大智度論 義疏通講 · 冊22Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Exposition Throughout · Vol. 22

Thorough Penetration: Why Thoroughly Penetrating the Marks of Dharmas Must Be Answered by Means of a Conjured Person and Not Said Directly; Why How a Conjured Person Has Cultivation of the Path Is the Most Crucial Pressing Question; Why, If All Dharmas Are like a Conjuration, What Work the Bodhisattva Has to Do Is the Pivotal Objection of the Whole Chapter; Why the Buddha Asks in Return Whether Any Beings Were Seen to Obtain Liberation from the Five Destinies; Why Beings' Not Knowing for Themselves Is the Whole Reason for the Bodhisattva's Practising the Path; Why Where Beings Abide Is Answered with within Names and Marks and the False Recollection, Imagining, and Discrimination; Why the Name Is a Forced and Provisional Setting-up and Why the Mark Is Divided into the Two Kinds of Form and the Formless; Why Because of Signlessness, Stacked Thirteen Times in a Row, Becomes the Sole Ground for Making the Perfections Complete; Why, If All Dharmas Are Signless and without Recollecting, the Four Kinds of Dharmas Are Still Counted; Why Training in the Three Gates of Liberation Is Precisely Being Able to Train in the Five Aggregates, the Twelve Sense-fields, the Eighteen Elements, the Four Truths, and the Twelve Links of Causes and Conditions; Why the Marks of the Five Aggregates of Clinging Need the Five Similes of Foam, Bubble, Mirage, Plantain, and Conjured Troops, Each Speaking of Arising and Ceasing and of Suchness; Why Knowing Dharmas by Discriminating Each One Separately Does Not Destroy the Nature of Dharmas; Why Training in the Nature of Dharmas Is Not Training in Nothing; Why the Nineteen Successive Questions of Why Train Are Not Disbelief but a Pressing Out of the Real Meaning; Why the Simile of the Skilled Conjurer Must Set Side by Side the Two Views of Those with Wisdom and Those without Wisdom; Why the Nature of Dharmas Being without Difference Before, After, and in the Middle Is the Ground for Bringing Beings to Accomplishment; Why the Treatise-Author First Asks Why Subhūti Asks Again and Answers with the Calf and the Sweet Milk; Why the Conjured Person, without Mind and without Mental Factors yet Able to Do Things, Is Exactly the Mark of the Bodhisattva's Body; Why Subhūti's Not Daring to Speak of Emptiness Because He Prizes the Buddha-dharma Must Be Explained by the Lion Not Prizing Its Own Strength; Why the Blind Son Drinking Poison Is Whence the Mind of Great Compassion Arises; Why Seeing a Person in the Dark and the Evil Dog Barking at Its Shadow Are Ready-made Specimens of the Falseness and Deception of Names and Marks; Why Breaking the Body Down to Atoms Must Go On to Refute the Atom; Why, If the Atom Is Form, It Must Have Ten Parts; Why the Divine Eye's Seeing the Minute Is Still a False and Deceptive Seeing; Why, of Name and Mark, the Mark Is the Root and the Name the Branch; Why a Nature Fixed and Really Existent Turns on the Contrary into Non-arising, Non-ceasing, and No Sin or Merit; Why the Objection That Three of the Four Truths Have Marks Is Answered by the Dharma of the Mahāyāna Differing from the Dharma of the Śrāvakas; Why the Three Truths All Following the Truth of Cessation Is the Proof of Being Signless and without Recollecting; Why the Three Vehicles Not Differing from the Signless Dharma Does Not Hinder There Being the Paths of the Three Vehicles; Why the Three Gates of Liberation Are the Real Dharma and the Rest Is All Spoken as Skilful Means; Why Training in the Three Gates of Liberation Being Precisely Training in the Five Aggregates Is Not Training in the Signless by Means of Marks; Why, the Real Mark of All Dharmas Being Named the Nature of Dharmas, the Nature of Form Cannot Destroy the Nature of Dharmas; Why the Nature of Dharmas Being without Nature Becomes on the Contrary the Reason for Training in All Dharmas Throughout; Why Seeing Some Dharma Gone Out from the Nature of Dharmas Is the Inversion of Permanence and Ignorance; Why the Conjurer Being the Bodhisattva and the Conjuring Dharmas Being the Six Perfections Is the Gathering-up of the Whole Chapter; Why, Whether the Nature of Dharmas Were First Non-existent and Afterwards Existent or First Existent and Afterwards Non-existent, Neither Road Establishes Practice; and Why From the Very Beginning Always Empty, Now Nothing Is Lost Is the Last Sentence with Which One Who Thoroughly Penetrates Teaches Beings

What Is Being Asked

The title of this chapter is 「善達」 tr. "Thorough Penetration", and what it asks is only one sentence: how must the bodhisattva be in order to count as thoroughly penetrating the marks of dharmas? The whole chapter starts from this question and is gathered in by the sentence 「今無所失」 tr. "now nothing is lost"; all the twists and turns in between are the unfolding of this one question.

To understand this chapter, one must first see clearly its way of answering. The Buddha does not say directly that the marks of dharmas are thus and thus; instead he first brings up a conjured person: a person made by conjuration does not practise lust, anger, and delusion, does not practise form and so on up to consciousness, does not practise inner and outer dharmas, does not practise the afflictions and fetters, does not practise with outflows or without outflows, worldly or world-transcending, conditioned or unconditioned, and has no holy fruit either; the bodhisattva too is like this, has none of these matters, and also does not discriminate these dharmas. The answer comes to rest on the six Chinese characters 「亦不分別是法」 tr. "nor does he discriminate these dharmas"—thorough penetration is not arriving at some special knowing; it is no longer placing discrimination upon dharmas. Therefore from beginning to end this chapter turns over and over on one and the same matter: since it is like a conjuration, what then does everything the bodhisattva does still amount to?

This pressing question appears three times in this chapter, each time pressing harder than the last. The first time is Subhūti asking 「化人云何有修道」 tr. "how does a conjured person have cultivation of the path"—since the conjured person practises nothing at all, from where can cultivation of the path be spoken of? The second time is: since it is known that all form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are like a conjuration, the conjured person then has no five aggregates, no stain or purity, no birth and death or liberation, so 「菩薩有何等功用」 tr. "what kind of work does the bodhisattva have to do". The third time is: since one sees and knows all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration, why does one still practise the six perfections, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, the four formless absorptions, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, and so on up to purifying buddha-lands and bringing beings to accomplishment? The Buddha's answers too go deeper each time: first he answers that the conjured person's cultivation of the path is neither stained nor pure and is not within the five destinies; next he asks in return whether, when originally practising the bodhisattva path, one ever saw any beings obtain liberation from the five destinies, and Subhūti himself answers that he never did; finally he speaks out the most crucial reason of the whole chapter—if beings themselves knew that dharmas are like an illusion, like a conjuration, the bodhisattva would never practise the bodhisattva path for the sake of beings through asaṃkhyeya kalpas; it is precisely because beings themselves do not know that the bodhisattva through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas practises the six perfections, brings beings to accomplishment, and purifies buddha-lands. The reason the bodhisattva practises lies not in dharmas but in beings' not knowing.

The middle section turns to name and mark. Subhūti asks in what place beings abide, that the bodhisattva pulls them out, and the Buddha answers that they abide only within names and marks and the false recollection, imagining, and discrimination; thereupon the Buddha himself sets up the teaching on names and marks: a name is a forced provisional setting-up, and all dharmas of coming together are provisional names; marks are of two kinds, the mark of form and the mark of the formless, both being a clinging mind born of recollection, imagining, and discrimination within the empty dharma. Since there are only names and marks, Subhūti then objects: how then can the bodhisattva benefit himself and benefit others and make the grounds complete? The Buddha's answer uses this the other way round: precisely because dharmas have no real root-substance and have only names and marks, therefore he can make the perfections complete—thirteen times in a row 「無相故」 tr. "because of signlessness" is stacked up, establishing 「無相」 tr. "signlessness" as the sole ground of making complete; and he adds a sentence of proof by the contrary: if the marks of dharmas really existed even so much as a hair's breadth, the bodhisattva could not obtain awakening, nor could he cause beings to obtain the dharmas without outflows.

The latter section is the nature of dharmas. From the five aggregates and five similes of 「知色相，知色生滅，知色如」 tr. "he knows the mark of form, knows the arising and ceasing of form, knows the suchness of form", to whether knowing dharmas by discrimination destroys the nature of dharmas, to whether training in the nature of dharmas is training in nothing, to by what causes and conditions all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas, it is pushed all the way to Subhūti's great question with its nineteen successive 「何以學」 tr. "why train"—if all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas, why still train in the six perfections, train in the dhyānas, train in the grounds, train in the thirty-two marks, train in the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha's answer does not deny his premise; it only adds one distinction: one who sees some dharma outside the nature of dharmas is not seeking awakening; knowing that the nature of all dharmas is precisely awakening, he then 「以無名相之法以名相說」 tr. "speaks of the nameless and signless dharma by means of names and marks". Then comes the simile of the skilled conjurer—the conjurer conjures men and women, elephants and horses, and so on up to the thirty-two marks of a Buddha's body; people without wisdom praise him as very capable, while those with wisdom know that there is no real matter in it and yet it can entertain the crowd. Finally it concludes with the nature of dharmas being without difference before, after, and in the middle: precisely because it is without difference can the bodhisattva by the power of skilful means display the nature of dharmas and bring beings to accomplishment.

The treatise-author's explanation goes along two roads. One road follows the text and explains the meaning, supplying for each turn of the sūtra section its reason why: the reason for asking again, the reason the conjured person can act, the reason Subhūti does not dare to speak of emptiness, the reason the bodhisattva gives rise to great compassion, and ready-made specimens of the falseness and deception of names and marks. The other road sets up seven rounds of question and answer, pressing out one place after another the doubts not yet voiced in the reader's mind—among them the two rounds refuting the atom and distinguishing name and mark have no text in the sūtra; they are two investigations the treatise-author brings out of his own, and they are exactly what is most worth reading in the treatise section of this chapter. The final section is gathered into one sentence: beings and dharmas are not empty only when they enter nirvāṇa without remainder; from the very beginning they have always been empty, and therefore 「今無所失」 tr. "now nothing is lost".

Passage by Passage

1. Subhūti asks how the bodhisattva thoroughly penetrates the marks of dharmas. At the head of the chapter there is only one question: 「世尊！云何菩薩善達諸法相？」 tr. "World-Honored One! How does the bodhisattva thoroughly penetrate the marks of dharmas?" What is asked is how the two Chinese characters 「善達」 tr. "thorough penetration" are to be made real. This question was already spoken of in the preceding chapters; it is asked again here, and at the very opening of the treatise section a question and answer is set up for this, from which one can see that the sūtra text itself knows this is a repeated question. In reading this sentence one must first take note that what it asks is not ‘what are the marks of dharmas’, but ‘how must the bodhisattva be to count as thoroughly penetrating’—what is asked lies in the person, not in dharmas, and only so does the answer come to rest on the bodhisattva.

2. The Buddha answers with the conjured person: not practising lust, anger, and delusion, and so on up to having no holy fruit; the bodhisattva too is like this. The Buddha does not speak of the marks head-on; first he brings up the conjured person. The conjured person does not practise lust, anger, and delusion, does not practise form and so on up to consciousness, does not practise inner and outer dharmas, does not practise the afflictions and fetters, does not practise dharmas with outflows or without outflows, worldly or world-transcending, conditioned or unconditioned, and has no holy fruit either. This string of negations begins from the coarsest, the three poisons, and is ranged all the way to the subtlest, the holy fruit, levelling in between the three pairs of stained and pure, worldly and world-transcending, and conditioned and unconditioned. Then follows the sentence 「菩薩亦如是，無有是事，亦不分別是法，是名善達諸法相」 tr. "the bodhisattva too is like this: there is no such matter, nor does he discriminate these dharmas; this is named thoroughly penetrating the marks of dharmas". What is crucial is the clause that the last sentence adds—the conjured person does not practise from the first, while the bodhisattva 「不分別是法」 tr. "does not discriminate these dharmas". The conjured person's not practising comes from having no mind; the bodhisattva's not discriminating comes from thorough penetration; the two are alike but not from the same source, and this dividing line the treatise section below will speak of again.

