva is therefore called mahāsattva, and the mahāsattva is therefore called bodhisattva, because he arouses the mind for the unsurpassed path.” He further cites a sense spoken by the Buddha himself: “beings are of three divisions”—those rightly assured, who will certainly enter nirvāṇa; those wrongly assured, who will certainly enter the evil paths; and the unassured, who stand between—and the bodhisattva “shall be the greatest among the beings rightly assured, and so is called a mahāsattva”: this sets “great” at the head of the one group rightly assured. Below this the treatise-author explains that assembly of the assured rank by rank: the great assembly is all the worthies and sages apart from the Buddha; persons at the stage of nature are those born into the lineage of the noble ones, like a small child born into a noble house, who, though small, will certainly accomplish great things later; the person of the eight is one who moves within the fifteen mind-moments of the path of seeing the truths, and is named the person of the eight because he abides in the eight acceptances; the meaning of the four fruits and of the pratyekabuddha is as stated before; for the bodhisattva of the first arousing of intent, two explanations are listed—one explanation is that it is the true arousing of the mind, attained with the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and aroused in accordance with the mark of awakening; the other explanation is that it is an ordinary person who, though still amid the fetters, hears of the Buddha’s merits, arouses a mind of great compassion, and vows to become a buddha, just as the crown prince of a wheel-turning sage king, from the moment he is first conceived, already surpasses the other sons; and the avaivartika is one who has received the prediction, entered the Dharma-position, and attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. Having finished explaining the assembly of the assured, the treatise-author turns to explaining this vajra-like great mind in particular. The vajra mind first has one explanation: 「一切結使煩惱所不能動，譬如金剛山，不為風所傾搖」 tr. "it cannot be moved by any fetter or affliction, just as a vajra mountain is not tilted or shaken by the wind"—when Māra’s people and hostile crowds rage and revile, beat and strike, hack, stab, cut, and slice, and even come begging for head, eyes, marrow, brain, hands, feet, skin, and flesh, the mind endures and does not move, like a vajra mountain that lets people chisel and dig into it and insects gnaw at it and suffers no loss. Next the treatise-author cites the Buddha’s own words on “the marks of the vajra mind,” unfolding the sūtra’s ten vows of self-pledge again item by item into ten matters, gathered under “the mind does not regret, does not shrink, does not doubt,” like the vajra jewel that can shatter all mountains; and he further points out: 「住是金剛心中，當於大眾而作上首，以不可得空故」 tr. "abiding in this vajra mind, he shall be foremost in the great assembly, because of the emptiness of the unfindable"; and he explains “the emptiness of the unfindable”: if one gives rise to such a great mind and then gives rise to arrogance besides, one’s “offence exceeds an ordinary person’s,” and so one must “apply nothing to be attained” and know all dharmas to be like an illusion, like a conjuration. The vajra mind has a second explanation as well: one whose “mind is like vajra” receives toilsome suffering in place of the beings of the three evil destinies, liberates all beings one after another to the very last, and only then gathers merit for himself, abiding long in birth and death with a mind that neither regrets nor sinks, like “the vajra ground that can bear up the three-thousand great-thousand world and keep it from shaking.” Below this the treatise-author explains those several minds one by one: the mind of great gladness is that “though one has a firm mind, it is not yet great gladness, as a horse, though it has great strength, is not yet of great gladness”—one must obtain the two kinds of equal mind and be without taint, without anger, without delusion, without vexation, not giving rise to the minds of the two vehicles, and only then is there delight; the unmoving mind answers a question—why, if it is firm, is it further said to be unmoving? Because 「或時雖復牢固，心猶有增減，如樹雖牢固，猶可動搖」 tr. "at times, though firm, the mind still waxes and wanes, as a tree, though firm, can still be shaken"—one must always recollect and keep in mind the Buddha-path of all wisdom, and only then is the mind truly unmoving; and at the end, the mind of benefit and ease, delighting in the Dharma, abiding in the eighteen emptinesses, abiding in the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and entering the vajra samādhi—each is explained as to why it is able to be foremost. The whole chapter is gathered up in one sentence: 「若能為大者作上首，何況小者！是故名為摩訶薩」 tr. "if he can be foremost for the great, how much more for the small! Therefore he is called a mahāsattva"—since he can be head among the great, among the small it goes without saying; here the word “great” is gathered up in full.

Do Not Misread

First, do not read “mahā (great)” as greatness of bodily form or numbers of followers. The sūtra says plainly, “This bodhisattva is foremost in the assembly of the assured; for this reason he is called a mahāsattva,” and the treatise glosses “great” in two places only—“first and highest among all the beings of the world” and “knowing all dharmas with a great mind and wishing to liberate all beings.” What is called great is greatness of mind, greatness of vow, being head of the noble assembly—not greatness of bodily size or of numbers.

Second, do not read “being foremost” as contending for victory and taking the high seat, wanting to be above everyone. The treatise says plainly that this bodhisattva, “wishing to be the lord of all the noble ones, arouses a great mind and receives all suffering”; the real meaning of his being foremost falls precisely on receiving the suffering of the hells in place of the beings of the ten directions, liberating them one after another to the very last, and only then himself becoming a buddha. Being foremost is shouldering the load at the front and receiving suffering in beings’ place, not sitting at the head of the crowd.

Third, do not read “the vajra mind” as hard, unyielding stiffness, butting through to the end. The treatise says that the vajra mind is this: when Māra’s people and hostile crowds rage and revile, beat and strike, hack, stab, cut, and slice, and even come begging for head, eyes, marrow, brain, hands, feet, skin, and flesh, “at that time the mind endures and does not move,” like a vajra mountain that lets people chisel and dig into it and insects gnaw at it and suffers no loss. The firmness of vajra is firm in the utmost of enduring and the utmost of giving, not in the hardness of refusing.

Fourth, do not read “the unmoving mind” and “the vajra mind” as a repetition without difference. The treatise raises this question itself and answers it itself: what is firm “at times, though firm, the mind still waxes and wanes, as a tree, though firm, can still be shaken”; the vajra mind is not moved by outer conditions, whereas the unmoving mind further requires “always recollecting and keeping in mind the Buddha-path of all wisdom,” remaining unmoved also by the inner causes and conditions of wrong views, doubts, and the like. One is framed in terms of outer conditions, the other in terms of inner recollection; neither covers over the other.

Fifth, do not read “receiving suffering in beings’ place” as though there really were a self able to take their place, and really beings who are liberated. The treatise says plainly, “Abiding in this vajra mind, he shall be foremost in the great assembly, because of the emptiness of the unfindable,” and says further that if one gives rise to this great mind and then gives rise to arrogance besides, one’s “offence exceeds an ordinary person’s,” and so one must “apply nothing to be attained” and know all dharmas to be like an illusion, like a conjuration. Receiving suffering in their place is a practice and a vow, while the mind is not attached to one who takes their place or those whose place is taken—only this is being like vajra and yet not arrogant.

Bearing on Practice

The point in this chapter that comes closest to our own effort is that it draws the word “great” back from outward appearances onto the mind. People often imagine greatness as the height of attainment or the honour of name and rank, but this chapter points to one place only—being willing to be the lord of all the noble ones, being willing to receive suffering in beings’ place with a mind that neither regrets nor sinks: this alone is great. Next is the real place to begin with the vajra mind: when adverse circumstances appear before you, when you are raged at, reviled, beaten, and struck, and even when what you love is taken from you, let the mind endure and not move, like a vajra mountain that lets people chisel and gnaw at it and suffers no loss—this one flavour of enduring and giving is precisely the effort that is most tested in daily life. Further, the eight minds can be read as a single sequence: first seek a mind firm as vajra that is not moved by the fetters; next seek to be free of taint and attain great gladness; next, on top of firmness, further seek always to keep the Buddha-path in mind and be unmoving; next give rise to the mind of benefit and ease; next delight in the Dharma yet not be attached to the Dharma; next abide in emptiness and abide in the limbs of the path; and at last enter the vajra samādhi—a single road of the mind-ground, from firmness to delight, to the unmoving, to emptiness, to absorption, that can be traced step by step. Last is the handle of that one flavour of “nothing to be attained”: practising a great mind like vajra without giving rise to arrogance, receiving suffering in beings’ place without owning one who takes their place or those who are liberated, being foremost in all dharmas while knowing them to be like an illusion, like a conjuration—the great mind and nothing to be attained going together: only this is the true face of the mahāsattva.

Further Resonances

Later an ancient master composed a phrase-by-phrase commentary on this chapter, and at the very opening of the scroll classified the four chapters that follow as the four—the Buddha, Śāriputra, Subhūti, and Pūrṇa—successively making clear the meaning of “mahāsattva,” with this chapter standing first among them as “first, the Buddha explains: because the bodhisattva is head of the assured, he is a mahāsattva.” This classification tallies exactly with a passage the treatise-author himself speaks in this treatise—the treatise-author says that beings are of three divisions, rightly assured, wrongly assured, and unassured, and that the bodhisattva shall be the greatest among the beings rightly assured and so is called a mahāsattva; the ancient master’s division “the Buddha’s explanation, “head of the assured”” and this treatise’s explanation “the greatest among the beings rightly assured,” the one dividing the chapters by person and the other explaining the meaning in its own terms, converge with each other. Another ancient master classified this chapter by “the eight minds,” saying that this chapter takes up eight kinds of mind to explain the mahāsattva—first the vajra mind, second the mind of great gladness, third the unmoving mind, fourth the mind of benefit and ease, fifth rejoicing in the Dharma, desiring the Dharma, and delighting in the Dharma, sixth the mind of the eighteen emptinesses, seventh the mind abiding in the practices, eighth the mind abiding in the samādhi—and the number and order of these eight minds correspond one by one exactly with the eight minds listed in this chapter’s sūtra text: a case of an ancient master’s classification fitting closely with the sūtra’s own division into sections. There is also an ancient master who, in his phrase-by-phrase commentary on the preceding chapter, had already pointed out that the “Chapter on the Mahāsattva” to follow would make clear the meaning of the mahāsattva, laying a guiding thread in advance for this chapter’s arrival. When these readings are brought back to this chapter, what is most to be kept is still that one sentence—the reason a bodhisattva is called a mahāsattva lies precisely in his being able to be foremost for the assembly of the assured; and the reason he can be foremost lies not in taking the high seat and contending for victory, but precisely in that great mind which suffers in beings’ place, firm as vajra and yet with nothing to be attained.