3. Subhūti presses: how does a conjured person have cultivation of the path? Subhūti at once seizes on the loose point of this simile: since the conjured person practises nothing at all, where then can the matter of cultivating the path be established? This question is asked with great precision—if one reasons from the letter of the simile, then since the bodhisattva is like a conjured person, the six perfections and the grounds have nowhere to hang. The 「菩薩有何等功用」 tr. "what kind of work does the bodhisattva have to do" that appears again and again later in the whole chapter has its root in this question. Reading the sūtra up to here one need not hurry to smooth things over for the Buddha; first take this question in firmly, and only then will the answer that follows have somewhere to land.

4. The Buddha answers that the conjured person's cultivation of the path is neither stained nor pure and is not within the five destinies, and asks in return whether the person conjured has a real root-substance, has stain or purity. The Buddha's answer is in two parts. The first part acknowledges head-on that the conjured person too has cultivation of the path, only this cultivation of the path is 「不垢不淨，亦不在五道生死」 tr. "neither stained nor pure, nor within the birth and death of the five destinies"—that is, cultivating the path need not be tied to a really existent one who cultivates. In the second part he suddenly asks Subhūti in return: does the person conjured by the Buddha have a real root-substance, does he have stain or purity? This turn is a way of teaching often used in this chapter: not stating the conclusion himself, but pressing the questioner to state it himself. Wherever the Buddha asks in return, he is handing the power of judgement back to the questioner.

5. Subhūti himself answers: no real root-substance, without stain and without purity, not within the birth and death of the five destinies. Subhūti answers cleanly: no, the person conjured by the Buddha has no real root-substance, is also without stain and without purity, and is also not within the birth and death of the five destinies. This answer is spoken by himself; it is not laid on him by the Buddha. That the later 「菩薩亦如是」 tr. "the bodhisattva too is like this" can be established depends wholly on this premise acknowledged by the questioner's own mouth. In teaching, this step may not be skipped—if a conclusion is spoken by the learner himself, then however deep things go afterwards, he will not fall back.

6. The Buddha concludes: the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's thorough penetration of the marks of dharmas is also like this. The Buddha takes it up with only one sentence, 「如是，須菩提！菩薩摩訶薩善達諸法相，亦如是」 tr. "Like this, Subhūti! The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's thorough penetration of the marks of dharmas is also like this", adding no further explanation. Here the sūtra text does not give the speaker's name; it follows on from the Buddha's preceding words, and in reading one should not mistake it for Subhūti continuing to speak. What is called "also like this" moves the three items of the preceding answer—no real root-substance, no stain or purity, not within the five destinies—all together onto the one who thoroughly penetrates.

7. Subhūti asks whether all form and feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are like a conjuration. From the conjured person he pushes on to dharmas: is all form like a conjuration? Are all feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness like a conjuration? This question raises the simile into a general rule. Above, it was only said 「譬如化人」 tr. "it is as a conjured person", which is a simile; what is asked here is whether the five aggregates themselves are like a conjuration, which is the dharma. This step between simile and dharma Subhūti takes on the reader's behalf.

8. The Buddha answers that all form is like a conjuration and all feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are like a conjuration. The Buddha's answer is almost the same in wording as the question, only with the questioning removed. This way of answering is common in this treatise: if the sentence the questioner has framed is already without error, the Buddha approves it just as it is and does not word it otherwise. The reader can save a layer here—whenever one sees an answer in the same wording as the question, one knows that this sentence is already a settled statement and can serve as the ground for the reasoning that follows.

9. Subhūti objects: since all is like a conjuration, and the conjured person has no five aggregates, no stain or purity, no birth and death or liberation, what kind of work does the bodhisattva have to do? This is the pivotal objection of the whole chapter. He puts the two preceding parts together and reasons: since all dharmas are like a conjuration, and the conjured person has no form, no feeling, perception, constructions, or consciousness, is without stain and without purity, has no birth and death in the five destinies and also no place of liberation, then what use is there still in everything the bodhisattva does? If this objection is not broken, everything from the six perfections downward falls into emptiness; if this objection is broken too quickly, it falls into the muddled talk of ‘though empty, yet existent’. The Buddha below uses three sections to finish answering, from which one can see its weight.

10. The Buddha asks in return: when originally practising the bodhisattva path, did he ever see any beings obtain liberation from the five destinies? The Buddha does not directly answer whether there is work or not; first he asks in return about a matter of fact: when the bodhisattva at first practised the bodhisattva path, did he ever see any beings obtain liberation from among the hells, the hungry ghosts, the animals, humans, and gods? What is asked is 「見」 tr. "seeing"—whether one has seen a really existing one who is delivered. This question moves the point of dispute from ‘whether there is work’ to ‘whether there is something seen’; it is the first move in this chapter's answering of objections.

11. Subhūti answers that he never did. Subhūti answers truthfully: no, World-Honored One. This answer, like passage 5, is spoken by the questioner himself. Since he acknowledges that he never saw any beings obtain liberation, when the Buddha below says that he does not see beings obtain liberation from the three realms, it is not a newly added meaning; it is taking up his own words and speaking on from them.

12. The Buddha approves and brings out the reason: he does not see beings obtain liberation from the three realms, because he sees and knows all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration. The Buddha says 「如是」 tr. "just so" twice in a row to approve, and at once points out the reason why: the bodhisattva-mahāsattva does not see beings obtain liberation from the three realms—why?—because he sees and knows all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration. Here one must see clearly the direction of cause and effect: it is not that he does not see because there are no beings; it is that he does not see because he sees and knows them as like an illusion, like a conjuration. What is broken is the view ‘I see that real beings are delivered by me’, not the matter of delivering beings.

13. Subhūti objects again: since he sees and knows them as like an illusion, like a conjuration, for the sake of what matter does he practise the six perfections and so on up to purifying buddha-lands and bringing beings to accomplishment? This is the second appearance of the pivotal objection, closer to the bone than the first: no longer asking whether there is work, it asks directly about the motive for practising the path. Since he sees and knows them as like an illusion, like a conjuration—the six perfections, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, and so on up to great kindness and great compassion, purifying buddha-lands, and bringing beings to accomplishment—for the sake of what matter are these practised? Asked up to here, there is no road of retreat; the Buddha must state head-on the reason for practising the path.

14. The Buddha answers: beings themselves do not know that dharmas are like an illusion, like a conjuration; therefore the bodhisattva through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas practises the six perfections, brings beings to accomplishment, and purifies buddha-lands. The Buddha's answer uses a supposition: if beings themselves already knew that dharmas are like an illusion, like a conjuration, the bodhisattva would never practise the bodhisattva path for the sake of beings through asaṃkhyeya kalpas. Put the other way round: precisely because beings themselves do not know, the bodhisattva through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas practises the six perfections, brings beings to accomplishment, purifies buddha-lands, and obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This sentence is where the ground of the whole chapter's gate of practice lies: the reason for the bodhisattva's practising the path is not placed in dharmas; it is placed in beings' not knowing. In dharmas there is nothing to practise—because they are like a conjuration; in beings one cannot but practise—because they do not know. Only when both sides stand does one not fall into annihilation.

15. Subhūti asks in what place beings abide, that the bodhisattva pulls them out. Following on from the answer above: since beings do not know, then what is called pulling out—from where, after all, are they pulled out? Since all dharmas are like a dream, like an echo, like a shadow, like a mirage, like an illusion, like a conjuration, beings must have some place where they abide before one can speak of pulling. This question turns the topic from ‘why practise’ to ‘where the practice is done’; it is the turning point in this chapter from principle into matters.

16. The Buddha answers: beings abide only within names and marks and the false recollection, imagining, and discrimination; therefore the bodhisattva pulls beings out from within the falseness of names and marks. The Buddha's answer is only one sentence: beings abide only within names and marks and the false recollection, imagining, and discrimination. Since where they abide is names and marks and recollection, imagining, and discrimination, what they are pulled out of likewise lies within the falseness of names and marks. This answer is extremely crucial—it gives the bodhisattva's practising of the path a definite place. Above it was said that dharmas, being like a conjuration, are unfindable; here it is said that beings have a solid place of clinging; although the place of clinging is not a real dharma, it is a real sickness. The bodhisattva practising prajñā does not work upon suchness; he works upon people's grasping at names and marks.

17. Subhūti asks what is a name and what is a mark. Since the Buddha has set up the two Chinese characters ‘name’ and ‘mark’ as the place out of which one is pulled, Subhūti at once asks for definitions: what is a name? What is a mark? In this treatise, whenever a load-bearing word appears in the sūtra without being defined, there is sure to be this question. The reader can learn its method here: when one meets a crucial point, first seek the definition, and do not explain it oneself from common sense.

18. The Buddha explains name: a forced and provisional setting-up; all dharmas of coming together are provisional names. The Buddha first explains name. A name is 「強作假施設」 tr. "a forced and provisional setting-up"—the two Chinese characters ‘forced’ are the weightiest; they say that a name is not originally present in the thing, but is forcibly added by people. Then he lists what is set up: this form, this feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; this man, this woman; this large, this small; this hell, this animal, this hungry ghost; this human, this god; this conditioned, this unconditioned; these four fruits of the śramaṇa, the path of the pratyekabuddha, this Buddha path. This string starts from the five aggregates, passes through man and woman, large and small, the rising and sinking of the six destinies, the conditioned and the unconditioned, and is ranged all the way to the four fruits and the Buddha path—even the most honoured of names are among the provisional settings-up. Next comes the general rule: all dharmas of coming together are provisional names; by the name one takes dharmas, therefore it is a name. Next comes the form of the sickness: all conditioned dharmas have only names and marks, and ordinary foolish people give rise to clinging within them. Last comes the bodhisattva's use: practising prajñā, because of the power of skilful means, he teaches them within names to be far from them, and the words of his teaching are recorded: 「諸眾生！是名但有空名，虛妄憶想分別中生，汝等莫著虛妄憶想！此事本末皆無，自性空故，智者所不著。」 tr. "Beings! This name has only an empty name; it is born within false recollection, imagining, and discrimination. Do not cling to false recollection! This matter is entirely without root or branch; because it is empty of self-nature, the wise do not cling to it." There are two parts to look at in these words: the first part breaks the reality of names; the latter part points out what the wise do not cling to—what they do not cling to is false recollection, not the speaking of names.

19. The Buddha explains mark: the two kinds, the mark of form and the mark of the formless; he teaches beings to be far from the two marks and abide within the signless nature. Next he explains mark. Marks are of two kinds, the places where ordinary people cling: first, the mark of form; second, the mark of the formless. What is called the mark of form is that all form, whether coarse or subtle, whether fair or ugly, is empty, and yet within this empty dharma, by recollection, imagining, and discrimination, a clinging mind arises; what is called the mark of the formless is that the formless dharmas are recollected, imagined, and discriminated, and because one grasps at marks with a clinging mind, afflictions arise. The definitions of the two kinds of marks use the same frame—both are empty, both arise from the clinging mind of recollection, imagining, and discrimination; the difference lies only in whether the object is form or not form. Therefore one knows that the sickness of marks lies not in the object, but in the clinging mind that takes the object. Finally it is said that the bodhisattva, by the power of skilful means, teaches beings to be far from these marks and settles them within the signless dharma, so that they do not fall into the two dharmas 「是相、是無相」 tr. "of mark and of signlessness", and abide within the signless nature. Here one must take note: what one is far from is marks, and what one abides in is the signless nature; if one sets up signlessness as a separate thing to abide in, that is exactly the 「墮二法」 tr. "falling into the two dharmas" that the sūtra text blocks.

20. Subhūti objects: if all dharmas have only names and marks, how does he benefit himself, teach others to obtain the good benefit, and make the grounds complete so that they obtain the three vehicles? Once the teaching on names and marks is set up, a difficulty at once arises. Since all dharmas are only names and marks, how can the bodhisattva practising prajñā himself obtain benefit, and also teach others to obtain the good benefit? And how can he make the grounds complete, going from one ground to another ground, teaching and transforming beings so that they obtain the three vehicles? This objection has the same frame as passage 9 but lands on matters and marks: the earlier objection asked about the work of practising the path; this objection asks about the effect of practising the path.

21. The Buddha answers: precisely because there is no real root-substance and only names and marks, he can make the perfections complete—thirteen times in a row, because of signlessness. The Buddha's way of answering is to use the difficulty the other way round. First he sets up the negative side: if dharmas at root were fixedly existent and not only names and marks, then when practising prajñā he could not benefit himself, nor could he benefit others. Next he sets up the positive side: dharmas have no real root-substance and have only names and marks; therefore he can make complete dhyānapāramitā, because of signlessness; vīrya, kṣānti, śīla, and dāna, because of signlessness; the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, because of signlessness; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, because of signlessness; inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, because of signlessness; the eight liberations, the nine successive absorptions, because of signlessness; the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, because of signlessness. In this section the phrase 「無相故」 tr. "because of signlessness" is stacked up thirteen times, each sentence returning the ground of making complete to one and the same place. Here the reader should see the intent of the sūtra text: it is not saying that signlessness does not hinder making complete; it is saying that only because of signlessness can one make complete. At the end a sentence of proof by the contrary is added: if the marks of dharmas really existed even so much as a hair's breadth, the bodhisattva practising prajñā could not know that dharmas are signless and without recollecting and so obtain awakening, nor could he teach beings so that they obtain the dharmas without outflows; why?—because all dharmas without outflows are signless and without recollecting. The two Chinese characters ‘a hair's breadth’ speak of measuring down to the smallest point, meaning that if even a trace of real existence is left, the whole does not hold.

22. Subhūti objects: if all dharmas are signless and without recollecting, how is it that one counts out: this is the dharma of the śrāvakas, the dharma of the pratyekabuddhas, the dharma of the bodhisattvas, the dharma of the Buddha? Once signlessness has become the general rule, the names of the stations become a problem: if all dharmas are signless and without recollecting, then from where are the differences of the four kinds of dharmas established? This objection is not forced argument; it is the doubt that anyone who reads up to 「一切法無相」 tr. "all dharmas are signless" will give rise to—if they are truly signless, would not the distinction between sage and ordinary become empty talk?

23. The Buddha asks in return whether the signless dharma differs from the dharma of the śrāvakas, and Subhūti twice answers that it does not. The Buddha still uses questions in return. First he asks whether the signless dharma differs from the dharma of the śrāvakas, and the answer is that it does not; then he asks whether the signless dharma differs from the dharma of the pratyekabuddhas, the dharma of the bodhisattvas, the dharma of the Buddha, and the answer is again that it does not. Between the two questions and two answers not a single word of explanation is placed. Here the sūtra text does not give the speakers' names; the Buddha and Subhūti follow on from each other. The reader should take note that these two 「不也」 tr. "it does not" are spoken by the questioner himself—so the conclusion below is not added from outside.

24. The Buddha asks further whether the signless dharma is precisely the four fruits and so on up to the dharma of the Buddha, and Subhūti answers that it is so. The two questions above asked 「異不」 tr. "does it differ"; this question asks ‘is it precisely’. Advancing from not differing to being precisely is one layer more. Subhūti answers 「如是！世尊！」 tr. "It is so! World-Honored One!". At this point, between signlessness and the three vehicles and four fruits, both faces, differing and being precisely, have been settled by the questioner's own mouth.

25. The Buddha concludes: all dharmas are signless; training in the signlessness of all dharmas, one obtains the increase of wholesome dharmas; training in the three gates of liberation, one can train in the five aggregates and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas. The Buddha concludes on the basis of what came above: by reason of these causes and conditions, one should know that all dharmas are signless. At once he turns out the gate of practice: the bodhisattva trains in this signlessness of all dharmas and obtains the increase of wholesome dharmas—the six perfections, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas. Why? The bodhisattva does not take the other dharmas as essential, as he does the three gates of liberation, namely emptiness, the signless, and non-action. What is the reason? All wholesome dharmas enter into the three gates of liberation. Next he defines the three gates one by one: all dharmas are empty of specific marks: this is called the gate of liberation of emptiness; all dharmas are signless: this is called the gate of liberation of the signless; all dharmas have the mark of being without making and non-rising: this is called the gate of liberation of non-action. Finally he says that if one trains in the three gates of liberation, then at this time one can train in the marks of the five aggregates, the marks of the twelve sense-fields, the marks of the eighteen elements, the four noble truths, the dharma of the twelve-part causes and conditions, inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the six perfections, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas. This section is the bridge in this chapter by which 「無相」 tr. "signlessness" leads through to 「遍學」 tr. "training in all": signlessness is not paring away what is trained in; it is gathering all that is trained in into the three gates. That the three gates are essential has its ground in the sentence 「一切善法皆入」 tr. "all wholesome dharmas enter", not in the three gates themselves being higher.

26. Subhūti asks how one can train in the marks of the five aggregates of clinging. Since the Buddha has said that training in the three gates of liberation one can train in the marks of the five aggregates, Subhūti asks for the details: when the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā, how can he train in the marks of the five aggregates of clinging? This question opens out the long section below teaching the five aggregates—the most concrete section of this chapter, and also the one most convenient to rely on in cultivating contemplation.

27. The Buddha answers: he knows the mark of form, knows the arising and ceasing of form, knows the suchness of form, and brings out the simile of foam and the teaching that suchness means true to reality and not false. The Buddha breaks 「學五陰相」 tr. "training in the marks of the five aggregates" into three matters: knowing the mark, knowing the arising and ceasing, knowing the suchness. Knowing the mark of form is knowing that form is ultimately empty, its inner parts differing, hollow and without substance, as foam on water has no solidity. Knowing the arising and ceasing of form is that when form arises it comes from nowhere, and when it goes it arrives nowhere; if it neither comes nor goes, this is knowing the mark of the arising and ceasing of form. Knowing the suchness of form is that this suchness of form is unarisen and unceasing, neither coming nor going, neither increasing nor decreasing, neither stained nor pure. At the end a sentence is added explaining the word ‘suchness’: 「如名如實不虛，如前，後、中亦爾，常不異」 tr. "what is called suchness is true to reality and not false; as it is before, so it is after and in the middle, constantly not differing"—the meaning of suchness lies in not differing in the three limits of before, after, and middle, and this phrase will be used again at the end of the chapter, when the nature of dharmas is discussed as without difference before, after, and in the middle. The order of the three matters may not be reversed: first know the emptiness of its mark, next know that its arising and ceasing have no coming and going, and last know the immovability of its suchness.

28. He knows the mark of feeling as like a bubble on water, one arising, one ceasing. The simile for feeling takes the bubble on water: one arising, one ceasing, it breaks of itself without waiting for any outside force. The sickness of the mark of feeling lies in the speed of its arising and ceasing, which people do not notice; therefore the simile takes the bubble. The two matters of arising and ceasing and of suchness are worded as in the section on form—coming from nowhere, going and arriving nowhere; suchness is unarisen and unceasing and so on up to neither stained nor pure. From here on the sūtra text uses the same frame for the following four aggregates, changing only the simile; on this basis the reader can know for himself: the sicknesses of the five aggregates are different, but the way of contemplating them is the same.

29. He knows the mark of perception as like a mirage: water is unfindable, and yet falsely one gives rise to the perception of water. The simile for perception takes the mirage: seen from afar it looks like water; hurry towards it and it is not there; and yet within it people falsely give rise to the perception of water. This simile fits the sickness of perception most closely—perception does not arise with nothing to rely on; it arises relying on a mark that seems to exist; what it resembles never existed, yet what is perceived seems vividly present. The suchness in the section on perception has one sentence more, 「不轉於實相」 tr. "does not turn away from the real mark", which says that although perception turns, suchness does not turn with it.

30. He knows the mark of constructions as like a plantain: stripping it away leaf by leaf, one does not find a solid core. The simile for constructions takes the plantain: stripping it away one leaf after another, in the end no solid core is to be found. What this simile breaks is the view ‘within constructions there is a doer’. The action of stripping is itself the method of contemplation—it is not cutting it off with one stroke, but removing layer after layer and then knowing that there is no heart.

31. He knows the mark of consciousness as like a conjurer conjuring the four kinds of troops, which have no substance. The simile for consciousness takes the conjured troops: a conjurer conjures the four kinds of troops, elephants, horses, chariots, and foot-soldiers; their forms seem vividly present and yet they have no substance; consciousness too is like this. With this the five aggregates and five similes are complete: foam, bubble, mirage, plantain, conjured troops, going from outer to inner, from coarse to fine, and ending with conjuration—echoing from afar the simile of the conjured person at the head of the chapter, and also laying in advance the simile of the skilled conjurer at the end of the chapter.

32. He knows the sense-fields: the eye and so on up to the mind are empty of nature; form and so on up to dharmas are empty of nature. The five aggregates being done, he turns to the twelve sense-fields. The sūtra text is extremely brief: the eye, the nature of the eye is empty; and so on up to the mind, the nature of the mind is empty. Form, the nature of form is empty; and so on up to dharmas, the nature of dharmas is empty. Here no separate simile is set up; it is threaded through only with the one phrase ‘empty of nature’. The reason no further simile is needed is that the section on the five aggregates has already given a full account of the method of contemplation; the sense-fields and elements only change the object.

33. He knows the elements: the eye-element is empty, the form-element is empty, the eye-consciousness element is empty, and so on up to the mind-consciousness element. The eighteen elements are the same: the eye, the eye-element is empty; form, the form-element is empty; eye-consciousness, the eye-consciousness element is empty; and so on up to the mind-consciousness element, it is likewise. Faculty, object, and consciousness are each spoken of as empty, not allowing a meeting-place among the three to be left over as real. Taking this section together with the one above, one can know that what is called training in signlessness is, in matters, illuminating the emptiness of nature of the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements one by one; it is not that there is some separate signless realm to tend toward.

34. He knows the four noble truths: knowing the truth of suffering, he is far from two dharmas, not two and not different; the noble truth of suffering is precisely suchness. The way of speaking in the section on the four truths takes a turn. First it says that when knowing the noble truth of suffering he is far from two dharmas and knows the truth of suffering as not two and not different: this is called the noble truth of suffering; origination, cessation, and the path are likewise. Next it speaks of knowing the suchness of suffering—the noble truth of suffering is precisely suchness; suchness is precisely the noble truth of suffering. What is crucial in this section lies in the four Chinese characters 「遠離二法」 tr. "far from two dharmas": what one is far from is opposition such as suffering and non-suffering, knower and known; it is not that one may not speak of suffering. The noble truths at first sight are established by discrimination; here they are gathered in by non-duality, and yet their being truths is not abolished.

35. He knows the twelve links of causes and conditions: knowing the unarisen mark of the twelve links of causes and conditions. The twelve links of causes and conditions have only one sentence: knowing the unarisen mark of the twelve links of causes and conditions: this is called knowing the twelve links of causes and conditions. The dharma of causes and conditions originally takes arising as its meaning, and yet here it is known by the unarisen mark. One must see clearly that what is known is the 「相」 tr. "mark"—it is knowing that its mark of arising does not arise; it does not mean that there are no causes and conditions. This sentence is very short, yet it is the gathering-up of the preceding sections on the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements: even of the dharma most fit to be called arising, the mark of arising does not arise.

36. Subhūti objects: knowing dharmas by discriminating each one separately, will he not destroy the nature of dharmas by the nature of form, and so on up to destroying the nature of dharmas by the nature of the omniscience of all kinds? All the way above, he knows by discriminating each one separately—knowing form, knowing feeling, knowing the sense-fields, knowing the elements, knowing the truths, knowing dependent arising—and so Subhūti raises a doubt: discriminating each one separately like this, does one not destroy the nature of dharmas by the nature of form, and so on up to destroying the nature of dharmas by the nature of the omniscience of all kinds? This objection carries great weight: since it is said that all dharmas are signless and all enter signlessness, why are so many separate knowings allowed? The discussion of the nature of dharmas in the latter half of the whole chapter begins from this objection.

37. The Buddha answers: dharmas outside the nature of dharmas are unfindable, therefore it is not destroyed; the buddhas and the buddhas' disciples do not say that there are dharmas outside the nature of dharmas. The Buddha's answer uses a conditional sentence: if outside the nature of dharmas there were some further dharma, it ought to destroy the nature of dharmas. But dharmas outside the nature of dharmas are unfindable; therefore it is not destroyed. One must see clearly the form of this answer—it does not deny 「分別知」 tr. "knowing by discrimination"; it only denies 「法性外有法」 tr. "there being dharmas outside the nature of dharmas". The reason discrimination does not destroy the nature of dharmas is that of what is discriminated not one lies outside the nature of dharmas. Next comes the proof: because the buddhas and the buddhas' disciples know that dharmas outside the nature of dharmas are unfindable, they do not say that there are dharmas outside the nature of dharmas. Last comes the exhortation: the bodhisattva practising prajñā should train in the nature of dharmas. This phrase 「應學法性」 tr. "should train in the nature of dharmas" is precisely the cause of the next objection.