Cutting Off Views: The Bodhisattva Is Called Mahāsattva on Two Counts, ‘Cutting Off All Views’ and ‘the Mind Equal to the Unequalled, yet Unattached’—Without Skilful Means, Views Arise in Form Because He Works with Something to Be Attained; by the Power of Skilful Means He Cuts Off All Views Because He Works with Nothing to Be Attained; He Arouses the Mind of Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi, the Mind Equal to the Unequalled, the Mind Not Shared with the Two Vehicles, yet Neither Thinks of It nor Is Attached to It, and Because in All Dharmas There Is Nothing to Be Attained He Is Called Mahāsattva

What Is Being Asked

This chapter follows on from the chapter before it, the Chapter on Mahāsattva—in that chapter the Buddha had himself said 「於畢定眾中為上首，是故名為摩訶薩」 tr. "he is foremost within the assembly of the assured; for this reason he is called mahāsattva," and in this chapter two great disciples take up the word after him. First Śāriputra, the moment he opens his mouth, asks: 「我亦欲說所以為摩訶薩」 tr. "I too wish to say why one is a mahāsattva." Once the Buddha permits him, he sets out a long string of views, from the view of self and the view of beings all the way to the view of a buddha and the view of turning the wheel of the Dharma, and gathers them up in a single sentence: 「為斷如是諸見故而為說法，是名摩訶薩」 tr. "it is in order to cut off such views as these that he teaches the Dharma; this is called mahāsattva." Next Subhūti likewise asks, “I too wish to say why one is a mahāsattva,” and sets up 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無等等心、不共聲聞辟支佛心」 tr. "the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas," gathering it up in 「以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」 tr. "because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained—for this reason he is called mahāsattva." The name of this chapter, which the treatise titles “Cutting Off Views,” falls squarely on Śāriputra’s half, on “cutting off all views.” From this several difficulties in the whole chapter are forced out. First, the long string of views that Śāriputra sets out—what exactly is to be cut off, and how is it cut off? Is even the contemplation of the true Dharma to be abolished along with them, or is something else meant? Second, since this chapter is named “Cutting Off Views,” and yet among the views listed there is precisely one item that is itself called “the view of annihilation”—is this view of annihilation, paired against “the view of permanence,” one and the same thing as the “cutting off views” of the chapter’s name? Third, in explaining Śāriputra’s half, why does the treatise-author first tell a story of Maudgalyāyana being unable with his supernormal powers to lift a waist-sash, and of the great earth quaking—if Śāriputra’s wisdom stands so far below the Buddha’s, on what ground does he too “delight in speaking” of the meaning of mahāsattva? Fourth, Subhūti’s half sets up “the mind equal to the unequalled”; since this mind is the highest mind, not shared with the two vehicles, why, as soon as it is set up, must one also be “unattached” to it—does setting up this mind and not being attached to this mind not contradict itself? What this chapter sets out to answer is this: the name “mahāsattva” for a bodhisattva falls, in Śāriputra’s half, on “cutting off all views,” and in Subhūti’s half on “the mind equal to the unequalled, yet unattached”; and the root of the two halves is in truth of a single flavour—「用無所得」 tr. "working with nothing to be attained," “because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained.” The views that are cut off and the mind that is not clung to—what is cut off and what is not clung to are both that single thought of grasping at ‘something to be attained.’

Passage by Passage

First look at Śāriputra’s passage of sūtra. Śāriputra asks to speak of the meaning of mahāsattva, and once the Buddha permits him, he sets out in one breath the view of self, the view of beings, the view of a life-span, the view of a life, going on all the way to the view of a buddha and the view of turning the wheel of the Dharma—several dozen kinds of view enumerated one by one—and closes with “it is in order to cut off such views as these that he teaches the Dharma; this is called mahāsattva”: with him the word “great” falls first on “cutting off all views.” Subhūti then puts a question: through what causes and conditions is the view of form a false view? Śāriputra’s answer is of the utmost importance: when a bodhisattva practises prajñā, 「無方便故，於色生見，用有所得故」 tr. "because he lacks skilful means, views arise in him concerning form, because he works with something to be attained"; and conversely, 「以方便力斷諸見故而為說法，用無所得故」 tr. "by the power of skilful means he teaches the Dharma in order to cut off all views, because he works with nothing to be attained." This answer fixes the measure of “cutting off views”: what is cut off is not the contemplating of form or of dharmas as such, but the grasping views that falsely arise over form and over all dharmas through “working with something to be attained”; where there are skilful means and nothing to be attained, views of themselves do not arise—this alone is “cutting off all views.”

Next the treatise-author opens up Śāriputra’s half. He does not hurry to explain the meaning, but first puts a question: Śāriputra’s wisdom lies so far from the Buddha’s—how does he too dare to “delight in speaking” of the meaning of mahāsattva? To make this distance plain, the treatise-author brings out a story. The Buddha was beside the pool of the dragon king Anavatapta and wished to speak of the causes and conditions of former deeds, but Śāriputra was not present, so the Buddha had Maudgalyāyana go and call him. Maudgalyāyana brushed it with a hand and Śāriputra’s robe was at once stitched whole; Śāriputra, however, threw his waist-sash to the ground and told Maudgalyāyana to lift it. Maudgalyāyana entered the deep absorptions to lift it; the great earth quaked, yet the sash still lay upon the ground. The Buddha therefore told the assembly that of the meditative absorptions Śāriputra enters and leaves, Maudgalyāyana does not know even the names. The point of this passage is not a contest of supernormal powers; it is to force out a question: with wisdom so unequal, on what ground does Śāriputra too “delight in speaking”? The treatise-author’s answer has three parts. First, Śāriputra does not speak in order to display his wisdom before the great assembly or to raise a lofty mind; he is one who follows the Buddha in turning the wheel of the Dharma and broadly benefits beings, and the meaning of mahāsattva benefits very widely—so when the Buddha has spoken, he speaks next. Second, many people believe in and delight in Śāriputra’s words, and through causes and conditions from former lives many arouse the bodhisattva mind. Third, the Buddha is of great kindness and compassion; the mind of self and I and the habit-energies have been uprooted at the root, and the love of dharma has been cut off; therefore he permits him to speak. The answer done, the treatise-author returns to the meaning of cutting off views: Śāriputra himself states that what he cuts off is “three kinds of view”—the view of self together with the views of a knower, a seer, of a buddha, of a bodhisattva, and so on; the wrong views of existence and non-existence, annihilation and permanence, and so on; and the views of dharmas, from the five aggregates up to all the buddhas’ dharmas, the turning of the wheel of the Dharma, and so on—and 「是三種見，無始世界來，習著入於骨髓」 tr. "these three kinds of view, from the beginningless world onward, have been habitually clung to until they have entered the marrow of the bones." Subhūti then puts a further question: since the five aggregates up to all the buddhas’ dharmas are what a bodhisattva practises, why on the contrary must he teach the Dharma in order to cut off all views? Śāriputra’s answer is clean-cut: a bodhisattva without skilful means contemplates form seeking a fixed mark and grasps all the marks of form, and only then does the view of form arise; with skilful means, 「雖觀色，不生妄見，而能斷諸見」 tr. "though he contemplates form, he gives rise to no false view, and is able to cut off all views"—the contemplation of dharmas stands clearly present, yet views of themselves do not arise. This settles the half on cutting off views.

Now look at Subhūti’s passage of sūtra. Subhūti likewise asks to speak of the meaning of mahāsattva, sets up three minds—“the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas”—and himself explains the reason: this mind of omniscience is without outflows and unbound, and 「是一切智心無漏不繫中亦不著」 tr. "even in this mind of omniscience, without outflows and unbound, he is not attached"; on account of this cause and condition he is called mahāsattva. He sets up this highest mind and says at once that even to this mind he is not attached. Śāriputra then presses him: what is this mind equal to the unequalled? Subhūti answers: from the first arousing of intent onward, the bodhisattva does not see that any dharma has arising and ceasing, increase and decrease, stain and purity; and since dharmas are without arising and without ceasing, and so on up to without stain and without purity, within this there is 「無聲聞心、無辟支佛心、無阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、無佛心」 tr. "no śrāvaka mind, no pratyekabuddha mind, no mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, no buddha mind"—this alone is “the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.” From here Śāriputra presses his questions step by step: since you say one is unattached to the mind, why do you not say one is also unattached to form, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas? Subhūti assents to each in turn: one is unattached to form as well, and so on up to being unattached to the eighteen unshared dharmas. Śāriputra goes a layer further, saying that the mind of ordinary people, the minds of the two vehicles, and the minds of the buddhas are all 「無漏不繫，性空故」 tr. "without outflows and unbound, because they are empty in nature"; and that form, and so on up to the feeling born from the condition of mind-contact, the four foundations of mindfulness, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, are likewise all without outflows, unbound, and empty in nature; Subhūti assents step by step. At the end Śāriputra turns to a crucial sentence, 「空，無心故，不著是心」 tr. "because it is empty and there is no mind, one is not attached to this mind," and extends it outward—because form is non-existent one is not attached to form, and so on up to: because the eighteen unshared dharmas are non-existent one is not attached to them. Subhūti assents, and this brings the whole passage to its close: when a bodhisattva practises prajñā, with these three minds he 「不念有是心，亦不著是心，以一切法無所得故，以是故名摩訶薩」 tr. "does not think that there is this mind, nor is he attached to this mind, because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained; for this reason he is called mahāsattva."

Last, the treatise-author explains Subhūti’s half. His very first words fix the guiding line, 「須菩提說摩訶薩無等等心，於是心亦不著」 tr. "Subhūti speaks of the mahāsattva’s mind equal to the unequalled, and that even to this mind he is not attached," and he explains this “not attached”: from the first arousing of the mind onward, the bodhisattva does not see that any dharma has a fixed mark, or has arising and ceasing, increase and decrease, stain and purity; this mind is “ultimate emptiness,” within it there is neither the mark of mind nor the mark of non-mind, and all marks are ultimately pure, and so there is 「無聲聞心、辟支佛心、菩薩心、佛心」 tr. "no śrāvaka mind, pratyekabuddha mind, bodhisattva mind, or buddha mind"—Subhūti esteems this bodhisattva and says that his mind is also fine, yet his not being attached to this mind “is also honourable.” From here the treatise-author uses a challenge from Śāriputra to push the meaning to its end. Śāriputra says: it is not only the mind of omniscience that is without outflows and unbound, and the bodhisattva ought not to exalt himself, because the mind of ordinary people too is without outflows and unbound, its nature ever empty, and its real mark, empty in nature, is just like the mind of the noble ones. The real mark empty in nature, pure and unattached—here the treatise-author brings out the most important simile of this chapter, 「如先說：陰雲翳日月，不能污日月」 tr. "as was said before: dark clouds screen the sun and moon, but cannot defile the sun and moon." The afflictions are like dark clouds, while the real mark of the mind, empty in nature and pure, is like the brightness of the sun and moon; the dark clouds cover them, yet the sun and moon are never defiled. Only, one who dwells on the ground of the ordinary person becomes defiled and becomes pure; one who dwells on the ground of the noble ones cultivates signless wisdom and makes no discriminations, and though he speaks out of compassion for beings, his mind still has nothing it is attached to. Subhūti assents. Śāriputra advances a further explanation, 「是心無心，心相空故不著；色中色相無故亦不著，乃至諸佛法亦如是」 tr. "this mind is no mind; because the mark of mind is empty, one is not attached; because in form there is no mark of form, one is likewise not attached; and so on up to all the buddhas’ dharmas, which are likewise so." Subhūti assents, and the treatise-author then sums up: by this the bodhisattva is able to contemplate dharmas as “ever empty in nature, empty in being unfindable, ultimately pure.” The whole chapter closes on one sentence—with the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, “he does not think that there is this mind, nor is he attached to this mind,” and so he 「能疾至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "is able swiftly to reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." The half on the mind equal to the unequalled is bound up precisely in this “not attached” and “nothing to be attained,” and from head to tail it is of exactly one flavour with the “working with nothing to be attained” of the half on cutting off views.

Do Not Misread

First, do not read “cutting off all views” as abolishing even the contemplation of the true Dharma. The sūtra says plainly that it is “because he lacks skilful means, views arise in him concerning form, because he works with something to be attained” that false views come about, while “by the power of skilful means he teaches the Dharma in order to cut off all views, because he works with nothing to be attained”—what is cut off is the grasping view of ‘something to be attained,’ not the abolition of contemplating dharmas. Śāriputra himself answers, “though he contemplates form, he gives rise to no false view, and is able to cut off all views”: the contemplation of form stands clearly present, and false views of themselves do not arise. What is cut off is the grasping upon views, not the use of contemplating dharmas.

Second, do not read the “cutting off views” of the chapter’s name and the one item among the listed views called “the view of annihilation” as one and the same thing. Among the views Śāriputra lists there is one item, “the view of annihilation,” the view that things are cut off and perish, paired against “the view of permanence”; whereas the “cutting off views” of the chapter’s name, and the “cutting off all views” and “in order to cut off such views as these” that sūtra and treatise say again and again, mean ‘cutting off and removing the many views’—the one is the proper name of a single item among what is cut off, the other a general statement of the cutting off itself; the two are written with the same two characters, yet what they point to differs in breadth, and they must not be run together.