38. Subhūti objects: if one trains in the nature of dharmas, it is training in nothing. Since all dharmas do not go out of the nature of dharmas, and the nature of dharmas in turn has no nature to be found, is not what is called training in the nature of dharmas training in nothing? This objection is very sharp. It does not question the nature of dharmas; it questions whether the word 「學」 tr. "train" can still be established.

39. The Buddha answers: training in the nature of dharmas is training in all dharmas, because all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas. The Buddha's answer is only two sentences: if the bodhisattva trains in the nature of dharmas, he trains in all dharmas; why?—all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas. This turns the objection of 「無所學」 tr. "training in nothing" into the answer of 「遍學」 tr. "training in all": what is trained in has not become less; it cannot become any less.

40. Subhūti asks by reason of what causes and conditions all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas. Subhūti does not let go of that 「何以故」 tr. "why", and goes on to ask its causes and conditions. This question looks trivial, but in fact is necessary—if 「一切法即是法性」 tr. "all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas" is only made as a bare assertion, the hearer has no way to set his mind at rest; only with the following sentence of causes and conditions does one know the reason why.

41. The Buddha answers: all dharmas enter into the signless, unconditioned nature. The Buddha answers with great economy: all dharmas enter into the signless, unconditioned nature; by reason of these causes and conditions, training in the nature of dharmas is training in all dharmas. This answer joins the nature of dharmas to the signlessness of the first half of the chapter—the nature of dharmas is not another entity in a high place; it is precisely the signless, unconditioned nature spoken of all along above. Here the former and latter halves of the whole chapter unite into one meaning.

42. Subhūti's great question: if all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas, why train in the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds—nineteen questions in a row—and he himself states that within the nature of dharmas there are no such distinctions and that form is precisely the nature of dharmas. This is the longest question in the sūtra section of this chapter. He lists the items to be trained in all the way through: the six perfections, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, the four formless absorptions, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, the three gates of liberation, the eight liberations and the nine successive absorptions, the ten powers of the Buddha, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, and the eighteen unshared dharmas, the six supernormal powers, the thirty-two marks and the eighty minor marks, being born into great kṣatriya, brahmin, and householder families, being born in the six heavens of desire, being born in the Brahmā heaven and so on up to the Pure Abodes, being born in the sphere of boundless space · of boundless consciousness · of nothing whatsoever · of neither perception nor non-perception, the ground of the first arousing of intent and so on up to the tenth ground, the śrāvaka ground, the pratyekabuddha ground, and the bodhisattva's Dharma-position, bringing beings to accomplishment and purifying buddha-lands, all the dhāraṇī, delight in speaking, anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the omniscience of all kinds—the three Chinese characters 「何以學」 tr. "why train" are asked nineteen times in a row. Having finished asking, he himself states his grounds: within the nature of dharmas of all dharmas there are no such distinctions, so is the bodhisattva not falling into what is not the path? Within the nature of dharmas there is no form, no feeling, perception, constructions, or consciousness, and yet the nature of dharmas is also not far from form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; form is precisely the nature of dharmas, the nature of dharmas is precisely form, and feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are likewise. The length of this question is not wordiness: the wider the items listed, the less room there is to evade the objection ‘since they are precisely the nature of dharmas, why must one train further’. And the sentence 「色即是法性」 tr. "form is precisely the nature of dharmas" that he himself speaks at the end leaves exactly the place for the Buddha's answer to approve.

43. The Buddha approves his words and brings out a distinction: one who sees some dharma outside the nature of dharmas is not seeking awakening; knowing that the nature of all dharmas is precisely awakening, he speaks of the nameless and signless dharma by means of names and marks. The Buddha first approves with a repeated ‘just so’, and restates his words word for word: 「色即是法性，受、想、行、識即是法性。」 tr. "Form is precisely the nature of dharmas; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are precisely the nature of dharmas." Next he brings out the distinction—when the bodhisattva practises prajñā, if he sees some dharma outside the nature of dharmas, then he is not seeking anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Then he brings out the positive side: he knows that the nature of all dharmas is precisely anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; for this reason, having known that all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas, 「以無名相之法以名相說」 tr. "he speaks of the nameless and signless dharma by means of names and marks", namely: this is form, this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to: this is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This sentence is the whole chapter's proper answer to the objection ‘since they are precisely the nature of dharmas, why must one train further’: the items to be trained in are not set up separately outside the nature of dharmas; rather, the nameless and signless dharma is spoken of by means of names and marks. Here names and marks are no longer a sickness; they are an instrument for teaching the Dharma—read against the first half of the chapter's ‘ordinary people give rise to clinging within names and marks’, one can know that the sickness of names and marks lies not in names and marks but in clinging.

44. The simile of the skilled conjurer conjuring men and women, elephants and horses, and so on up to the thirty-two marks of a Buddha's body: those without wisdom praise him as very capable; those with wisdom know that there is no real matter. The Buddha goes on to bring out a great simile. A skilled conjurer, or a conjurer's disciple, standing in a place where many people are, conjures all kinds of shapes and colours: men and women, elephants and horses, gardens, lodging-halls, flowing springs and bathing pools, clothing and bedding, incense and flowers and necklaces, delicacies and food and drink, and many kinds of music to entertain the crowd; again he conjures people and causes them to practise the six perfections; again he conjures great kṣatriya, brahmin, and householder families, the gods of the six heavens of desire, the Heaven of the Brahmā Assembly and so on up to the heaven of neither perception nor non-perception, the four fruits and the pratyekabuddhas. Next the bodhisattva is set alongside it: from the first arousing of intent he practises the six perfections, practises the first ground and so on up to the tenth ground, enters the bodhisattva's position, sports in the supernormal powers, brings beings to accomplishment, purifies buddha-lands, sports in the dhyānas, liberations, and samādhis, practises the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion, and makes complete the thirty-two marks and eighty minor marks of a Buddha's body to show to the crowd. Last, two kinds of view are set side by side: people without wisdom praise him: 「未曾有！是人多能，巧為眾事，娛樂眾人，種種形色，乃至三十二相、八十隨形好莊嚴佛身。」 tr. "Such a thing has never been! This person is very capable, skilful at many things; he entertains the crowd with all kinds of shapes and colours, and so on up to adorning the body of a Buddha with the thirty-two marks and the eighty minor marks." Those with wisdom, however, reflect: 「未曾有也！是中無有實事，而以無所有法娛樂眾人，令有形相，無事事相，無有有相。」 tr. "Such a thing has never been! Herein there is no real matter, and yet with dharmas without anything existent he entertains the crowd, making there be shapes and marks; the mark of a matter where there is no matter, the mark of existence where there is no existence." Both sides say ‘such a thing has never been’, yet what they praise are two matters: one praises his capability, the other praises his being able though without substance. The sūtra text adds neither praise nor blame, and yet high and low show of themselves—this is a ready-made specimen in this chapter that teaches one to distinguish two kinds of praise.

45. The Buddha concludes: not seeing that there is any dharma apart from the nature of dharmas, he practises the six perfections, the ten wholesome paths, the five precepts, the eight precepts of the fast, the dhyānas, and the gates; because the nature of dharmas is without difference before, after, and in the middle, he can bring beings to accomplishment. The final section gathers up the sūtra. The bodhisattva does not see that apart from the nature of dharmas there is any dharma; practising prajñā, because of the power of skilful means, although he does not find beings, he himself practises and teaches others—giving, keeping morality, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom, each one practising himself, teaching others, praising its dharma, and joyfully praising those who practise it; again he himself practises the ten wholesome paths, the five precepts, and the eight precepts of the fast, himself practises the four dhyānas, kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity, the sphere of boundless space · of boundless consciousness · of nothing whatsoever · of neither perception nor non-perception, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, the three gates of liberation, the ten powers and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and also teaches others to practise them. The sentence pattern of this section is stacked up again and again, and what is stacked is exactly the four matters ‘practising oneself—teaching others—praising the dharma—praising the people’, which is the complete form of the bodhisattva's benefiting of others. Last comes the concluding sentence: if the nature of dharmas differed before, after, or in the middle, the bodhisattva could not by the power of skilful means display the nature of dharmas and bring beings to accomplishment; because the nature of dharmas is without difference before, after, and in the middle, therefore he practises prajñā and, for the sake of benefiting beings, practises the bodhisattva path. This answers head and tail to the phrase 「如前，後、中亦爾，常不異」 tr. "as it is before, so it is after and in the middle, constantly not differing" of passage 27—the not differing of suchness is exactly what makes practising the path possible.

46. The treatise-author asks: in chapter after chapter the Buddha speaks of penetrating the marks of dharmas; now why does Subhūti ask again? The treatise section sets up a question at its very start. What the treatise-author takes note of is the matter of asking again itself: in chapter after chapter the Buddha speaks of 「通達諸法相」 tr. "penetrating the marks of dharmas"; why does Subhūti in this chapter still ask again? Whenever one sees the treatise-author set up a question about a repeated phrase, one knows that the phrase is a load-bearing phrase in this collection, not a chance repetition.

47. The treatise-author answers: prajñā has no fixed mark and is without words and speech, so although heard repeatedly it is still not enough; and he brings out the simile of the calf and the sweet milk. The answer has two parts. The proper statement: prajñāpāramitā has no fixed mark; because it is without words and speech, although one hears it repeatedly it is still not enough; therefore he asks again. Next the simile: it is as a calf, though it has grown up, when the mother is good and her milk sweet, drinks and still does not stop; the Buddha's great kindness and compassion is like a good mother, prajñāpāramitā is like the sweet milk, Subhūti is like the calf: though he has heard the marks of dharmas repeatedly, he is still not sated. The four items in the simile are matched one by one, matched very neatly. The intent of this simile is not to say that Subhūti is greedy for more, but that the thing drunk itself has no principle of satiety—the Dharma has no fixed mark, so hearing has no place where it ends.

48. The treatise-author furthermore: only the Buddha's omniscience can penetrate the real mark of all dharmas; others, though they penetrate, cannot exhaust it to the end. The second reason is said by another road: only the Buddha's omniscience can penetrate the real mark of all dharmas; others, though they penetrate, cannot exhaust it to the end; therefore he asks. At the end a sentence of rhetorical question is added—the other bodhisattvas have not yet become buddhas; how could they penetrate it? This part and the preceding part do not hinder each other: the preceding part speaks of the inexhaustibility of the Dharma, this part of the incompleteness of the person. Only taking the two parts together does one know that the asking again is not for want of understanding, but because the understanding is not yet complete.

49. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answering with a simile: the conjured person has no three poisons and no mind or mental factors and yet can do things; the bodhisattva's body too is like this. The treatise-author explains the simile of the conjured person at the head of the chapter. First he describes the mark of the conjured person: it has no three poisons, afflictions, or fetters, has no mind or mental-factor dharmas, is not included among inner or outer dharmas or among dharmas with or without outflows, does not fall among the dharmas of ordinary people nor among the holy fruits, and one cannot say it is a srota-āpanna and so on. Next he turns out a part the sūtra text does not state openly: the conjured person 「亦能發他心善惡，所為變化事，必能令成就」 tr. "can also stir the good and evil in other people's minds, and the matters of conjuration it performs it can surely bring to accomplishment"—although the conjured person has no mind, it can stir the minds of others, and the conjurations it performs are sure to be accomplished. Last he sets the bodhisattva alongside it: the bodhisattva's body too is like this, without afflictions such as the three poisons; knowing that these mind and mental-factor dharmas are all born from the causes and conditions of the false, deceptive, and inverted dharmas of former lives, he does not believe them and does not follow after them; one who can practise thus thoroughly penetrates the marks of dharmas. This part fills out the most crucial side of the simile of the conjured person—the conjured person is not wholly unable to act; it is without mind and yet able to act. The solution to the objection of passage 9, 「菩薩有何等功用」 tr. "what kind of work does the bodhisattva have to do", is already laid down in advance here.

50. The treatise-author explains Subhūti's question: though he knows emptiness well, he asks because he prizes, reveres, and honours the Buddha-dharma and cannot set a measure to the Buddha-dharma. The treatise-author goes on to explain the reason for Subhūti's question in the sūtra whether all dharmas such as form are empty and like a conjuration. He says that Subhūti, though he knows emptiness well, asks the Buddha because he prizes, reveres, and honours the Buddha-dharma and cannot set a measure to the Buddha-dharma. These words are very fine: it is not that Subhūti does not know emptiness; it is that he does not dare to state in full on the Buddha's behalf the measure of the Buddha-dharma. The motive of the question lies in reverence, not in doubt.

51. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's answer and brings out the simile of the lion not prizing its own strength. Having stated the Buddha's answer 「一切色等法皆如化」 tr. "all dharmas such as form are like a conjuration", the treatise-author at once explains one layer of meaning in it: you, because you prize the Buddha-dharma, do not dare to say that they are empty; I, because of omniscience, can say that dharmas are empty. And he brings out a simile: as other people prize the lion's strength, while the lion itself does not prize its strength. What the simile points to is very precise—the one who can speak need not esteem his own ability, precisely because it is his proper business. Here the reader can know this treatise's way of explaining the sūtra: it explains not only the meaning of what is said, but also the mind of the one who speaks.

52. The treatise-author states Subhūti's objection: if all dharmas are ultimately empty and all like a conjuration, why does the Buddha praise the bodhisattva's merits in all kinds of ways? Here the treatise-author changes the face of the objection in the sūtra: he does not ask 「菩薩有何等功用」 tr. "what kind of work does the bodhisattva have to do", but asks 「佛何以種種讚菩薩功德」 tr. "why does the Buddha praise the bodhisattva's merits in all kinds of ways", and adds of his own the items praised—that because of the bodhisattva the three evil destinies are cut off, and he can pull beings out and cause them to obtain nirvāṇa. This question is a framed question the treatise-author sets up in taking up the sūtra, not the sūtra's own sentence; its intent is to turn the objection in the sūtra toward praise, so that the answer that follows comes closer to human feeling.

53. The treatise-author states the Buddha's question in return: when the bodhisattva originally practised the bodhisattva path, did he see any fixed beings pulled out from among the five destinies? The treatise-author states it according to the question in return in the sūtra, only the wording reads 「見定有眾生」 tr. "see any fixed beings"—adding one character 「定」 tr. "fixed", which places the weight of the question on whether there is a fixed, really existing one who is delivered. This character is the treatise-author's pen in explaining the sūtra; on its basis the reader can know what the question 「頗見有眾生」 tr. "did he ever see any beings" in the sūtra is asking.

54. Subhūti answers ‘No’; the treatise-author states that the Buddha approves his meaning and brings out that when obtaining the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas he knows and sees all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration. The treatise-author states that Subhūti answers 「無也」 tr. "No", and that the Buddha approves his meaning and says why—when the bodhisattva obtains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, he knows and sees all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration. Here there is one part more than in the sūtra text, 「得無生法忍時」 tr. "when he obtains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas", which is the treatise-author pointing out where the rank of this knowing lies: it does not speak broadly of all bodhisattvas; it speaks of those who have obtained the acceptance. With a rank given, the earlier 「見知一切法如幻、如化」 tr. "sees and knows all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration" will not be read as ready-made in everyone.

55. Subhūti asks again for the sake of what matter the bodhisattva practises the six perfections and so on; the treatise-author states the Buddha's answer that if beings themselves knew, the bodhisattva would have nowhere to apply his effort. The treatise-author states the third objection in the sūtra and the Buddha's answer, the wording reading 「菩薩則無功夫」 tr. "the bodhisattva would have nowhere to apply his effort"—the two Chinese characters ‘effort’ are the treatise-author's present-day word, meaning the place where effort is applied. This answer has the same meaning as the sūtra text's 「終不於阿僧祇劫為眾生行菩薩道」 tr. "would never practise the bodhisattva path for the sake of beings through asaṃkhyeya kalpas", and is plainer.

56. The treatise-author furthermore: dharmas are neither real nor empty, passing beyond all paths of words; beings, not knowing, produce evil deeds; the bodhisattva, knowing the real mark, gives rise to the mind of great compassion; and he brings out the simile of the blind son drinking poison. Beyond the sūtra's answer the treatise-author brings out a layer of his own. First he sets up a sentence of very strict measure: if dharmas were fixedly of the mark of emptiness, then the bodhisattva would have nowhere to apply his effort; one should know that dharmas are neither real nor empty, passing beyond all paths of words, the mark of ultimate emptiness and quiescence. These words are the most crucial blocking statement in the treatise section of this chapter—they block at once both sides, 「實」 tr. "real" and 「決定空」 tr. "fixedly empty", so that the earlier ‘like a conjuration’ does not fall into an annihilating emptiness. Next he describes beings' sickness: not knowing this matter, they give rise to the mind of I and self, produce evil and sinful deeds, and receive immeasurable suffering. Next he brings out the bodhisattva's mind: knowing the real mark of all dharmas, he gives rise to the mind of great compassion. Last he brings out the simile: as an elder has a son who is blind and drinks poison; the elder knows he will surely die, and sets up all kinds of skilful means to block him and stop him drinking; the bodhisattva, seeing that beings, because they are blinded by inversion and ignorance, drink the three poisons, then gives rise to the mind of great compassion, and through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas cultivates the six perfections, purifies buddha-lands, and teaches and transforms beings. The three items in the simile each have their match: the blindness is ignorance, the poison is the three poisons, the elder's skilful means are the six perfections and the purifying of lands and teaching and transforming. This simile makes the phrase of passage 14, 「眾生自不知」 tr. "beings themselves do not know", solid as a visible scene.

57. The treatise-author states Subhūti's further question in what place beings abide, and explains his meaning as a person sunk in deep mud being pulled out. The treatise-author states the question in the sūtra, and adds a sentence about the working of his mind in asking so: Subhūti's meaning is as a person sunk in deep mud being pulled out. This added sentence is very useful—it shows that in Subhūti's mind there was originally an image of ‘something really sunk, something really pulled out’, and only then does the Buddha's answer below, 「但住名相虛誑憶想分別中」 tr. "abide only within names and marks and false, deceptive recollection, imagining, and discrimination", show its power as a remedy.

58. The treatise-author states the Buddha's answer that beings abide only within names and marks and false, deceptive recollection, imagining, and discrimination. The treatise-author states it according to the sūtra, only where the sūtra reads 「虛妄」 tr. "false" this reads 「虛誑」 tr. "false and deceptive". The two words point to the same thing but differ on the surface, and in the treatise section from here on several places all use ‘false and deceptive’. Here the reader need not suspect a mismatch—the treatise-author's writing has its own habitual words, and what they point to is still the meaning in the sūtra.

59. The treatise-author explains the Buddha's meaning and brings out the two similes of seeing a person in the dark and the evil dog barking at its shadow. The treatise-author explains the meaning of this answer of the Buddha: within all dharmas there is nothing fixed and real; it is only because ordinary people are false and deceptive that they cling. Next he brings out two similes. The first: as a person in the dark sees something resembling a person, takes it for a real person, and gives rise to fear—what is feared never existed, yet the fear arises of itself. The second: as an evil dog facing a well barks at its own shadow; there is no dog in the water, only its image, yet it gives rise to an evil mind, throws itself into the well, and dies—what it hates is its own shadow, and yet the harm reaches its own body. Of the two similes one is fear and one is hatred, matching exactly the two kinds of sickness of ordinary people's clinging to marks. Last he sets body and consciousness alongside them: because of the coming together of the four elements it is named a body; from causes and conditions consciousness arises, and because of coming together there is movement and speech; ordinary people give rise within this to the mark of a person, give rise to craving, give rise to hatred, produce sinful deeds, and fall into the three evil destinies. From simile into dharma, what is broken is the view ‘where things come together there is a person’.

60. The treatise-author states that the bodhisattva by all kinds of causes and conditions teaches and transforms them, causing them to know the empty dharma, and so pulls them out. The treatise-author describes the bodhisattva's practice: when practising prajñā he pities beings, teaches and transforms them by all kinds of causes and conditions, causes them to know the empty dharma and so pulls them out, and speaks thus—these dharmas are all ultimately empty, without anything existent; because beings are inverted and false, they see them as seeming to exist, like a conjuration, like an illusion, like a city of the gandharvas, without any real matter, only deceiving people's eyes. Here the four Chinese characters 「見似如有」 tr. "see them as seeming to exist" come from the preceding simile of seeing something resembling a person in the dark; simile and dharma are dovetailed here. The last phrase 「但誑惑人眼」 tr. "only deceiving people's eyes" says that what is deceived lies in the eye, not in the thing—the sickness is still returned to the one who sees.

61. The treatise-author furthermore: all dharmas come only from the coming together of names, and there are further other names; he breaks the body down to atoms. The treatise-author starts another layer, specifically explaining the provisionality of names. He uses a method of taking apart layer by layer: because head, feet, belly, and spine come together, it is provisionally named a body; because head-hair, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, and bone come together, it is provisionally named a head; because many hairs come together, it is named head-hair; because part upon part comes together, it is provisionally named a hair; because atoms come together, it is named a part of a hair; and again because parts come together, it is named an atom. From body to head to head-hair to hair to part of a hair to atom, he analyses all the way down to the finest point. What is essential in this section lies not in the analysing but in what to do with that ‘finest point’ after analysing to the bottom—the two rounds of question and answer below are set up for exactly this.

62. The treatise-author asks: the atom is the most minute and cannot be divided into parts; having no parts, it has no coming together; this then is a fixed dharma. This is the first investigation, which the sūtra text does not have and the treatise-author sets up himself. The objector says: because the atom is the most minute, it cannot be further divided into parts; having no parts, it has no coming together; this then is a fixed dharma; since there is a fixed dharma, one cannot say that all is empty and there is no fixed dharma. This objection is very sharp—since above all things were broken by coming together and provisional naming, if the very last item cannot be broken further, then the whole method of breaking snaps off at its end. The treatise-author does not evade it but takes it head-on.

63. The treatise-author answers: if the atom is form it ought to have parts; because it has the ten directions it has ten parts; if it has no parts, it is not form. The answer uses two cuts. The first cut: if the atom is form, it ought to have parts; why?—all forms are within space and all have the ten directions; if the atom is form, it has ten parts; if it has ten parts, how could it be the ultimately minute? The second cut: if, as you say, the atom has no parts, then it is not form; why?—because it has gone out from the mark of form. The two cuts close into a dilemma: say it is form, and it has ten directions and ten parts and does not make an ultimate minimum; say it has no parts, and it is not form and does not make a particle. This section's reasoning does not borrow from other sūtras; it uses only the one principle ‘form necessarily has directional parts’, and so it is extremely simple and extremely tight.

64. The treatise-author again furthermore: form is what the five sense-faculties apprehend; if the atom is not what the five sense-faculties apprehend, one cannot know it is form; even coarse form can be broken, how much more what cannot be seen or touched. The third cut comes down from the side of cognition. That form is form is because the five sense-faculties can apprehend it; if the atom is not apprehended by the five sense-faculties, from where would one know that it is form? Therefore the atom has only an empty name. At the end a sentence is added reasoning from the coarse to the fine: even the coarse form the eye sees can be broken and made empty—how much more what cannot be seen and cannot be touched. These words are the treatise-author's habitual method of raising the heavy to show the light—once the heavy case raised has been broken, the light one does not wait to be broken separately.

65. The treatise-author asks: because the atom is minute the five sense-faculties cannot apprehend it; sages who obtain the divine eye then see it. The second investigation. The objector steps back a pace; he no longer speaks of the five sense-faculties but brings up the divine eye instead: because the atom is minute the five sense-faculties cannot apprehend it, but sages who obtain the divine eye then see it. This objection moves the point of dispute to the height or lowness of the one who sees—you say the five sense-faculties do not apprehend it; what about a higher eye?

66. The treatise-author answers: since what the divine eye sees is the mark of form, it ought to have parts; if it has no parts it is not form and the divine eye does not see it; therefore the sages contemplate the world with the wisdom-eye and only then obtain the path. The answer still uses the same principle and does not set up a new one: although what the divine eye sees is minute, because it is the mark of form, it ought to have parts; if it has no parts it is not form, and if it is not form the divine eye does not see it. Therefore the divine eye too is a false and deceptive seeing. Last comes the positive side: for this reason the sages contemplate the world with the wisdom-eye, and then obtain the path. The measure of this answer must be seen clearly—what is broken is not whether the divine eye exists, but taking what the divine eye sees as real. The difference between the wisdom-eye and the divine eye lies not in seeing more finely, but in not taking what is seen as real.