Third, do not read “the mind equal to the unequalled” as exalting one’s own mind, setting oneself shoulder to shoulder with the Buddha and giving rise to self-regard. Having set up this mind, Subhūti at once says “even in this mind of omniscience, without outflows and unbound, he is not attached”; the treatise-author explains it more clearly still: Subhūti esteems the bodhisattva and says his mind is fine, and yet 「不著是心亦為尊貴」 tr. "not being attached to this mind is also honourable"—the honour lies precisely in not being attached. To set up the highest mind yet not acknowledge that there is this mind, not be attached to this mind—only this is “equal to the unequalled”; it is not to take this mind and measure oneself against the Buddha in self-exaltation.

Fourth, do not read “the mind of ordinary people too is without outflows and unbound, empty in nature” as meaning that there is no difference between the ordinary and the noble and that cultivation and realisation are useless. Śāriputra’s challenge carries its own sense of measure: 「但住凡夫地中，是垢是淨；住聖人地中，修無相智慧故，無所分別」 tr. "only, dwelling on the ground of the ordinary person, there is defilement and there is purity; dwelling on the ground of the noble ones, because one cultivates signless wisdom, there is nothing one discriminates." The real mark, empty in nature, is the same for the ordinary and the noble, yet one who dwells on the ground of the ordinary person becomes defiled and pure, and only one who dwells on the ground of the noble ones can be free of discrimination. Dark clouds screen the sun and moon, and the brightness of the sun and moon is from the first not defiled by the dark clouds; yet while the dark clouds are there, their covering must in the end be removed by signless wisdom. Emptiness of nature is the same; effort in practice cannot be abandoned.

Fifth, do not read “not being attached” as an annihilation that says nothing and does not liberate beings. Subhūti’s challenge says plainly that though on the ground of the noble ones there is nothing one discriminates, 「但憐愍眾生故，雖復有說，心無所著」 tr. "only, out of compassion for beings, though one still speaks, the mind has nothing it is attached to"—he still teaches the Dharma and liberates beings; only his mind is not attached. It is precisely through “not thinking that there is this mind, nor being attached to this mind” that the bodhisattva “is able swiftly to reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi”—not being attached is the swift path toward awakening, not a sitting idle that does nothing.

Bearing on Practice

The point of this chapter closest to one’s own effort is that it gathers “cutting off” and “not being attached” into a single flavour, “nothing to be attained.” First, the starting-point for cutting off all views lies not in abolishing contemplation but in not “working with something to be attained” when contemplating form and contemplating dharmas, and so not falsely giving rise to grasping views—those several dozen kinds of view are, in the end, all false views that come about only through ‘something to be attained’; where there are skilful means and nothing to be attained, views of themselves do not arise. Second, the starting-point for the mind equal to the unequalled is to practise the highest mind yet not acknowledge that there is this mind: to arouse the mind of anuttarā awakening, the mind equal to the unequalled, and yet “not think that there is this mind, nor be attached to this mind”; to be esteemed yet unattached—only this is true honour. Third, the simile of dark clouds screening the sun and moon is the one best received and upheld in daily use: when afflictions appear, know that the real mark of the mind is empty in nature and pure, and was never defiled by the afflictions, so there is no need, on account of one thought of affliction, to call oneself defiled; yet neither may one rely on “emptiness of nature” and abandon cultivation—one must dwell on the ground of the noble ones and cultivate signless wisdom, and only so remove the covering of the dark clouds. Fourth is the handle of that single flavour, “though one still speaks, the mind has nothing it is attached to”: teaching the Dharma and liberating beings stands clearly present and is not abandoned, while the mind is attached neither to the speaker nor to what is spoken, neither to the one who liberates nor to those liberated; this practising with nothing to be attained is exactly the swift path by which one “is able swiftly to reach anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.”

Further Resonances

Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter phrase by phrase, and at the very opening of the scroll listed several names for it: the chief name he gives is “the Chapter on Delight in Speaking,” and he also marks 「亦名斷耶品」 tr. "it is also named the Chapter on Cutting Off the Deviant." Though this “Cutting Off the Deviant” uses a different character from this treatise’s “Cutting Off Views,” the meaning is connected—the character he uses for “deviant” is the same as the one for “wrong,” and “cutting off the deviant” is as much as to say cutting off wrong views. This ancient master also explains for himself why the chapter is named “Delight in Speaking”: because from here on Pūrṇa’s teaching of the Dharma is set up as a separate chapter, and by contrast, in this chapter both of the two, Śāriputra and Subhūti, gladly delight in speaking of the meaning of mahāsattva, so it is named the Chapter on Delight in Speaking; and this chapter, on account of these two, falls naturally into two sections. It can be seen that the treatise’s title “Cutting Off Views” and the ancient master’s title “Delight in Speaking” do not conflict: “delight in speaking” is set up from the fact that both of the two delight in speaking, and “cutting off views” is set up from Śāriputra’s half, the cutting off of all wrong views—the one taken from the frame of the speakers, the other from the content of what is spoken, and the ancient master himself sets these two meanings side by side in one and the same passage without finding them in conflict. This ancient master further sums up the teaching of each of the two: the first is great because of “cutting off all views,” the second is called a great person because of 「斷諸愛」 tr. "cutting off all cravings"—“views” and “cravings” belong to the two great classes of delusion; Śāriputra’s half cuts off views, and the “not being attached” of Subhūti’s half cuts off precisely cravings; only with the two halves together is the full measure of “great” seen. He also gathers Śāriputra’s long string of views into “three views”: first, the view of persons, from the view of self up to the view of a buddha; second, worldly and world-transcending views, such as the view of the marks of form and the view of teaching the Dharma; third, deviant views, namely annihilation and permanence, existence and non-existence—and this seals exactly with the “three kinds of view” that Śāriputra himself states in the treatise text of this chapter. He also divides Subhūti’s thesis into “three minds”: first, arousing the mind of awakening; second, this mind is equal to the Buddha; third, it is not shared with the two vehicles—corresponding one by one to the three phrases of the sūtra, “the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, the mind equal to the unequalled, the mind not shared with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.” Bringing these readings back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is still that one sentence: the name mahāsattva for a bodhisattva falls, in Śāriputra’s half, on “cutting off all views,” and in Subhūti’s half on “the mind equal to the unequalled, yet unattached”; and the views cut off and the mind not clung to are bound alike to “working with nothing to be attained,” “because in all dharmas there is nothing to be attained”—the names differ, “Cutting Off Views” and “Delight in Speaking,” but the meaning is only this single flavour of nothing to be attained.

The Great Adornment: The Bodhisattva Explained as Mahāsattva by the Two Meanings of ‘Great Adornment’ and ‘Setting Out in the Great Vehicle’—Practising the Six Perfections to Adorn Oneself, as a Man Going Far Carries Ample Provisions and as One Breaking Bandits Is Equipped with Every Weapon, One Perfection Fully Giving Rise to All the Perfections; Setting Out in the Great Vehicle Takes Meditation as Its Head and Can Enter the Immeasurable of Kindness, the Four Immeasurable Minds Take Beings as Object, and Because the Six Perfections Are Combined and Used by Means of Nothing to Be Attained, It Is Called Setting Out in the Great Vehicle

What Is Being Asked

This chapter carries on the question-and-answer of the two preceding chapters—the meaning of mahāsattva: the Buddha first spoke of it himself, Śāriputra and Subhūti followed, and in this chapter it is Pūrṇa’s turn to speak. As soon as Pūrṇa opens his mouth he sets up three phrases, 「是菩薩大莊嚴，是菩薩發趣大乘，是菩薩乘於大乘」 tr. "this is the bodhisattva’s great adornment; this is the bodhisattva’s setting out toward the Great Vehicle; this is the bodhisattva’s riding the Great Vehicle," saying that by these three matters the bodhisattva is called a mahāsattva; Śāriputra at once asks about the first phrase alone: “What is called the great adornment of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva?” The name of this chapter, which this treatise titles “Great Adornment,” falls precisely on the first of the three phrases Pūrṇa sets up, while the latter half goes on to unfold the meaning of the second phrase, “setting out toward the Great Vehicle.” The several difficulties of the whole chapter are forced out from here. First, the three words “great adornment”: what, after all, is being adorned, and with what is it adorned—is it an embellishment of outward appearance, or does it point to something else? Second, the sūtra sets out six rounds of a formula, saying that at the time one practises the perfection of giving (dānapāramitā), each one of the six perfections—giving, morality, and so on up to prajñā—is a great adornment, and at the time one practises the perfection of morality it again gathers in the other five perfections; thus within one perfection all six perfections are gathered in. What does this “one perfection fully giving rise to all the perfections” mean—would the six perfections not be confounded? Third, when the sūtra speaks of setting out toward the Great Vehicle, the six perfections, if stated in forward order, should take giving as the head, and if stated in reverse order, should take prajñā as the head; yet precisely here the perfection of meditation is taken as the head—is this order not inverted? Fourth, when the treatise-author explains the section on setting out he says 「四無量心，取眾生相，緣眾生」 tr. "the four immeasurable minds grasp the mark of beings and take beings as object"; since it speaks of grasping marks and taking beings as object, does this not contradict prajñā’s not grasping marks? And the sūtra further sets up the doubly negating wisdom of “neither permanent nor impermanent” up to “neither real nor unreal”—following this line of negation all the way down, does it not fall into annihilation, knowing nothing at all? What this chapter sets out to answer is this one matter: the bodhisattva’s being named mahāsattva falls, in this chapter, on the two meanings of “great adornment” and “setting out toward the Great Vehicle,” and the root of the two meanings is in fact one and the same flavour—“with a mind in accord with sarvajñā” (omniscience), “using nothing to be attained”; what is adorned is the practitioner’s own self, in order to tend toward the Buddha’s path, and what one sets out with is the six perfections combined, in order to enter the Great Vehicle; and to adorn without grasping the mark of adornment, to set out without practising in the three times and the three realms—this is precisely that one flavour of not grasping and not attaining.

Passage by Passage

First, look at this sūtra passage of Pūrṇa’s. Pūrṇa asks to speak on the meaning of mahāsattva; after the Buddha permits it, he sets up the three phrases, “this is the bodhisattva’s great adornment; this is the bodhisattva’s setting out toward the Great Vehicle; this is the bodhisattva’s riding the Great Vehicle,” and Śāriputra then asks about the first phrase: “What is called the great adornment of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva?” Pūrṇa’s answer does not begin from the marks of the six perfections but from the measure of arousing the mind: the bodhisattva 「不分別為爾所人故住檀波羅蜜」 tr. "does not abide in the perfection of giving discriminating that it is for the sake of so many people," but abides in the six perfections “for the sake of all beings”; 「菩薩摩訶薩大莊嚴，不齊限眾生」 tr. "the great adornment of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva sets no limit to beings"—he does not mark out that I shall liberate a certain number of people and not liberate the rest; the word “great” falls first on this “universally for all beings.” Going a layer further, the bodhisattva also reflects that not only does he himself fulfil the six perfections, he also causes all beings alike to practise the six perfections—liberating himself and liberating others are made complete at one time. Below this come the six rounds of the formula: at the time one practises the perfection of giving, all one’s giving is “in accord with the sarvajñā-mind,” shared with all beings and dedicated to awakening—this is the great adornment of the perfection of giving; not turning toward the grounds of the two vehicles is the great adornment of the perfection of morality; faith, acceptance, and desire toward the dharma of giving is the great adornment of the perfection of patience; cultivating diligently without ceasing is the great adornment of the perfection of vigour; gathering in the mind and not giving rise to the thought of the two vehicles is the great adornment of the perfection of meditation; contemplating all dharmas as like an illusion, not apprehending giver, receiver, or goods, is the great adornment of the perfection of prajñā—practising the one perfection of giving, all six perfections are adorned together. The five rounds of morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and prajñā are likewise, each within its own perfection gathering in the other five. The six rounds are all gathered into one crucial phrase: 「應薩婆若心，不取不得諸波羅蜜相」 tr. "with a mind in accord with sarvajñā, not grasping and not attaining the marks of the perfections"—only this is great adornment. At the end the sūtra concludes with the buddhas of the ten directions calling his name and praising him.