67. The treatise-author concludes: the atom has only a name and no substance, so all dharmas, from the coming together of names, further have provisional names; if one gives up false and deceptive names and marks and does not cling to the empty dharma, one receives the permanence and bliss of nirvāṇa. The two investigations finished, the treatise-author gathers up: the atom, as said before, has only a name and no substance; since the atom does not exist, all dharmas, because of the coming together of names, further have provisional names; there is nothing real and fixed, and yet beings falsely give rise to greed and clinging; because of the causes and conditions of greed and hatred they produce evil deeds and through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas suffer in the three evil destinies. Next, with one sentence, he shows their folly by contrast: if dharmas were real and fixed, still one ought not to make them the sinful causes and conditions of greed and hatred—how much less what is false, deceptive, and without substance. Last comes the way out: one who can give up false and deceptive names and marks and does not cling to the empty dharma then receives the permanence and bliss of nirvāṇa. This last sentence has a twofold distinction—both giving up names and marks and not clinging to the empty dharma; giving up only one side does not count.

68. The treatise-author asks: what difference is there between name and mark? The third round of question and answer, again one the sūtra text does not have and the treatise-author sets up himself. In the sūtra the Buddha has already explained name and mark separately, but has not said how the two differ; the treatise-author asks out this seam on the reader's behalf. Wherever this treatise asks the difference between two terms raised side by side, it is mostly a fine and essential point of that section.

69. The treatise-author answers: a name is the designation of a crowd of things; a mark is as seeing smoke and knowing fire; heat is the substance of fire. The answer takes fire as the example and divides three matters. A name is the designation of a crowd of things, as a hot thing is designated fire—a name is a designation added onto the thing. A mark is as when one sees smoke and knows the mark of fire—a mark is the sign by which the thing is known. Heat is the substance of fire—substance is the thing itself. Name, mark, and substance, the three, are made clear at one time: the name lies in speech, the mark in the sign, the substance in the thing. This example is extremely shallow yet divides things extremely clearly.

70. The treatise-author furthermore: within the coming together of the five aggregates, man and woman are the name; that the bodily appearance can be distinguished is the mark; because one sees the mark one makes a name. The second example takes a person. Within the coming together of the five aggregates, man and woman are the name; by the bodily appearance one can distinguish man and woman, and this is the mark; because one sees this mark one makes a name, naming it man or woman. This example goes one step further than the example of fire—it points out where a name arises from: first there is a mark that can be distinguished, and afterwards a name is set up. The judgement below, 「相為本，名為末」 tr. "the mark is the root, the name the branch", comes out from here.

71. The treatise-author asks: if so, name and mark have no difference; because one sees the mark one obtains the name, because one knows the name one obtains the mark. The objector seizes on the example above and reasons back: since because one sees the mark one obtains the name, and because one knows the name one obtains the mark, the two are causes of each other, and so there is no difference. This objection is set up following the form of the answer; it is not a forced objection—wherever a relation of mutually giving rise appears in an answer, this objection is there.

72. The treatise-author answers: first one sees the appearance of man or woman, and afterwards names it man or woman; the mark is the root, the name the branch. The answer is only one rhetorical question plus one judgement: do you not understand what I said? First one sees the appearance of man or woman, and afterwards names it man or woman; the mark is the root, the name the branch. What is broken is the symmetry within ‘being causes of each other’: obtaining the mark by knowing the name is a later matter; obtaining the name by seeing the mark is the original order. Once root and branch are divided, the difference of the two is established.

73. The treatise-author again furthermore: when a person's eye sees form, he partially grasps the mark of what he likes and gives rise to clinging; what can give rise to a stained and clinging mind is named a mark. The treatise-author adds one more meaning, moving the definition of mark from cognition onto the afflictions: as when a person's eye sees form, he partially grasps the mark of what he likes and gives rise to clinging, while for other people it is not so; because it can give rise to a stained and clinging mind, it is named a mark. This meaning is very crucial—with one and the same form, clinging arises in this person and does not arise in that one, from which one can know that the mark is not fixed upon the thing; it is named by reference to the place where a stained and clinging mind can arise. This sentence and the sūtra's 「是空法中憶想分別著心，是名為色相」 tr. "within this empty dharma, recollecting, imagining, and discriminating, one gives rise to a clinging mind: this is called the mark of form" seal each other exactly.

74. The treatise-author furthermore: herein the Buddha himself states the distinction between name and mark; a name is a provisional name, by the name one takes dharmas. At the end the treatise-author returns to the sūtra: herein the Buddha himself states the distinction between name and mark—「名者假名，以名取諸法。」 tr. "A name is a provisional name; by the name one takes dharmas." As spoken of at length in the sūtra. Whenever the treatise-author has brought out several explanations of his own, he is sure to settle them by the sūtra text; this is his constant method. Here the reader can know that the three preceding explanations are all auxiliary, and what the Buddha himself states in the sūtra is primary.

75. The treatise-author states Subhūti's question how, if there are only names and marks, he benefits himself and benefits others, and the Buddha's answer that if dharmas were at root fixedly existent he could not. The treatise-author takes up the objection and answer in the sūtra and slightly abridges them: Subhūti asks, if all dharmas have only names and marks, how the bodhisattva benefits himself and benefits others; the Buddha answers that if dharmas were at root fixedly existent, the bodhisattva practising prajñā could not benefit himself and benefit others. Here the speaker labels are set according to the sūtra, but the words taken up are already the treatise-author's abridged statement, not the sūtra text word for word.

76. The treatise-author explains why: if the nature were fixed and really existent, that would be non-arising; because of non-arising there would be non-ceasing; because of non-ceasing there would be no sin or merit. This is the tightest piece of reasoning in the treatise section of this chapter. If the nature of dharmas were fixedly and really existent, that would be non-arising—because the nature would already be fixedly existent beforehand. If this dharma arises from the coming together of causes and conditions, then it has no fixed nature. If the nature were fixedly existent, it would not need the coming together of causes and conditions; if so, there would be non-arising; because of non-arising there would be non-ceasing; because of non-ceasing there would be no sin or merit. Next he speaks from the reverse side of why practice is possible: because one knows impermanence, one gives up sin and cultivates merit; if it were permanent, there would be no bondage and release, no world, no nirvāṇa, and so on. Last he cites the sūtra to settle it: therefore the Buddha tells Subhūti 「若法定有、非但名相者，菩薩不行般若波羅蜜自利、利人，不行禪波羅蜜等自利、利人。無相故，是菩薩自具足是善法，亦以善法利益眾生，以無相故。」 tr. "If dharmas were fixedly existent and not only names and marks, the bodhisattva could not practise prajñāpāramitā and benefit himself and benefit others, could not practise dhyānapāramitā and the rest and benefit himself and benefit others. Because of signlessness, this bodhisattva himself makes complete these wholesome dharmas, and also benefits beings with wholesome dharmas, all because of signlessness." The direction of this section must be seen accurately: it is not saying that if fixedly existent the dharma would not be established; it is saying that if fixedly existent, practice would not be established—with no arising and no ceasing, there is no sin or merit to turn; with no sin or merit to turn, the two matters of benefiting oneself and benefiting others are both cut off.

77. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's words about a hair's breadth and explains sitting at the seat of awakening contemplating the foremost true reality: with the slightest error one would not obtain awakening. The treatise-author takes up the passage about a hair's breadth in the sūtra as 「佛告須菩提」 tr. "the Buddha tells Subhūti" and states its meaning, then at once explains it himself: when this bodhisattva sits at the seat of awakening, he contemplates all dharmas as the foremost true reality; if there were the slightest error, he ought not to obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor could he proclaim this empty and signless dharma for beings. At the end a rhetorical question is added: if dharmas were fixedly existent, how would the Buddha deceive beings, saying 「一切法無漏、無相、無憶念」 tr. "All dharmas are without outflows, signless, and without recollecting"? This rhetorical question pushes the point of dispute to its extreme—if dharmas were fixedly existent, what the Buddha says would become a deceiving word; since the Buddha does not deceive, dharmas are not fixedly existent.

78. The treatise-author asks: among the four truths three truths all have marks; only the truth of cessation is signless, and it too has recollecting; why say that all dharmas without outflows are signless and without recollecting? The fourth round of question and answer, an objection put very solidly. The objector says: the truth of suffering has the mark of suffering, the truth of origination has the mark of origination, the truth of the path has the mark of the path; only the truth of cessation is signless; and the truth of cessation too has recollecting—it is the signless nirvāṇa. This being so, how can one say that all dharmas without outflows are signless and without recollecting? What this objection relies on is the common teaching of the four truths, so it may not be answered lightly with a sentence about the meaning of emptiness.

79. The treatise-author answers: the dharma of the Mahāyāna differs from the dharma of the śrāvakas; within the dharma of the Mahāyāna it is said that all dharmas without outflows are signless and without recollecting. The first answer first divides the schools: the dharma of the Mahāyāna differs from the dharma of the śrāvakas; within the dharma of the Mahāyāna it is said 「一切無漏法，無相、無憶念」 tr. "All dharmas without outflows are signless and without recollecting". This answer is not suppressing the objection by school; it first points out that the teaching the objector relies on comes from the dharma of the śrāvakas, while what this treatise establishes lies in the dharma of the Mahāyāna—what the two sides rely on is different, and this must first be made clear before reasons can be discussed. The two furthermores below are the positive reasons.

80. The treatise-author furthermore: whatever has marks and has recollecting is all false, deceptive, and not real; this is the outflow of the afflictions—how could it be without outflows? The second answer starts from the meaning of ‘without outflows’: whatever has marks and has recollecting is all false, deceptive, and not real; if false, deceptive, and not real, it is the outflow of the afflictions—how could it be without outflows? This reasoning is extremely simple and extremely sharp—it does not dispute whether the three truths have marks or not, but asks straight out: since whatever has marks and recollecting belongs to the false and deceptive, and the false and deceptive is outflow, the phrase ‘a dharma without outflows that has marks’ contradicts itself.

81. The treatise-author furthermore: the three truths all follow the truth of cessation; seeing suffering one gives it up, seeing origination one severs it, seeing the path one tends toward cessation and does not abide in the path; the cessation of exhaustion is the master. The third answer deals head-on with the three truths. The three truths all follow the truth of cessation—seeing suffering one gives it up, seeing origination one severs it, and one does not say that it is real and fixed; seeing the path is for the sake of tending toward cessation, and one does not abide in this path either; the cessation of exhaustion is the master. Since each of the three truths does not stop at itself, its mark is not a mark that can be abided in. Next he explains the truth of cessation's being without recollecting: it is the dharma of the cessation of exhaustion, signless and without object—how could it have recollecting? Recollecting all takes marks as its object and clings to dharmas. This sentence states fixedly the conditions under which recollecting is established: recollecting must take marks as its object and cling to dharmas; since there is neither mark nor object, recollecting has nothing from which to arise. What the objector called ‘the truth of cessation too has recollecting’ is resolved of itself here.

82. The treatise-author concludes: therefore dharmas without outflows are all signless and without recollecting. The three answers being complete, the treatise-author gathers up with one sentence: therefore dharmas without outflows are all signless and without recollecting. This sentence is very short but its position is crucial—it is the verdict on the whole preceding round of question and answer, and also the premise on which Subhūti's meaning in the next section rests.

83. The treatise-author explains Subhūti's meaning: if the dharma without outflows is the foremost reality and signless, then the nature of all dharmas too ought to be signless; it is because ordinary people are inverted that there are marks. Here the treatise-author states not his words but his meaning: Subhūti's meaning is that if the dharma without outflows is the foremost reality, signless and without recollecting, then the nature of all dharmas too ought to be signless and without recollecting; only because ordinary people are inverted are there marks and recollecting. This is the treatise-author supplying on the reader's behalf the line of reasoning behind a question in the sūtra. With this part, the question in the sūtra, 「云何數是聲聞法、是辟支佛法、是菩薩法、是佛法」 tr. "how is it that one counts out: this is the dharma of the śrāvakas, this is the dharma of the pratyekabuddhas, this is the dharma of the bodhisattvas, this is the dharma of the Buddha", does not arise out of nowhere; it is a doubt born from following the preceding conclusion through to the end.

84. The treatise-author states the Buddha's question in return whether the dharmas of the three vehicles differ from the signless dharma, and Subhūti's answer that the three vehicles do not differ from the signless dharma. The treatise-author takes up the question in return in the sūtra, and supplies on Subhūti's behalf the reason for his answer: the extinction of the afflictions is severance, severance is the unconditioned dharma, and he also knows that the truth of cessation and the truth of the path are without outflows and signless; therefore he says 「三乘不異無相法」 tr. "the three vehicles do not differ from the signless dharma". In the sūtra there are only the two Chinese characters 「不也」 tr. "it does not"; the treatise-author supplies the ground behind these two characters—from the extinction of the afflictions he reasons to severance, from severance to the unconditioned, from the unconditioned to being without outflows and signless. Supplying without altering is this treatise's constant measure in explaining the sūtra.