Next, the treatise-author opens up the explanation. The treatise-author first takes up a question—the master of prajñā is Subhūti, so why does Śāriputra ask Pūrṇa? It answers: the two are both brahmins and both take their names from their mothers’ names; one is greatest in wisdom, the other greatest in teaching the Dharma; further, the two had earlier held discussion together and were well able to answer each other (as recorded in the Sūtra of the Simile of the Seven Carriages); they were long on close terms and liked to discuss principles together, and so it was fitting that he asked; Subhūti had no such cause and condition. Then it explains the substance of great adornment: 「所謂是人大莊嚴」 tr. "that is, this person’s great adornment"—just 「如人遠行，重有資糧；又如破賊，備諸器仗」 tr. "as a man going far carries ample provisions, and again as one breaking bandits is equipped with every weapon"—the bodhisattva, in order to break Māra and break the bandits of the afflictions, 「行六波羅蜜以自莊嚴」 tr. "practises the six perfections to adorn himself." What is adorned is not outward appearance; it is the provisions and the weapons the practitioner prepares for himself. Śāriputra asks again: those of the two vehicles also tend toward the path, so why are they not called great adornment? Pūrṇa answers decisively: 「聲聞、辟支佛雖行布施等六事，有量有限，自為度身」 tr. "śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, though they practise the six matters of giving and the rest, have a measure and a limit, and do so to liberate their own persons"; therefore they are not called great; the bodhisattva sets no limit and causes all beings to enter the Great Vehicle entirely and become buddhas, and therefore it is called great adornment. Below this the treatise-author draws out the framework of those six rounds: stated briefly, it is the six perfections, with giving as the head; and, on what Pūrṇa said, it glosses the two words “shared” and “dedicated”—“shared” means that the merit of this giving is 「我及眾生共等」 tr. "shared equally by me and beings," together dedicating this merit to awakening; “dedicated” means that with regard to this merit one does not seek the happiness of kings of men and kings of gods or of worldly meditative absorption, and even the bliss of nirvāṇa of beings one does not seek for oneself, but takes this fruit of recompense entirely for liberating beings and seeks the Buddha-dharma. Within giving, one after another, morality and so on up to prajñā can arise—seeing the exhaustion of outflows and not being greedy, morality arises; being abused and harmed and not being angry, patience arises; guarding the giving to others without slackening, vigour arises; recollecting the Buddha with one mind and entering absorption, meditation arises; contemplating the three matters as without self-nature and empty, prajñā arises; this is gathered into “one perfection fully giving rise to all the perfections,” and the treatise-author appends a sentence making clear of itself why it speaks at length: 「古今語異，義不了故，助分別說，開論議門」 tr. "because the speech of past and present differs and the meaning is not clear, it helps by discriminating explanation and opens the gate of discussion"—it is because the languages of past and present differ and the meaning is hard to make clear that it relies on discriminating explanation to open the gate of discussion. It further raises two questions of its own: why does only the round of giving comprise six, while the other rounds comprise five—first the small and then the great; for each to give rise to six would also be no fault. The treatise-author goes on with a further explanation: all buddhas, in teaching the Dharma, take the perfection of giving as the first gate, as the sūtra says, 「佛常初為眾生說布施、說持戒、說生天」 tr. "the Buddha always first spoke to beings of giving, spoke of keeping the precepts, spoke of birth in the heavens," first speaking of the suffering and affliction of the world and the benefit of the path and its virtue, and only afterwards teaching them the four truths—giving is the very first gate by which beings are drawn into the path. Again it raises a question of its own: why does the Buddha take giving alone as the first gate? It answers, 「攝眾生法，無過於檀」 tr. "among the dharmas for gathering in beings, none surpasses giving"—the power of giving to gather in beings is the widest: 「大小貴賤，乃至畜生，檀皆攝之」 tr. "great and small, noble and base, even animals—giving gathers them all in"; an enemy who receives a gift becomes a neutral person, a neutral person who receives a gift becomes a friend, and even the thirty-two marks, the eighty minor marks, and all the merits of the buddhas are also “all obtained from giving.” Here the treatise-author brings out the one named simile in the whole chapter—the bodhisattva Jewel-Palm: bodhisattvas such as Jewel-Palm are able to make the seven jewels well up from their palms, and give them freely to beings. On the face of the simile, the seven jewels come out of the palm and are given without end; what it illustrates is that the virtuous working of giving in gathering in beings is inexhaustible, able to make beings joyful and pliant, fit and able to receive the Dharma of nirvāṇa. Its boundary must be discerned: this simile takes only the one meaning ‘giving gathers in beings and is fit to be the first gate’; it is set up in terms of the power of giving to draw beings into the path; it does not mean that the bodhisattva displays his ability through spiritual transformation, nor does it concern the realisation of the stage of fruition—what Jewel-Palm’s hand signifies is precisely that one word “gathering in,” by which the perfection of giving is the head of the six perfections. Therefore all buddhas take giving as the first gate. As to why only when all the perfections arise within one perfection is it great adornment: 「譬如兵人未集，則無戰力；若大軍都集莊嚴，執持器仗，則能破敵」 tr. "just as when soldiers have not yet assembled they have no fighting strength, but if a great army is all assembled and arrayed, holding its weapons, it can break the enemy"—only when the six perfections are adorned at one time can one break the Māra-bandits of the afflictions and swiftly attain awakening. This simile answers, head to tail, the earlier “as one breaking bandits is equipped with every weapon,” and gives the two words “fully giving rise” their full weight.

Next, look at this sūtra passage on setting out toward the Great Vehicle. Śāriputra asks, 「云何菩薩摩訶薩發趣大乘」 tr. "How does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva set out in the Great Vehicle?" and Pūrṇa answers with the perfection of meditation as the head: when the bodhisattva practises the six perfections he is free of desire and enters the four meditations, and with a mind of kindness, vast, non-dual, and immeasurable, he pervades one direction and so on up to the whole world; the minds of compassion, joy, and equanimity are likewise; entering meditation and emerging from meditation, he shares it all with all beings and dedicates it to sarvajñā—this is “the perfection of meditation setting out toward the Great Vehicle.” Below this, within the perfection of meditation the six perfections again arise, and within the four immeasurable minds the six perfections again arise, each gathered into “this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s setting out toward the Great Vehicle”; further, cultivating in every way the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, abiding in the eighteen emptinesses, “wisdom neither distracted nor concentrated,” and 「非常、非無常智慧，非樂、非苦，非實、非虛，非我、非無我智慧」 tr. "the wisdom that is neither permanent nor impermanent, neither pleasure nor suffering, neither real nor unreal, the wisdom that is neither self nor non-self," negating layer upon layer; and at the end, not practising in the three times, not practising in the three realms, not practising in the worldly or the world-transcending, the conditioned or the unconditioned, what has outflows or what is without outflows, and yet 「亦非不知」 tr. "it is also not that one does not know," all gathered into “because of using nothing to be attained”—the pivot of setting out toward the Great Vehicle lies just in this line of negating without annihilating, practising without grasping.

Last, the treatise-author explains the section on setting out. The treatise-author first answers why meditation is the head: 「發大莊嚴，無有眾生能破壞者」 tr. "one arouses the great adornment, and there is no being able to break or destroy it"; if there is no meditative absorption the mind is not yet free of desire, and although one practises the other perfections they are easily destroyed; only by practising meditation can one enter the immeasurable of kindness—「行慈三昧者，刀不能傷，水火不害」 tr. "one who practises the samādhi of kindness cannot be wounded by blades, and is not harmed by water or fire"—and can further bring forth spiritual penetrations and transformations; 「鳥無兩翼，不能飛翔」 tr. "a bird without two wings cannot fly," and a bodhisattva without spiritual penetrations likewise cannot arouse the great adornment—this states that meditation is the head in terms of the foundation of setting out having to be indestructible, and does not mean that meditation surpasses prajñā. Next it answers why the practice of the six perfections is spoken of only within the four immeasurable minds: 「四無量心，取眾生相，緣眾生，菩薩常為眾生故行道」 tr. "the four immeasurable minds grasp the mark of beings and take beings as object; the bodhisattva always practises the path for the sake of beings"—this kindness and compassion that takes beings as object is exactly the benefit that the remaining eight liberations and nine successive absorptions lack. Again it answers why the five spiritual penetrations are not spoken of: 「大悲是菩薩根本」 tr. "great compassion is the root of the bodhisattva," and the five spiritual penetrations have already been spoken of before. And it settles the point: merely practising the four immeasurable minds is not called setting out; there must be 「六波羅蜜和合故，名為『發趣大乘』」 tr. "because the six perfections are combined, it is called ‘setting out toward the Great Vehicle’". Below this it explains cultivating in every way as the two natures of those who proceed by faith and those who proceed by Dharma; explains breaking the eighteen dharmas by the eighteen emptinesses while also relinquishing the knowledge of emptiness; explains not concentrated and not distracted, the fear of falling into permanence-and-bliss and into annihilation, and not grasping marks in the three times and the three realms; and at the end it discriminates finely on “neither knowledge nor non-knowledge”—「非智者，空故」 tr. "‘not knowledge’: because it is empty"; 「非不智者，觀無常、苦、空等入般若波羅蜜中故」 tr. "‘not non-knowledge’: because contemplating impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and the rest, one enters into the perfection of prajñā"; it further says that “not non-practising knowledge” is because it blocks all views, cuts off love of dharma, and departs from all supports, and that “there is no non-knowledge” is because within it there is no folly, and because it differs from ordinary people; the four limbs discriminated together, what is negated is knowing that grasps marks and wisdom that relies on supports, not the abolition of contemplative knowledge. And with the question of why keeping the precepts and cultivating meditation are said to be not knowledge, it cites a verse from the Sūtra of the Buddha Benefiting Beings to conclude: 「行者捨諸法，亦不依止慧，亦無所分別，是為決定智」 tr. "the practitioner relinquishes all dharmas, also does not rely on wisdom, and also has nothing that he discriminates—this is decisive knowledge." The whole chapter is gathered into this one flavour of decisive knowledge: relinquishing dharmas yet not relying on wisdom, having nothing discriminated yet not being without knowing—exactly the same flavour as the “not grasping and not attaining” of the great-adornment half.

Do Not Misread

First, do not read “great adornment” as an embellishment of outward appearance or a magnificence of form and size. The treatise says plainly that the bodhisattva, 「破魔入煩惱賊故，行六波羅蜜以自莊嚴」 tr. "in order to break Māra and the bandits of the afflictions, practises the six perfections to adorn himself," and further takes “as a man going far carries ample provisions, and again as one breaking bandits is equipped with every weapon” as its simile—what is adorned is the provisions and the weapons the practitioner prepares for himself; it is inwardly cultivating the six perfections in order to tend toward the Buddha’s path and to break the bandits of the afflictions, not decorating outward appearance.

Second, do not read “one perfection fully giving rise to all the perfections” as the six perfections being confounded, or as cultivating only one perfection being enough. The sūtra plainly sets out six rounds: at the time one practises the one perfection of giving, morality, patience, and so on up to prajñā are each one of them an adornment, and at the time one practises morality it again gathers in the other five perfections—it is that at the moment of practising one perfection the six perfections are adorned at one time, like “a great army all assembled and arrayed, holding its weapons,” not abolishing five perfections and taking up only one. One contains six; it is not one replacing six.

Third, do not read “not discriminating” and “setting no limit” as not liberating beings, or as making no choices and so doing nothing in particular. When Pūrṇa says that the bodhisattva “does not abide in the perfection of giving discriminating that it is for the sake of so many people,” this is precisely to bring out, by contrast, “for the sake of all beings”; “setting no limit to beings” is liberating universally without marking out a boundary of number, not failing to liberate. The treatise sets against it the two vehicles, which 「有量有限，自為度身」 tr. "have a measure and a limit, and do so to liberate their own persons"—having a measure and a limit is what setting a limit really is; setting no limit is precisely being universally for all.

Fourth, do not read “the perfection of meditation as the head” as meditation being higher than prajñā, or the order being inverted. The treatise raises the twin difficulty of forward and reverse order by itself and answers it by itself: 「發大莊嚴，無有眾生能破壞者」 tr. "one arouses the great adornment, and there is no being able to break or destroy it"; without meditation the mind is not yet free of desire and the other perfections are easily destroyed; only meditation can enter the immeasurable of kindness so that nothing can destroy it, and can bring forth spiritual penetrations—this sets up meditation as the head in terms of the outset of “setting out” needing an indestructible foundation; it is said in terms of the meaning, not a judgement that meditation surpasses prajñā, nor a disordering of the proper sequence of the six perfections.

Fifth, do not read that line of negation—“neither permanent nor impermanent” up to “neither knowledge nor non-knowledge”—as annihilation, as knowing nothing at all. The sūtra negates the three times and the three realms, and says plainly “it is also not that one does not know,” returning it all to “because of using nothing to be attained”; the treatise explains, 「非不智者，觀無常、苦、空等入般若波羅蜜中故」 tr. "‘not non-knowledge’: because contemplating impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and the rest, one enters into the perfection of prajñā," and further cites the verse 「亦不依止慧，亦無所分別，是為決定智」 tr. "also does not rely on wisdom, and also has nothing that he discriminates—this is decisive knowledge." What is negated is knowing that grasps marks and wisdom that relies on supports, not the abolition of contemplative knowledge; decisive knowledge lies precisely in relinquishing dharmas yet still contemplating, being without discrimination yet not without knowing.

Bearing on Practice

The point in this chapter closest to the work of practice is to gather both “adornment” and “setting out” into the one flavour of “with a mind in accord with sarvajñā” and “using nothing to be attained.” First, the starting point of great adornment is not seeking outside but, within oneself, making ready the six perfections as the weapons for breaking Māra and the provisions for going far—at the time of giving, thought after thought does not leave sarvajñā, and morality, patience, and so on up to prajñā are all present at one time; this is where “one perfection fully giving rise to all the perfections” lands in daily use: seeing someone display spiritual penetrations and attain the exhaustion of outflows, the mind is not greedy; meeting evil words, blades, and staves, the mind is not angry; guarding the giving to others, body and mind do not slacken; recollecting the Buddha with one mind, one does not let the thought of the two vehicles enter; contemplating giver, receiver, and goods as without self-nature and empty—practising one act of giving, the six perfections arise of themselves. Second, the starting point of setting out is first to make the mind indestructible, and so meditation is taken as the head: entering the immeasurable of kindness, 「刀不能傷，水火不害」 tr. "cannot be wounded by blades, and is not harmed by water or fire"; only when the mind has this indestructible foundation are the other perfections not easily destroyed. Third, the one flavour of the four immeasurable minds is to “take beings as object” and to “always practise the path for the sake of beings,” not abandoning beings amid adversity and favour, suffering and pleasure, and yet 「不隨禪、無量心生」 tr. "not being born according to the meditations and the immeasurable minds"—taking beings as object is compassion, not being born according to them is wisdom; only compassion and wisdom practised together are setting out. Fourth is the handle of that line of negation: adorning yet “not grasping and not attaining the marks of the perfections,” setting out and “not practising” in the three times, the three realms, the worldly and the world-transcending, yet “it is also not that one does not know”; the place of practice is plainly there, yet the mind does not attach to the place of practice—this practising by means of nothing to be attained is precisely the swift path of this chapter from beginning to end.

Further Resonances

Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter passage by passage, and in the general table of contents at the very opening of the scroll lists it under the name 「辯才品」 tr. "Chapter on Eloquence"; he further divides the main teaching of this chapter into three parts, 「初、求說；二、許說；三、正說」 tr. "first, the request to speak; second, the permission to speak; third, the speaking proper"—this division corresponds, section by section, with the sequence of this chapter, in which Pūrṇa first asks to speak, the Buddha permits it, and then he sets up the three phrases proper. As this chapter was handed down to later ages, it did not have just one name: some, following this treatise’s title, call it “Great Adornment,” some “Eloquence,” some “Pūrṇa,” and some “Great Vow Adornment”—four names exist side by side, each with its own basis, and they are recorded together without judging which is correct. Again, an ancient master, explaining the meaning of the four immeasurables elsewhere, cited this chapter in anticipation and called it outright the “Chapter on the Great Vow Adornment,” referring precisely to the passage in this chapter where the mind of kindness 「遍滿一方、二三四方、四維、上下，遍一切世間」 tr. "pervades one direction, the second, third, and fourth directions, the four intermediate directions, above and below, pervading the whole world"—though the name differs from this treatise’s title, what it points to is still this chapter. Of these several names, the one most worth savouring is “Great Vow Adornment”: it differs from this treatise’s title “Great Adornment” by the single word “vow,” and precisely points out that in its bones this adornment is a great vow—the vow to be universally for all beings, setting no limit, and to cause all to enter the Great Vehicle entirely.

This ancient master, in explaining great adornment, also sets up a simile that echoes the treatise-author of this treatise from afar. The treatise-author says, “as a man going far carries ample provisions, and again as one breaking bandits is equipped with every weapon,” first going far, then breaking bandits; the ancient master says that as a man breaking bandits must have weapons, as a man going far must have provisions—first breaking bandits, then going far—the order of the two similes is exactly reversed, while the image of preparing provisions for going far and preparing weapons for breaking bandits in order to adorn oneself is entirely the same; and the ancient master adds a meaning: the bodhisattva himself breaks the four Māras and also causes beings to break the four Māras, and therefore must adorn himself with the myriad practices. This is the place where this chapter’s ancient commentary and this treatise’s treatise-author’s explanation fit most closely. Again, an ancient master reads the three phrases of this chapter—great adornment, setting out toward the Great Vehicle, and riding the Great Vehicle—as tied to a progression through the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas: at first, not yet having attained the two emptinesses and practising giving, it is called only great adornment; next, relinquishing self-grasping and realising the emptiness of beings, it is called setting out toward the Great Vehicle; at the end, having attained both emptinesses, of beings and of dharmas, and practising giving, it is called riding the Great Vehicle. This reading is not of one house alone; the three-stage progression set up by several houses is broadly the same—this is a doctrinal division that the ancient masters opened out from the three phrases themselves; the sūtra and treatise of this chapter do not explicitly set up this name “three emptinesses,” so their account is only recorded, without judging which came first or later, or whether they come from a common source. Bringing these readings back to this chapter, what is most important to keep is still that one sentence: the bodhisattva’s being named mahāsattva falls, in this chapter, on “great adornment” and “setting out toward the Great Vehicle,” and what is adorned and what one sets out with are both tied alike to “with a mind in accord with sarvajñā” and “using nothing to be attained”—the names differ, Great Adornment, Eloquence, Pūrṇa, Great Vow Adornment, but the meaning is only this one flavour: adorning oneself to break the bandits of the afflictions, and setting out toward the Great Vehicle without grasping and without attaining.

Riding the Vehicle: ‘Mahāsattva’ Explained by the Bodhisattva’s ‘Riding the Great Vehicle’—Practising the Six Perfections, He Rides Giving and So On up to Prajñā, Not Obtaining the Three Things, Because It Is by Means of Nothing to Be Attained; Form and So On up to the Buddha Are Only Names, Ultimately Unfindable; the Treatise-Author, by Three Stages of the Twofold Emptiness of Beings and of Dharmas, Makes Clear the Great Adornment, Arousing the Great Adornment, and Riding the Great Vehicle; with an Unmixed Mind, Free of the Afflictions and of the Intent of the Two Vehicles, for the Sake of Sarvajñā; the Great Vehicle Is the Name for the Ultimately Pure Six Perfections, and He Always Rides This Great Vehicle without Grasping What Is Ridden

What Is Being Asked

This chapter carries on from the preceding chapter, “The Great Adornment.” Of the three phrases Pūrṇa set up the moment he opened his mouth, 「是菩薩大莊嚴，是菩薩發趣大乘，是菩薩乘於大乘」 tr. "this bodhisattva is greatly adorned, this bodhisattva sets out toward the Great Vehicle, this bodhisattva rides the Great Vehicle," the preceding chapter has already unfolded the first two, the great adornment and setting out toward the Great Vehicle; in this chapter it is the turn of the third phrase, “riding the Great Vehicle.” As soon as Śāriputra asks, 「云何名菩薩摩訶薩乘於大乘」 tr. "what is meant by the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s riding the Great Vehicle?", Pūrṇa answers starting from the six perfections, and gathers it up in a single sentence, “this is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s riding the Great Vehicle”—the “great” of this chapter comes to rest on this “riding.” From this, several difficult points of the whole chapter are forced out. First, since it is called riding the Great Vehicle, what exactly is it that is ridden, and what serves as the vehicle? Since it says that one practises the six perfections so as to ride the Great Vehicle, why does it follow at once with 「亦不得檀波羅蜜，亦不得菩薩，亦不得受者，用無所得故」 tr. "he also does not obtain the perfection of giving, also does not obtain the bodhisattva, also does not obtain the recipient, because it is by means of nothing to be attained"? The perfection that rides, the person who rides, and the recipient who is carried across are all alike not obtained—what then is left to ride? Second, the sūtra text pushes all the way from 「色但有名字，色不可得故」 tr. "form is only a name, because form is unfindable" to 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提及佛但有名字，佛不可得故」 tr. "anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the Buddha are only names, because the Buddha is unfindable"; even unsurpassed awakening and the Buddha are only names, ultimately unfindable. Does this not plainly contradict riding the Great Vehicle, which evidently has something it tends toward and seeks? Third, in explaining the name, the treatise-author cites “someone says” and sets up three stages—the great adornment, arousing the great adornment, and riding the Great Vehicle. Are these three stages one and the same thing as the three phrases Pūrṇa set up in the preceding chapter, and why are depths distinguished among them once again? Fourth, the treatise says that 「是菩薩以不雜心，離諸煩惱及二乘意，為薩婆若故」 tr. "this bodhisattva, with an unmixed mind, free of the afflictions and of the intent of the two vehicles, for the sake of sarvajñā (omniscience)," cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness. The four foundations of mindfulness, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, are originally dharmas cultivated in common with the two vehicles; why do they here become riding the Great Vehicle, which is not shared with the two vehicles? What this chapter sets out to answer is this one matter: the bodhisattva’s being named mahāsattva comes to rest, in this chapter, on “riding the Great Vehicle.” The Great Vehicle that is ridden, the treatise itself states plainly, is none other than the ultimately pure six perfections; the bodhisattva takes these six perfections as his vehicle and rides them, and yet the bodhisattva who rides and the perfections that are ridden return alike to “because it is by means of nothing to be attained,” return alike to the ultimately unfindable. Riding without obtaining what is ridden, practising giving without seeing the three things of giver, recipient, and goods—only this single flavour of not grasping and not obtaining is called riding the Great Vehicle.