85. The treatise-author states the Buddha's further question whether the srota-āpanna and so on up to the Buddha are precisely the signless dharma, the answer ‘yes’, and himself brings out that it is precisely because of signlessness that there are the paths of the three vehicles. The treatise-author takes up the second question and answer in the sūtra, and at the end of the answer adds a distinction the sūtra text does not have: if they are signless, how do you object that there are the paths? It is precisely because of signlessness that there are the paths of the three vehicles. These words are the most crucial turnabout of this chapter—the objector thinks that if there is signlessness there are no paths; the treatise-author answers that only precisely because of signlessness are there paths. Its principle is the meaning of the thirteenfold stacking of 「無相故」 tr. "because of signlessness" in passage 21 above: if there were fixed marks, one could not go from one ground to another ground, and the four fruits could not be established in sequence.

86. The treatise-author states the Buddha's words that training in the signless dharma one increases all wholesome dharmas, and explains why one abides only in the three gates of liberation. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's words: if the bodhisattva can train in the signless dharma in this way, he can increase wholesome dharmas, namely the six perfections and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas. Next he cites the causes and conditions the sūtra itself states: 「菩薩唯住三解脫門，不以餘法為要。」 tr. "The bodhisattva abides only in the three gates of liberation and does not take other dharmas as essential." And he himself explains why—the three gates of liberation are the real dharma; the other dharmas such as the four foundations of mindfulness, though real, are all spoken as skilful means. This judgement carries great weight: it does not say that the four foundations of mindfulness and the rest are not real; it says that their reality lies in skilful means, while the reality of the three gates lies in the dharma itself. Next he adds a sentence: the three gates of liberation are near to nirvāṇa and can also gather in all real wholesome dharmas; therefore it is said that the bodhisattva should train in them. The two Chinese characters ‘near’ and ‘gather’ come out together; the one speaks of their direction, the other of their capacity.

87. The treatise-author asks: the three gates of liberation are empty, signless, and without discrimination; the five aggregates and the rest have marks and discrimination; how, by training in the three gates, does one train in the other dharmas? The fifth round of question and answer. The objector points out that the two sides are opposite in nature: the three gates of liberation are all empty, signless, and without discrimination, while the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, and the rest are all dharmas with marks and with discrimination; since they are opposite, how can one, because of training in the three gates, train in the other dharmas? What this objection attacks is the phrase of the preceding section, ‘training in the three gates of liberation one can train in the marks of the five aggregates’; it is asked very squarely.

88. The treatise-author answers: training in the three gates one goes out of the three realms and exhausts the three outflows, obtains real wisdom within dharmas, with nothing it does not penetrate; formerly within the five aggregates all was false and wrong practice, now one penetrates rightly. The answer does not argue over nature but speaks instead from effect: because the bodhisattva, training in these three gates of liberation, goes out of the three realms and exhausts the three outflows, he obtains real wisdom within dharmas, with nothing it does not penetrate. Next comes the contrast of before and after: formerly, within the five aggregates, all was false and wrong practice; now, because he has obtained these three gates of liberation, he penetrates rightly. This answer makes clear the meaning of the word 「學」 tr. "train"—what is called training in the five aggregates is not training once more in the marks of the five aggregates; it is changing the former false knowing into the knowing of right penetration. The five aggregates are the same, but the one who knows them differs; therefore there is no contradiction.

89. The treatise-author cites the causes and conditions the Buddha himself states: practising the signless dharma of the three gates of liberation, he knows the arising, ceasing, and suchness of form, and so on up to consciousness. At the end the treatise-author returns to the sūtra as proof: herein the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions—「菩薩行是三解脫門無相法時，知色生、知色滅、知色如，乃至識亦爾。」 tr. "When the bodhisattva practises the signless dharma of these three gates of liberation, he knows the arising of form, knows the ceasing of form, knows the suchness of form, and so on up to consciousness, it is likewise." As spoken of at length in the sūtra. This citation connects exactly back to the teaching on the five aggregates in passages 27 to 31 of the sūtra section: what is called training in the five aggregates by training in the three gates has as its ready-made form exactly the knowing of mark, knowing of arising and ceasing, and knowing of suchness of those five sections.

90. The treatise-author states Subhūti's further question: if one thus discriminates and knows the mark, arising, ceasing, and suchness of form and the rest, does not the nature of form then destroy the nature of dharmas? The treatise-author takes up the objection in the sūtra and makes it slightly more detailed, listing one by one what is discriminated: knowing the marks of form and the rest, knowing the arising of form and the rest, knowing the ceasing of form and the rest, knowing the suchness of form and the rest. With the discriminating listed so finely, the doubt ‘does it not destroy the nature of dharmas’ appears all the more reasonable.

91. The treatise-author states the Buddha's answer: only if there were some dharma that went out from the nature of dharmas ought the nature of form to destroy the nature of dharmas. The treatise-author takes up the Buddha's answer, which uses a conditional sentence pattern. One must see clearly that the weight of this sentence lies in 「若有法出法性者」 tr. "if there were some dharma that went out from the nature of dharmas"—it first sets up a condition that does not hold, and then says that only under that condition would there be destruction. Since the condition does not hold, the conclusion naturally does not arise.

92. The treatise-author explains: the real mark of all dharmas is named the nature of dharmas; the real mark of the nature of form is precisely the nature of dharmas, one and the same nature; and he cites that the buddhas and the worthies and sages do not see any further dharma gone out from the nature of dharmas. The treatise-author himself explains its principle: the real mark of all dharmas is named the nature of dharmas; therefore all dharmas enter into the nature of dharmas; the real mark of the nature of form is precisely the nature of dharmas, one and the same nature—how could the nature of form destroy the nature of dharmas? Here the three Chinese characters 「同一性」 tr. "one and the same nature" are the pivot of the whole section: it is not that the nature of form and the nature of dharmas are two things at peace with each other; it is that the real mark of the nature of form is the nature of dharmas itself. Next he cites the sūtra to settle it: the Buddha further states the causes and conditions—the buddhas and the worthies and sages do not see that, gone out from the nature of dharmas, there is any further dharma; because it is unfindable they do not speak of it. Last a judgement is added: the buddhas and the worthies and sages are the most trustworthy; the bodhisattva should train in the nature of dharmas in this way. What this judgement relies on is the measure of those who have realised, not a principle the treatise-author sets up himself; therefore it accords with this collection's order of grounds.

93. The treatise-author states Subhūti's words to the Buddha: if one trains in the nature of dharmas, this is training in nothing, because the nature of dharmas is without nature. The treatise-author takes up the objection in the sūtra and supplies on his behalf the reason—what is the reason? Because the nature of dharmas is without nature. In the sūtra it reads only 「若學法性，為無所學」 tr. "if one trains in the nature of dharmas, is it not training in nothing", the reason not given; the treatise-author supplies the four Chinese characters 「法性無性」 tr. "the nature of dharmas is without nature", and the difficulty thereby becomes clear.

94. The treatise-author states the Buddha's answer: because the nature of dharmas is without nature, training in the nature of dharmas is training in all dharmas; if it had a separate nature or took having no nature as its nature, one ought to train only in the nature of dharmas. The form of the Buddha's answer is to take the objector's words and use them: the nature of dharmas being without nature, if the bodhisattva trains in the nature of dharmas, he trains in all dharmas. Next come two reverse suppositions: if the nature of dharmas had some separate nature, or if having no nature were its nature, one ought to train only in the nature of dharmas and not train in all dharmas. Neither supposition holds—now, because the nature of dharmas truly has no separate nature and also has no absence of nature, therefore one trains in all dharmas throughout. Last he returns to one sentence: only because the real mark of dharmas is the nature of dharmas, therefore, having obtained the real mark, one rightly trains in all dharmas throughout. The subtlety of this section is in taking over the objector's premise exactly as it is and reaching the opposite conclusion: precisely because the nature of dharmas is without nature, one cannot train in it alone.

95. The treatise-author states Subhūti's words to the Buddha: if all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas, why train in the six perfections and so on up to the dhāraṇī—is he not about to fall into inversion? The treatise-author takes up that long objection of nineteen questions in the sūtra and condenses it into one section, supplying two layers of grounds: first, the real mark of dharmas is precisely the nature of dharmas; if all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas, what further does the bodhisattva seek? Second, within the nature of dharmas there is no discriminating that this is the six perfections and so on up to the dhāraṇī; now the bodhisattva discriminates and practises these dharmas—is he not about to fall into inversion? The treatise-author's condensing is not cutting out; it is gathering the long list of items into two sentences of reason why, so that the backbone of the objection shows.

96. The treatise-author states that the Buddha approves his meaning and answers: one who, gone out from the nature of dharmas, sees some dharma does not seek awakening; this is the inversion of permanence and ignorance; the bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are ultimately empty, the mark of constant quiescence, and speaks by means of names and marks. The treatise-author states the Buddha's answer, the wording reading 「佛可須菩提意而答」 tr. "the Buddha approves Subhūti's meaning and answers"—first approving his meaning and then bringing out a distinction, the same rhythm as in the sūtra, where he first approves 「色即是法性」 tr. "form is precisely the nature of dharmas" and then brings out a distinction. The meaning brought out is: if the bodhisattva, gone out from the nature of dharmas, sees some dharma, he does not seek anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; why?—whatever has a dharma gone out from the nature of dharmas is the inversion of permanence and ignorance, which cannot be turned and made real; since it cannot be turned, how could one sever the ignorance within all dharmas and become a Buddha? Next comes the positive side: the bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are precisely ultimate emptiness, the mark of constant quiescence, without idle discourse, without names; pitying beings, because of the power of skilful means he speaks by means of names and marks, namely: this is form, this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. This section makes clear that the motive of 「以名相說」 tr. "speaking by means of names and marks" lies in pity—the reason names and marks can be used is that they are instruments for benefiting others.

97. The treatise-author explains the simile of conjuration: the conjurer is the bodhisattva, the conjuring dharmas are the six perfections and the rest, practising dharmas without a clinging mind; those with wisdom are the buddhas and the great bodhisattvas, those without wisdom are ordinary people and those who have newly aroused the mind. The treatise-author matches and explains item by item the simile of the skilled conjurer in the sūtra: the conjurer is the bodhisattva, the conjuring dharmas are the six perfections and the other dharmas; although he practises these dharmas, he has no clinging mind—as the conjurer, though he conjures all kinds of things, knows they are without substance and does not cling. Next he matches the two kinds of people: those with wisdom are the buddhas and the great bodhisattvas; those without wisdom are ordinary people and those who have newly aroused the mind, who greatly rejoice and exclaim that such a thing has never been. This matching is very crucial—the sūtra text says only 「無智之人」 tr. "people without wisdom", and the treatise-author points out that among them are included bodhisattvas who have newly aroused the mind. Exclaiming that such a thing has never been is not in itself a bad thing, yet if what is praised lies in the capability and not in the being without substance, it is still the praise of those without wisdom.

98. The treatise-author states that the bodhisattva, though he sees no further dharma gone out from the nature of dharmas and does not see a single fixed being, greatly benefits himself and others; and he cites the sūtra's text on practising oneself and teaching others. The treatise-author goes on: the bodhisattva practises the bodhisattva path; although he sees no further dharma gone out from the nature of dharmas, and also does not see a single fixed being, yet he greatly benefits himself and beings. Next he cites the sūtra: 「是菩薩自行布施等，亦教他人，讚歎布施法，歡喜讚歎行布施者。乃至十八不共法亦如是。」 tr. "This bodhisattva himself practises giving and so on, and also teaches other people, praises the dharma of giving, and joyfully praises those who practise giving. And so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, it is likewise." What is cited is exactly the form of the four matters stacked again and again in passage 45 of the sūtra section. Here 「不見有一定眾生」 tr. "does not see a single fixed being" and 「大利益」 tr. "greatly benefits" stand side by side without hindering each other—this is precisely the settled outcome of the whole chapter's answering of objections.