Passage by Passage

First look at this passage of sūtra text spoken by Pūrṇa. As soon as Śāriputra asks “what is meant by the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s riding the Great Vehicle,” Pūrṇa does not first set up a vehicle to be ridden, but answers starting from the six perfections: when a bodhisattva practises prajñā, he rides the perfection of giving, and yet “he also does not obtain the perfection of giving, also does not obtain the bodhisattva, also does not obtain the recipient, because it is by means of nothing to be attained”—the perfection ridden is not obtained, the bodhisattva who rides is not obtained, the recipient carried across is not obtained, and only this is called riding the perfection of giving; and so on, riding morality (śīla), patience (kṣānti), vigour (vīrya), and meditation (dhyāna), and riding the perfection of prajñā, is likewise, all gathered up in “this is the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s riding the Great Vehicle.” The word “riding” first comes to rest on this “because it is by means of nothing to be attained”—riding without obtaining what is ridden, only this is called riding the Great Vehicle. Below this, four passages of “further” go deeper layer by layer. First, the Mahāyāna 「一心應薩婆若，修四念處，法壞故」 tr. "with one mind in accord with sarvajñā, cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness, because dharmas break down," and so on up to cultivating the eighteen unshared dharmas because dharmas break down, and “this too is unfindable”—the cultivation of the limbs of the path is itself unfindable. Second, 「菩薩但有名字，眾生不可得故」 tr. "‘bodhisattva’ is only a name, because beings are unfindable"—even the bodhisattva who practises is only a name. The third is the deepest layer of the whole chapter: starting from “form is only a name, because form is unfindable,” through feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the eye and so on up to the mind, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the limbs of the eightfold noble path, inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the eighteen unshared dharmas, the suchness of all dharmas, the dharma-mark, the dharma-nature, the abiding of dharma, and the limit of reality, it pushes all the way to “anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the Buddha are only names, because the Buddha is unfindable”—the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, the limbs of the path, emptiness, the other names for the real mark of all dharmas, and even unsurpassed awakening and the Buddha’s body: whatever is named is only a name, ultimately unfindable. Fourth, the bodhisattva is complete in supernormal powers, brings beings to maturity, and purifies buddha-worlds, and yet 「初無佛國想，亦無眾生想」 tr. "has from the first no perception of a buddha-land, and no perception of beings either"; having attained the omniscience of all kinds he turns the wheel of the Dharma, and the buddhas of the ten directions call his name and praise him; all is gathered up in “this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s riding the Great Vehicle”—and here the sūtra section concludes.

Next the treatise-author opens up the explanation. The treatise-author first fixes the main thread—「富樓那以三事明摩訶薩，上已說二事」 tr. "Pūrṇa makes clear the mahāsattva by three matters; two matters have already been explained above"—and now answers the third matter, riding the Great Vehicle. Straight after, he cites “someone says” and sets up three stages: the bodhisattva who 「直布施內外物，不能破吾我相」 tr. "simply gives away inner and outer things, but cannot break the mark of I and self" is called “the great adornment”; 「若能破吾我相，入眾生空，未入法空」 tr. "if he can break the mark of I and self and enters the emptiness of beings, but has not yet entered the emptiness of dharmas," this is called “arousing the great adornment”; 「因眾生空入法空中，行檀波羅蜜」 tr. "by way of the emptiness of beings he enters into the emptiness of dharmas and practises the perfection of giving," not seeing the three things of giver, recipient, and goods, and one who can be thus is called “riding the Great Vehicle.” It is one and the same practice of giving, and the three stages are distinguished solely by the shallowness or depth to which the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas have been realised; the remaining perfections are likewise. Below this comes the treatise-author’s explanation of the sūtra’s four “further” passages. Explaining the first: “this bodhisattva, with an unmixed mind, free of the afflictions and of the intent of the two vehicles, for the sake of sarvajñā,” cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness, and yet 「修相亦不可得，畢竟清淨故」 tr. "the mark of cultivation too is unfindable, because of ultimate purity"—it is the same four foundations of mindfulness, but the two vehicles grasp marks and liberate themselves, while the bodhisattva cultivates them for the sake of sarvajñā and the mark of cultivation is unfindable; hence it is not shared with the two vehicles. Explaining the second and the third: 「若菩薩知一切法假名字，於名字和合中復有名字」 tr. "if the bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are provisional names, and that within the coming together of names there are further names"—the worldly and the world-transcending are all provisional names. Explaining the fourth: the bodhisattva arouses the great adornment and is complete in supernormal powers, rains down jewels in offering to the buddhas, transforms his body to hear the Dharma, and rides this Great Vehicle to purify buddha-worlds, and yet 「不生眾生相，不取佛國相」 tr. "does not give rise to the mark of beings, and does not grasp the mark of a buddha-land"; always riding the Great Vehicle, he attains buddhahood and turns the wheel of the Dharma. At the very end the treatise-author singles out one crucial sentence on its own: 「大乘名畢竟清淨六波羅蜜」 tr. "the Great Vehicle is the name for the ultimately pure six perfections"—the Great Vehicle that is ridden is precisely these ultimately pure six perfections. The bodhisattva adorns himself with the five supernormal powers, transforms his body to make offerings to the buddhas, and liberates beings, and 「常不離諸佛，乃至得佛道，常乘此大乘」 tr. "is never apart from the buddhas, and until he attains the path of buddhahood always rides this Great Vehicle." The whole chapter is gathered into this single flavour: what is ridden is ultimately pure and ultimately unfindable, and yet the places of practice are distinct and clear, and the riding is constant and unceasing.

Do Not Misread

First, do not read “riding the Great Vehicle” as though there were some separate vehicle to be ridden and obtained. The sūtra says plainly that one rides the perfection of giving and yet “also does not obtain the perfection of giving, also does not obtain the bodhisattva, also does not obtain the recipient, because it is by means of nothing to be attained”—only when the perfection ridden, the person who rides, and the recipient carried across are all alike not obtained is it called riding. What is ridden is not a really existent vehicle; riding without obtaining what is ridden is precisely riding the Great Vehicle.

Second, do not read “form is only a name, because form is unfindable,” and so on up to “because the Buddha is unfindable,” as sweeping away everything, a riding with nothing to ride. What this whole sequence of “only a name” and “unfindable” refutes is clinging to names as real—even unsurpassed awakening and the Buddha are not held to as really existent—and yet every passage is gathered up in “this is called the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s riding the Great Vehicle”: it is exactly here, in the ultimately unfindable, that the riding is established, not that the riding is abolished.

Third, do not read the treatise-author’s three stages of “someone says” as three separate matters that have nothing to do with one another. The three stages are alike the practice of giving, distinguished only by the shallowness or depth to which the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas have been realised: the bodhisattva who “cannot break the mark of I and self” is called only the great adornment; one who “enters the emptiness of beings, but has not yet entered the emptiness of dharmas” is called arousing the great adornment; one who “by way of the emptiness of beings enters into the emptiness of dharmas” and does not see the three things of giver, recipient, and goods is called riding the Great Vehicle. It is a single giving going deeper stage by stage, not three different practices.

Fourth, do not read cultivating the four foundations of mindfulness “free of the afflictions and of the intent of the two vehicles, for the sake of sarvajñā” as discarding the limbs of the path, or as being identical with the two vehicles. The four foundations of mindfulness, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, are originally common to the two vehicles, but the bodhisattva cultivates them “for the sake of sarvajñā,” and “the mark of cultivation too is unfindable, because of ultimate purity.” It is the same limbs of the path, but the two vehicles grasp marks and liberate themselves, while the bodhisattva does not grasp the mark of cultivation; therefore it is not shared with the two vehicles, and therefore it is called riding the Great Vehicle.

Fifth, do not read 「常乘大乘，初無休息」 tr. "always riding the Great Vehicle, never once resting," together with never being apart from the buddhas until attaining the path of buddhahood, as though there were a real vehicle that could be kept for ever and clung to. The treatise itself declares that “the Great Vehicle is the name for the ultimately pure six perfections,” and what is always ridden is just these ultimately pure six perfections: transforming the body to make offerings to the buddhas and liberating beings are clearly not abandoned, and yet what is ridden is ultimately pure and unfindable; the places of practice are distinct and clear, and yet the mind does not attach to what is ridden.

Bearing on Practice

Where this chapter comes closest to the work of practice is in gathering “riding the Great Vehicle” into the single flavour of “because it is by means of nothing to be attained,” the ultimately unfindable. First, the starting point of riding is not to seek some other vehicle, but, while practising the six perfections, not to obtain the perfection ridden and not to see giver, recipient, or goods—so for giving, and likewise for morality and so on up to prajñā: practising a perfection without obtaining the perfection practised and without obtaining a self that practises is where riding the Great Vehicle lands in daily life. Second, that contemplation running all the way through “only a name,” ultimately unfindable, is the handle for receiving and upholding in daily life—form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to unsurpassed awakening and the Buddha: whatever is named, know that it is only a name and that its substance is unfindable, and do not give rise to clinging to names as real; only then is one riding the Great Vehicle and not being ridden by names. Third, the treatise-author’s three stages point to an order for the work: first break the mark of I and self and enter the emptiness of beings, then “by way of the emptiness of beings enter into the emptiness of dharmas” and not see the three things; in the single practice of giving the twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas operates together—it is not that there is a twofold emptiness to be realised apart from giving. Fourth is the single flavour of cultivating “for the sake of sarvajñā” while “the mark of cultivation too is unfindable”: the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas are cultivated and clearly not abandoned, yet the mind turns toward sarvajñā and does not grasp the mark of cultivation; the same limbs of the path, without falling into the two vehicles. This practising by means of nothing to be attained, riding constantly and unceasingly, is precisely the riding of the Great Vehicle of this chapter from beginning to end.

Further Resonances

Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter phrase by phrase, and in the general table of contents at the opening of his commentary he lists it directly as “Chapter Sixteen, Riding the Vehicle,” without attaching any other name. He explains the literal sense of the compound “riding the vehicle”: what is called riding the vehicle is 「乘法乘故名乘乘也」 tr. "because one rides the Dharma-vehicle, it is called riding the vehicle"—riding is driving and steering, the Dharma-vehicle is the great Dharma that is ridden, and the one word “vehicle” takes in both senses, the person who rides and the Dharma that is ridden; hence it is doubled as “riding the vehicle.” He also sets out why this chapter is established on its own: the earlier chapters all took up the person in order to explain “great,” saying that it is called great because it is what a great person rides, whereas this chapter 「舉法釋人」 tr. "takes up the Dharma to explain the person," saying that one is called a great person because one rides the great Dharma—the angle of view turns from the person to the Dharma.

This ancient master also sets up a structural division for this chapter: a question is set before the chapter, and the answer is divided into three sections—first making clear riding the vehicle, next making clear the praise of the buddhas of the ten directions, and third the general conclusion; the first section, making clear riding the vehicle, is further divided into two parts, the cause of riding the vehicle and the fruit attained by riding the vehicle, and the cause of riding the vehicle again opens into three branches: riding merit and wisdom, riding wisdom in particular, and riding meritorious qualities in particular. This structural division can be set against the sūtra text of this chapter point by point—Śāriputra’s question, Pūrṇa’s answer on the six perfections and ultimate emptiness, and the conclusion with the attaining of the omniscience of all kinds, the turning of the wheel of the Dharma, and the buddhas of the ten directions calling his name and praising him; it is a complete and checkable ancient master’s structural division of this chapter.

This ancient master, in his commentary on the preceding chapter, “Adornment,” also looks ahead and cites the meaning of this treatise, reading the three phrases—great adornment, setting out, and riding the vehicle—as tied to a progression through the emptiness of beings and the emptiness of dharmas: to practise giving without having attained the twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas is called only the great adornment; to have attained the emptiness of beings but not yet the emptiness of dharmas is called setting out; to practise giving having fully attained the twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas is only then called riding the vehicle. This reading accords point for point with the three stages of “someone says” in this chapter’s treatise-author—one who “cannot break the mark of I and self” is called only the great adornment, one who “enters the emptiness of beings, but has not yet entered the emptiness of dharmas” is called arousing the great adornment, and one who “by way of the emptiness of beings enters into the emptiness of dharmas,” practising giving without seeing the three things, is called riding the Great Vehicle. This reading is not established by one master alone, while the sūtra and treatise of this chapter do not themselves explicitly set up the term “twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas”; so its account is only recorded here, without judging which came first or whether they come from one and the same source.

The title of this chapter is not uniform across the editions: this treatise titles it “Riding the Vehicle,” and several editions all use these two words; the sūtra it explains, however, is titled in several editions “Riding the Great Vehicle,” and an alternative translation from ancient times titles it outright the chapter “Riding the Great Vehicle.” The two names, “Riding the Vehicle” and “Riding the Great Vehicle,” exist side by side, each with its own basis; both are recorded, without judging which is correct. Again, an ancient master elsewhere explicitly names “the chapter Riding the Vehicle” and explains “vehicle” in the sense of carrying out, saying that the vehicle is able to carry beings and bring them out to deliverance—his naming of the chapter title is factual, but the words cited are a summary of the meaning, not the verbatim commentary on this chapter; here only the fact of his naming it is recorded.

Brought back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is still that one sentence: the bodhisattva’s being named mahāsattva comes to rest, in this chapter, on “riding the Great Vehicle,” and what is ridden takes the six perfections as that which rides and the ultimately pure Great Vehicle as that which is ridden; what rides and what is ridden return alike to “because it is by means of nothing to be attained,” return alike to the ultimately unfindable—the names differ, “riding the vehicle” and “riding the Great Vehicle,” but the meaning is only this single flavour of riding without obtaining what is ridden, practising without seeing the three things.

Neither Bound nor Freed: ‘Mahāsattva’ Explained for the Bodhisattva by ‘the Great Adornment’ and Carried to Its Limit in ‘No Great Adornment Is the Great Adornment’—The Mahāyāna Great Adornment Is the Adornment of the Six Perfections, the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, and So On up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; He Transforms His Body to Be Like a Buddha and Conjures Himself as a Wheel-Turning Sage King Who Supplies Every Need, yet Though There Is Giving, in Truth Nothing Is Given, as in an Illusion; In His Resolute Vow, with a Mind in Accord with Sarvajñā, He Does Not Give Rise to the Thought ‘I Teach So Many People’; Because All Dharmas Are Empty of Their Specific Marks, the Mark of No Adornment Is the True Adornment; Sarvajñā Is Not a Made Dharma, and Because the Maker Cannot Be Found It Is Neither Made nor Not Made; Form and So On up to the Buddha Are Neither Bound nor Freed Because They Are Nothing Whatever, Because They Are Apart, Because They Are Quiescent, Because They Do Not Arise; The Dharmas of Ordinary People Are False and Deceptive, Hence Not Bondage, and the Dharmas of the Noble Ones Are Ultimately Empty, Hence Not Release; The Bodhisattva Path Neither Bound nor Released Is Itself the Mark of Arousing the Great Adornment

What Is Being Asked

This chapter carries on from the meaning of “mahāsattva” set out in the several chapters before it—Pūrṇa first set up three phrases, the great adornment, setting out toward the Great Vehicle, and riding the Great Vehicle, and this chapter returns to the first of them, “the great adornment,” and speaks it through to the end. The moment Subhūti opens his mouth he asks 「何等是大莊嚴」 tr. "what is the great adornment?" and 「何等菩薩能大莊嚴」 tr. "what bodhisattva is able to put on the great adornment?", and the Buddha answers with the Mahāyāna great adornment; the name of this chapter falls squarely on this “great adornment.” The several difficulties of the whole chapter are forced out from here. First: since it is called the great adornment, what exactly is it that is adorned, and with what is it adorned? It is the adornment of the six perfections, of the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas and omniscience of all kinds; he also transforms his body to be like a buddha, emits light and shakes the earth, and conjures himself as a wheel-turning sage king who supplies beings with everything they need—how does this differ from ordinary ornament and splendour? And yet the Buddha goes on to say 「雖有所施，實無所與」 tr. "though there is giving, in truth nothing is given"—giving, and yet nothing given: what, then, is being given at all? Second: the section on the resolute vow says that the bodhisattva, 「應薩婆若心」 tr. "with a mind in accord with sarvajñā (omniscience)," 「不生是念」 tr. "does not give rise to this thought"—does not give rise to the discriminating thought that I teach a certain number of people and do not teach a certain number of people—and yet he vows, 「我當令無量無邊阿僧祇眾生住檀波羅蜜乃至般若波羅蜜」 tr. "I shall cause immeasurable, boundless, asaṃkhyeya beings to abide in the perfection of giving, and so on up to prajñāpāramitā": not discriminating, and yet liberating all—do these two ends not obstruct each other? Third: after the great adornment has been set out in all its splendour, Subhūti turns it round with a single phrase, 「無大莊嚴為大莊嚴，諸法自相空故」 tr. "no great adornment is the great adornment, because all dharmas are empty of their specific marks"—only no adornment is adornment: is this doing away with adornment? Fourth: beneath the Buddha’s approval it is further established that 「薩婆若非作法」 tr. "sarvajñā is not a made dharma," 「作者不可得故」 tr. "because the maker cannot be found," and form and so on up to sarvajñā and omniscience of all kinds are all 「非作非不作」 tr. "neither made nor not made"—if sarvajñā, awakening, and beings are all not made, do not the bodhisattva’s adornment, and what he cultivates and what he realises, fall into emptiness? Fifth: the eye of the whole chapter lies in “neither bound nor freed”—form and so on up to the Buddha are all neither bound nor freed; if there is neither bondage nor liberation, where then does cultivating the path and seeking freedom come to land? This is exactly the doubt practitioners raise. What this chapter sets out to answer is this one matter: the bodhisattva’s name, mahāsattva, lands in this chapter on “the great adornment,” and the utmost of the great adornment is precisely “no great adornment is the great adornment”—the adornment is vividly present, yet because all dharmas are empty of their specific marks and are nothing whatever, he adorns without grasping the mark of adornment; cultivation and realisation are distinct and clear, yet the maker cannot be found, and so he is neither bound nor released. This “neither bound nor released,” as the treatise’s final sentence settles it, is exactly “the mark of arousing the great adornment.”

Passage by Passage

First, look at this section of the sūtra in which Subhūti asks and the Buddha answers. Subhūti asks “what is the great adornment?” and “what bodhisattva is able to put on the great adornment?”, and the Buddha answers with the Mahāyāna great adornment. He first sets out in summary the adornment of the six perfections, the adornment of the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, the adornment of inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, and the adornment of the ten powers and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas and omniscience of all kinds; and further, he transforms his body to be like a buddha, his light shines everywhere, and the great earth quakes in six ways—this is the general mark of the adornment. At once it comes down to the concrete matter: the bodhisattva, abiding in the perfection of giving, conjures himself as a wheel-turning sage king, turns the three-thousand great-thousand world into beryl, and according to what beings desire gives them every kind of thing they need—food and drink, clothing, and so on up to medicine—and having given, teaches them the Dharma of the six perfections. Such abundant supply and great giving the Buddha nonetheless brings to a halt at once with a simile: it is like a conjurer who, at a crossroads, conjures up a great crowd and makes gifts to them—「是幻師實有眾生有給與不」 tr. "does this conjurer really have beings, and is there any giving?" Subhūti answers, “No indeed,” and the Buddha then concludes, 「雖有所施，實無所與」 tr. "though there is giving, in truth nothing is given"; and why? 「諸法相如幻故」 tr. "because the mark of dharmas is like an illusion." After this come the five perfections of morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and prajñā: in each, abiding in one perfection he teaches and transforms beings, and each is accompanied by a simile of the conjurer, gathered up in “this is called the great adornment of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva”; there is also a simile of going everywhere through the ten directions practising the six perfections, and at the end the section on the resolute vow gathers it all up: the bodhisattva, “with a mind in accord with sarvajñā,” “does not give rise to this thought”—does not give rise to the discrimination that I teach so many people and do not teach so many people, but only makes the universal vow, “I shall cause immeasurable, boundless, asaṃkhyeya beings to abide in the perfection of giving, and so on up to prajñāpāramitā,” and this too is gathered in by the simile of the conjurer. The splendour of the adornment and the breadth of the giving and transforming are held in check all the way through by the meaning of ‘like an illusion’ and ‘in truth nothing is given’—this is the backbone of Sūtra ①.

Next, the treatise-author opens up the meaning of the great adornment. The treatise-author first fixes the occasion: Subhūti, fearing that Pūrṇa, not yet having attained omniscience, might have spoken with some error, therefore asks the Buddha to have it settled. He then explains the bodhisattva’s great function of spiritual penetration—for beings who have left home and love the path he conjures up a buddha-body, emits light and shakes the earth, and teaches the Dharma, enabling them to attain the three vehicles; for householder beings who love pleasure he becomes a wheel-turning sage king, rains down treasures in abundance, and afterwards teaches the bodhisattva Dharma—so benefiting beings with the two gifts, the gift of wealth and the gift of Dharma, and 「亦不於諸法中生著相，亦不自高」 tr. "he also does not give rise to the mark of attachment among dharmas, and also does not exalt himself." Subhūti then doubts: the bodhisattva’s outflows are not yet exhausted—how can he be unattached to dharmas and not exalt himself? The Buddha then himself speaks the simile of the conjurer to answer him; Subhūti answers, 「是但虛誑，實無所有」 tr. "this is only false and deceptive; in truth there is nothing there"; and the Buddha thereupon concludes that the bodhisattva, though he makes a buddha-body or a wheel-turning sage king and gives to beings with wealth and Dharma, 「亦如幻師實無所與」 tr. "is also like the conjurer: in truth nothing is given"; and why? 「諸法相畢竟空如幻」 tr. "the mark of dharmas is ultimately empty, like an illusion"—answering, head to tail, that string of conjurer similes in Sūtra ①. The treatise-author further explains that by the causes and conditions of the two perfections of giving and morality one obtains wealth and nobility among humans and becomes a wheel-turning sage king, while by the other perfections one becomes the Brahmā king or a dharma-body bodhisattva; he answers the question “apart from the six perfections, what other dharma is there with which to adorn?” and brings it home to “all merits are gathered within the six perfections”; and at the end he explains the section on the resolute vow, concluding, “this is called arousing the great adornment.”

Look next at this section of the sūtra in which Subhūti turns it round. Subhūti sets out the meaning he himself has heard: 「無大莊嚴為大莊嚴」 tr. "no great adornment is the great adornment"; and why? 「諸法自相空故」 tr. "because all dharmas are empty of their specific marks"—form is empty of the mark of form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness—consciousness is empty of the mark of consciousness; eye and so on up to mind, forms and so on up to dharmas, the consciousnesses, the contacts, the feelings, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and so on up to the bodhisattva, empty of the mark of bodhisattva—all the way through, each is empty of its specific mark, and so one knows that the absence of the mark of adornment is precisely the great adornment. The Buddha approves, “So it is,” and goes a step further, establishing, 「薩婆若非作法，眾生亦非作法，菩薩為是眾生大莊嚴」 tr. "sarvajñā is not a made dharma, beings too are not made dharmas, and the bodhisattva puts on the great adornment for the sake of these beings." Subhūti asks for what cause and condition, and the Buddha answers, “because the maker cannot be found”: sarvajñā is a dharma neither made nor arisen, and beings too are dharmas neither made nor arisen; and so form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; the self, and the knower and the seer; dreams and illusions, echoes, reflections, mirages, and conjurations; the eighteen emptinesses; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; the five other names, suchness and the rest; awakening; sarvajñā and omniscience of all kinds—each and every one is “neither made nor not made,” each 「畢竟不可得故」 tr. "because it ultimately cannot be found." After this the discourse turns into the main theme of the whole chapter: Subhūti says, 「色無縛無脫，受、想、行、識無縛無脫」 tr. "form is neither bound nor freed; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are neither bound nor freed"; Pūrṇa Maitrāyaṇīputra asks back and then approves, and asks again, “what form is neither bound nor freed?”, and Subhūti then answers at length—like a dream, like an echo, a reflection, an illusion, a mirage, a conjuration; the three times, past, future, and present; the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the indeterminate; the worldly and the world-transcending, those with outflows and those without; all dharmas; the six perfections; the eighteen emptinesses; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; the fruit of awakening, and omniscience and omniscience of all kinds; the bodhisattva and the Buddha; the five other names, suchness and the rest, and unconditioned dharmas—there is none that is not neither bound nor freed, and phrase after phrase comes back to a single formula: 「無所有故，離故，寂滅故，不生故，無縛無脫」 tr. "because they are nothing whatever, because they are apart, because they are quiescent, because they do not arise, they are neither bound nor freed." At the end, abiding in the six perfections that are neither bound nor freed, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, bringing beings to maturity and purifying buddha-worlds, and so on up to establishing the three vehicles, gathers it all up, concluding in 「無縛無脫大莊嚴」 tr. "the great adornment that is neither bound nor freed"—the utmost of the adornment lies just in this ‘neither bound nor freed.’

Last, the treatise-author explains this section on ‘neither bound nor freed.’ The treatise-author first explains why Subhūti says “no great adornment is the great adornment”: the reason lies in “because they are empty of their specific marks.” The meaning of arousing the great adornment is very deep and hard to understand, and the beings in the assembly, hearing it, might take fright and sink back; therefore Subhūti speaks in reverse, 「發大莊嚴非深非難」 tr. "arousing the great adornment is neither deep nor difficult": if only one can know the empty, quiescent mark of dharmas, and does not abandon one’s original vow, and is vigorous, that is arousing the great adornment, and it is not hard to attain. Next he confirms the Buddha’s word “So it is,” and explains that “sarvajñā is not a made dharma” rests on “because the maker cannot be found”—omniscience is not a made mark, sarvajñā is a mark neither made nor arisen, and so on up to the buddhas’ dharmas, which likewise can make nothing. After this he breaks three doubts in succession: he breaks the doubt that, although dharmas have no mark of fixed making, they seem, like an illusion, to have marks of coming and going—answering that, like an illusion, like a mirage, they have no mark of making and ultimately cannot be found; he breaks the doubt that the eighteen emptinesses, since they can break all dharmas, seem to have a function and so would be real; and he breaks the doubt that suchness, dharma-nature, and the limit of reality, being real dharmas, ought to have making, and that the bodhisattva, the Buddha, and omniscience of all kinds, being real dharmas, can make something—answering each in turn that because of ultimate emptiness there is nothing they make. When the doubts are exhausted, the practitioner still thinks, 「諸法都無作、無縛無解者，我等云何當從苦得脫」 tr. "if dharmas all have no making, and are neither bound nor released, how are we to get free from suffering?", and Subhūti then answers directly, 「五眾無縛無解」 tr. "the five aggregates are neither bound nor released," 「若畢竟空無有作者，誰縛誰解」 tr. "if it is ultimately empty and there is no maker, who is bound and who is released?"—this is the most important question and answer of the whole chapter. The treatise-author thereupon points out the true meaning: 「凡夫人法虛誑不可得，故非縛；聖人法畢竟空不可得，故非解」 tr. "the dharmas of ordinary people are false and deceptive and cannot be found, hence they are not bondage; the dharmas of the noble ones are ultimately empty and cannot be found, hence they are not release"; the five aggregates that are like a dream and the rest, and so on up to the limit of reality and all dharmas besides, because they are nothing whatever, because they are apart, because they do not arise, are all neither bound nor released—「是名菩薩摩訶薩不縛不解菩薩道」 tr. "this is called the bodhisattva path of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, neither bound nor released." Abiding in this path, because the afflictions do not drag him down it is called ‘not bound,’ and because he does not rely on dharmas without outflows to break the afflictions it is called ‘not released’; and yet teaching and transforming beings, purifying buddha-worlds, and so on up to establishing the three vehicles, are vividly present and not set aside. The whole chapter is gathered up in the treatise’s final sentence: 「是名菩薩摩訶薩發大莊嚴相，所謂不縛不解」 tr. "this is called the mark of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva’s arousing the great adornment, namely, neither bound nor released"—the mark of the great adornment is exactly ‘neither bound nor released.’

Do Not Misread

First, do not read “the great adornment” as outward ornament or as magnificence of form and size. The sūtra says plainly that what adorns is the six perfections, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas and omniscience of all kinds—the inner cultivation of all the practices in order to head toward the buddha-path; he conjures himself as a wheel-turning sage king and supplies beings with everything they need, yet the Buddha halts this with the simile of the conjurer and concludes, “though there is giving, in truth nothing is given”; and why? “because the mark of dharmas is like an illusion”—the giving and transforming are vividly present, yet he is not attached to the mark of giving and does not see a receiver; what adorns is practice, not the decoration of outward marks.

Second, do not read the bodhisattva’s “with a mind in accord with sarvajñā” and “does not give rise to this thought” as not liberating beings and doing nothing. What he does not give rise to is the thought that discriminates and sets a limit—that I teach a certain number of people and do not teach a certain number of people; it is exactly at this point of not discriminating that he makes the universal vow, “I shall cause immeasurable, boundless, asaṃkhyeya beings to abide in the perfection of giving, and so on up to prajñāpāramitā”—not discriminating is precisely acting universally for all; it is not failing to liberate.

Third, do not read “no great adornment is the great adornment” as brushing adornment aside, abandoning practice and falling into emptiness. The reason for saying “no” is “because all dharmas are empty of their specific marks”—form is empty of the mark of form, and so on up to the bodhisattva, empty of the mark of bodhisattva; what is absent is the mark of adornment, not the practice of adornment. The mark of adornment cannot be found, yet the practice of adornment is not set aside: the mark of no adornment is the true adornment; it is not doing away with adornment.

Fourth, do not read “sarvajñā is not a made dharma” and “because the maker cannot be found” as there being no cause and effect and nothing to cultivate or realise. What is negated is that there really is a maker and really is a made dharma; the sūtra says “neither made nor not made,” negating “not made” as well—negating making in order to break the clinging to reality, negating not-making in order to guard against falling into emptiness; the double negation sends both away, and this is precisely not falling into an annihilation in which nothing is known.

Fifth, do not read “neither bound nor freed” as meaning that, since there is no bondage, there is also no liberation to seek, and cultivating the path comes to nothing. The treatise explains it plainly itself: 「凡夫人法虛誑不可得，故非縛；聖人法畢竟空不可得，故非解」 tr. "the dharmas of ordinary people are false and deceptive and cannot be found, hence they are not bondage; the dharmas of the noble ones are ultimately empty and cannot be found, hence they are not release"—what is negated is that there really is a bondage that binds and really are dharmas without outflows that can release; it is not that there is no liberation. Hence it is called “the bodhisattva path, neither bound nor released,” and abiding in this path, teaching and transforming beings, purifying buddha-worlds, and so on up to establishing the three vehicles are vividly present and not set aside: neither bound nor released is precisely the accomplishment of the bodhisattva path, not a state with nothing to cultivate.

Bearing on Practice

The place in this chapter that bears most closely on practice is the gathering of “the great adornment” into the single flavour of “no great adornment is the great adornment” and ‘neither bound nor freed.’ First, the adornment begins not in outward marks but in keeping, thought after thought while practising the six perfections, “a mind in accord with sarvajñā,” without grasping the mark of adornment—giving everything that is needed while knowing that “though there is giving, in truth nothing is given,” practising giving without seeing a giver, a receiver, or a thing given: this is where the great adornment lands in daily life. Second, those four phrases—“because they are nothing whatever, because they are apart, because they are quiescent, because they do not arise”—are the handle to receive and hold in daily life: form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to awakening and the Buddha—whatever is named, contemplate that it is nothing whatever, contemplate that it is quiescent and does not arise, give rise to no clinging to reality in names and marks, and so one is neither bound nor freed. Third, there is the single flavour of “because the maker cannot be found”—the places of practice are distinct and clear, yet no self that makes is seen; giving without seeing one who gives, cultivating the path without seeing one who cultivates: since the maker cannot be found, bondage has nothing to attach to. Fourth, there is where ‘neither bound nor released’ lands—because the afflictions do not drag him down into the state of an ordinary person it is called ‘not bound,’ and because he does not rely on dharmas without outflows to break the afflictions it is called ‘not released’; and yet teaching and transforming beings, purifying buddha-worlds, and so on up to establishing beings in the three vehicles are vividly present and not set aside. This practising with nothing to be attained, this adorning without grasping what is adorned, is exactly the arousing of the great adornment in this chapter from beginning to end.

Further Resonances

Later an ancient master composed a commentary on this chapter phrase by phrase, and in the general table of contents at the opening of his work he lists it under the name “Chapter Seventeen: Adornment”; his phrase-by-phrase commentary likewise titles it the chapter on adornment—agreeing with the title of the sūtra this chapter explains, and not taking “neither bound nor freed” as its title. The name of this chapter is given in this treatise as “Neither Bound nor Freed,” while the sūtra it explains is titled “Adornment,” and among other translations of old there are also those titled directly with something like ‘No Bondage’—the two names stand side by side, each with its own basis, and both are recorded without judging which is correct; the reason they stand side by side is precisely that this chapter has two layers of theme, one the great adornment, the other ‘neither bound nor freed,’ and taking the one or the other is only a difference among the versions in judging which is the centre of gravity of the chapter.

This ancient master also set up a structural analysis of this chapter: he places it at the head of the chapters praising the Dharma, and first opens two questions, “the question about the Dharma” and “the question about the person,” and the Buddha’s answer likewise divides into the answer to the question about the Dharma and the answer to the question about the person—the answer to the question about the Dharma corresponds exactly to this chapter’s layer of the great adornment. The adornment of practice and fruit that the treatise-author makes clear he explains by dividing it further into four sections: making a buddha-body, making the body of a wheel-turning sage king, making the body of the Brahmā king and the body of a bodhisattva, and abiding in the two perfections of skilful means and manifesting every kind of body—these four sections match, section by section, what this treatise’s author explains: conjuring a buddha-body to liberate those who have left home, becoming a wheel-turning sage king to liberate householders, by the other perfections becoming the Brahmā king or a dharma-body bodhisattva, and going everywhere through the ten directions while transforming his own body. From Subhūti’s saying to the Buddha “no great adornment is the great adornment” onward, he places it as the second section, Subhūti’s own statement of what he understands, which opens within it an account of the twofold emptiness of beings and of dharmas, together with questions and answers; at the layer of ‘neither bound nor freed’ he sets up a separate heading, “Removing Doubt Again”: the assembly present at that time, hearing the very deep meaning of ultimate non-making, might give rise to the doubt that if there is ultimately no making then there are no persons or dharmas that can attain liberation, and so the Buddha offers an explanation to break it, in two sections: making clear that there is no bondage or freedom, and making clear that because there is neither bondage nor freedom one gains benefit—since bondage cannot be found, there is nothing to be called release; this matches, meaning for meaning, the doctrinal motive of that exchange of questions and answers between Pūrṇa and Subhūti in this chapter. This structural analysis covers both layers, the great adornment and ‘neither bound nor freed,’ at once, and can be set against this chapter’s sūtra text section by section: it is a complete and verifiable ancient master’s structural analysis of this chapter.

Bringing this ancient master’s reading back to this chapter, what most needs to be kept is still that one sentence: the bodhisattva’s name, mahāsattva, lands in this chapter on “the great adornment,” and the utmost of the great adornment is exactly “no great adornment is the great adornment”—the names differ, adornment and ‘neither bound nor freed,’ but the meaning is only this single flavour: all dharmas are empty of their specific marks and are nothing whatever, and yet the adornment is vividly present and the giving and transforming are not set aside; the maker cannot be found, and so he is neither bound nor released.