99. The treatise-author cites the causes and conditions the Buddha himself states, and explains that if the nature of dharmas were first non-existent and afterwards existent it would be the same as the dharmas of ordinary people, and if first existent and afterwards non-existent it would fall into annihilation. In the final section the treatise-author cites the causes and conditions the sūtra itself states: 「若法性先無後有，菩薩不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不能以方便力說。」 tr. "If the nature of dharmas were first non-existent and afterwards existent, the bodhisattva could not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor could he speak by the power of skilful means." At once he himself explains the two roads. First, if the nature of dharmas were first non-existent and afterwards existent, arising from causes and conditions, it would be no different from the dharmas shared with ordinary people—if the nature of dharmas were a dharma that is produced, it would stand in the same rank as the arising and ceasing dharmas and would not suffice as what is relied on. Second, if the nature of dharmas were first existent and afterwards non-existent, beings and dharmas would fall into annihilation. Of the two roads one breaks permanent arising and one breaks annihilation, and what is established between them is: the nature of dharmas is empty at first, and so in the middle and after. At the end a very crucial distinction is added—it is not made empty by the power of wisdom. Emptiness is not contemplated into being; it is so from the first, and wisdom only knows it.

100. The treatise-author concludes: beings and dharmas are not empty only when they enter nirvāṇa without remainder; from the very beginning they have always been empty. Following on from the sentence above, he speaks to the end: beings and dharmas are not empty only at the time of entering nirvāṇa without remainder; from the very beginning they have always been empty. These words cut off completely the misunderstanding on the side of time—if one thinks things become empty only after extinction, emptiness becomes a fruit to be attained; now it is said that from the first they have always been empty, so emptiness is not something attained. Together with the phrase 「如前，後、中亦爾，常不異」 tr. "as it is before, so it is after and in the middle, constantly not differing" of passage 27 and 「法性前、後、中無異」 tr. "the nature of dharmas is without difference before, after, and in the middle" of passage 45, these three places run through one another; this is the one meaning of this chapter from head to tail.

101. The treatise-author states the words of the bodhisattva's teaching to beings: why do you not contemplate the real nature but cling to inversion? If you contemplate the ultimately empty nature, you know that from the very beginning it has always been empty and now nothing is lost. The final section of the whole chapter. The bodhisattva teaches beings: why do you not contemplate the real nature of dharmas, but cling to inversion? If you contemplate the ultimately empty nature of dharmas, you know that from the very beginning they have always been empty, and now nothing is lost. The four Chinese characters of the last phrase, 「今無所失」 tr. "now nothing is lost", are where the whole chapter comes to rest—the reason beings do not dare to contemplate emptiness is the fear that with one contemplation everything they have will be lost; and the result of the contemplation is: they never had it from the first, so now too nothing is lost. At the end the treatise-author adds one sentence as a conclusion: the bodhisattva who practises prajñāpāramitā in this way can assist and benefit beings. The two Chinese characters ‘assist and benefit’ answer to 「善達」 tr. "thorough penetration" at the head of the chapter—one who thoroughly penetrates does not merely settle his own affair; it is precisely for assisting and benefiting.

Do Not Misread

Do not read the simile of the conjured person as the bodhisattva doing nothing. The sūtra text says that the conjured person does not practise lust, anger, and delusion and so on up to having no holy fruit; this says that it does not practise and does not discriminate, not that it cannot act; and when the treatise-author explains this simile he specially adds a part—the conjured person 「亦能發他心善惡，所為變化事，必能令成就」 tr. "can also stir the good and evil in other people's minds, and the matters of conjuration it performs it can surely bring to accomplishment". From this one can see that what the simile takes lies in acting without mind, not in not acting. If one takes only the first half, then the six perfections, the grounds, bringing beings to accomplishment, and purifying buddha-lands in the chapter have nowhere at all to land, and yet the sūtra text stacks up again and again exactly practising oneself and teaching others.

Do not read 「不見眾生從三界得解脫」 tr. "does not see beings obtain liberation from the three realms" as there being no beings to deliver. The sūtra text says it very plainly: the reason for not seeing is 「見知一切法如幻、如化」 tr. "he sees and knows all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration"; what is broken is that view which sees real beings really delivered by me. The same passage of sūtra text says immediately afterwards that the bodhisattva through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas practises the six perfections, brings beings to accomplishment, and purifies buddha-lands. Not seeing and not delivering are two matters; the sūtra text sets them side by side without their hindering each other.

Do not read 「一切法但有名相」 tr. "all dharmas have only names and marks" as names and marks being something to abolish. Having finished the teaching on names and marks, the Buddha himself at once says that the bodhisattva 「以無名相之法以名相說」 tr. "speaks of the nameless and signless dharma by means of names and marks", namely: this is form, this is feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to: this is anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. From this one can see that the sickness of names and marks lies not in names and marks, but in ordinary people's giving rise to clinging within them. After breaking the body down to atoms, the treatise-author too is not teaching people not to speak of the body; he is teaching people to know that it has only a provisional name. To abolish names and marks runs exactly counter to the Buddha's teaching the Dharma for beings.

Do not read 「無相」 tr. "signlessness" as a realm that can be abided in. In the sūtra, in teaching beings to be far from the two marks, it says plainly 「令不墮二法，所謂是相、是無相」 tr. "so that they do not fall into the two dharmas, namely mark and signlessness". If one sets up signlessness as a separate thing and abides in it, that is the second dharma that is blocked. By the same principle, the Buddha says that the bodhisattva abides only in the three gates of liberation, and the definitions of the three gates are all said with respect to all dharmas—all dharmas are empty of specific marks, all dharmas are signless, all dharmas have the mark of being without making and non-rising; if one seeks the three gates separately apart from all dharmas, the three gates become a realm taken as object.

Do not read 「一切法皆是無相」 tr. "all dharmas are signless" as the distinctions of the three vehicles and four fruits being something to abolish. At the end of the answer the treatise-author says it very squarely: if they are signless, how do you object that there are the paths? It is precisely because of signlessness that there are the paths of the three vehicles. If dharmas had fixed marks, one could not go from one ground to another ground, and the four fruits could not be established in sequence. Signlessness is not erasing distinctions; it is what enables distinctions to be established.

Do not read the section breaking the atom as the treatise-author denying the finest form. What is broken is the judgement ‘the atom is fixedly existent and cannot be broken further’, and its method uses only one principle—form necessarily has directional parts. Therefore its conclusion is 「微塵但有虛名」 tr. "the atom has only an empty name", not that there is no fine form before one's eyes. Likewise, what the section breaking the divine eye's seeing of the atom breaks is taking what the divine eye sees as real, not that the divine eye does not see; the treatise-author at once points out that the right road lies in contemplating the world with the wisdom-eye.

Do not pass lightly over the sentence 「若諸法決定空相，則菩薩無功夫」 tr. "if dharmas were fixedly of the mark of emptiness, then the bodhisattva would have nowhere to apply his effort". This sentence is where the measure of the treatise section lies—it does not contradict the earlier 「一切法畢竟空」 tr. "all dharmas are ultimately empty": ultimate emptiness blocks the real; fixed emptiness sets up yet another emptiness as real. The treatise-author goes straight on to say that dharmas are 「非實非空，過諸語言道，畢竟空寂滅相」 tr. "neither real nor empty, passing beyond all paths of words, the mark of ultimate emptiness and quiescence", blocking both sides. If in reading this chapter one takes only the side of emptiness, one falls exactly into what this sentence blocks.

Do not read 「法性無性」 tr. "the nature of dharmas is without nature" as the nature of dharmas being nothing. The treatise-author's reasoning is: if the nature of dharmas had a separate nature, or took having no nature as its nature, one ought to train only in the nature of dharmas and not train in all dharmas; now neither is so, therefore one trains in all dharmas throughout. From this one can see that what the phrase ‘without nature’ blocks is the nature of dharmas making itself into a thing, and what it establishes is the principle of training in all throughout. If one reads it as the nature of dharmas being a nothing, then the following 「得實相則正遍學一切法」 tr. "having obtained the real mark, one rightly trains in all dharmas throughout" has no way to be established.

Do not read 「從本已來常空」 tr. "from the very beginning they have always been empty" as realisation through cultivation being of no benefit. Before this sentence the treatise-author first says 「非智慧力故令空」 tr. "it is not made empty by the power of wisdom"—emptiness is so from the first, and wisdom knows it; the difference between knowing and not knowing is exactly the difference between beings and the bodhisattva, and is exactly the reason for practising the path established by the whole chapter's phrase 「眾生自不知」 tr. "beings themselves do not know". If one abolishes contemplative practice because things have always been empty from the first, one contradicts the very people that the last sentence, 「今無所失」 tr. "now nothing is lost", is meant to reassure: that sentence is spoken to those who do not dare to contemplate emptiness, not to those who need not contemplate emptiness.

Bearing on Practice

The first use is to take 「不分別是法」 tr. "does not discriminate these dharmas" as the practical test of thorough penetration. The sūtra text says that the bodhisattva, like a conjured person, 「無有是事，亦不分別是法，是名善達諸法相」 tr. "there is no such matter, nor does he discriminate these dharmas; this is named thoroughly penetrating the marks of dharmas". In daily life one can take this sentence to examine oneself: meeting favourable and adverse circumstances, does the mind at once divide out fair and ugly, right and wrong, and abide in that discrimination? What is tested is not whether there are thoughts or not, but whether there is abiding. This examination is extremely simple and can be used in walking, standing, sitting, and lying down.

The second use is to place the reason for practising the path in beings' not knowing. The sūtra text gives an extremely clear reason—if beings themselves knew that dharmas are like an illusion, like a conjuration, the bodhisattva would never practise the bodhisattva path; precisely because beings themselves do not know, the bodhisattva through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas practises the six perfections. If a practitioner, from contemplating emptiness, gives rise to the retreating mind of ‘since it is like an illusion, why take such pains’, he can return to this sentence: the reason one must practise is not that there is something findable in dharmas, but that there is something not yet known in people. The treatise-author further makes it solid with the simile of the blind son drinking poison—the elder knows the son will surely die and sets up all kinds of skilful means, not because the poison really exists, but because the son really is about to die.

The third use is to work upon names and marks and not upon suchness. The sūtra text says that beings abide only within names and marks and the false recollection, imagining, and discrimination, and the bodhisattva pulls beings out from within the falseness of names and marks. The practitioner's place of effort thereby becomes definite: there is no need to look elsewhere for a suchness to accord with; only, where the mind arises in daily life, watch how that name and that mark combine into a really existent realm. The treatise-author's section breaking the body down to atoms can serve as a ready-made procedure—from body to head to head-hair to hair to atom, watch layer by layer at which layer that ‘whole thing’ can still stand.

The fourth use is that the five similes of the five aggregates can be contemplated one by one. Form is like foam, feeling like a bubble, perception like a mirage, constructions like a plantain, consciousness like conjured troops, and each aggregate is divided into the three steps of knowing the mark, knowing the arising and ceasing, and knowing the suchness. In sitting meditation one can follow this sequence: first see that this aggregate is hollow and not real, next see that when it arises it comes from nowhere and when it ceases it arrives nowhere, and last see that its suchness is unarisen and unceasing, neither coming nor going, neither increasing nor decreasing, neither stained nor pure. The three steps may not be skipped—if one does not first see its hollowness, then what is called suchness is only imagination.

The fifth use is to examine the perfections one practises by 「無相故」 tr. "because of signlessness". The sūtra text returns the ground of making the perfections complete to signlessness thirteen times in a row. When the practitioner practises giving, practises morality, practises patience, practises vigour, practises meditation, practises wisdom, after each matter he can ask himself one sentence: within this, is there a really existing doer, a dharma practised, a fruit aimed at, squatting there? If there is, then what is practised, though good, is still a practice with marks; if there is not, then though he practises he does not abide, and this is exactly the making complete spoken of in the sūtra.

The sixth use is to distinguish two kinds of exclaiming that such a thing has never been. In the simile of the skilled conjurer, people without wisdom praise his being very capable, while those with wisdom praise his being without any real matter and yet able to entertain the crowd. When the practitioner sees the merits of a good friend, sees the adornment of a place of practice, sees that his own cultivation has attained something, he can take this one examination: is what I praise the capability of that matter, or that matter's being without substance and yet able? The treatise-author further points out that 「無智者」 tr. "those without wisdom" include people who have newly aroused the mind—this examination is not set up for outsiders.

The seventh use is to hold 「今無所失」 tr. "now nothing is lost" as the steadying phrase when contemplating emptiness. When people first contemplate ultimate emptiness, they often give rise to an indescribable dread, as though all they rely on and have were about to be lost at once. The last sentence of the whole chapter is set up exactly for this: if you contemplate the ultimately empty nature of dharmas, you know that from the very beginning they have always been empty, and now nothing is lost. From the first it was never obtained, so now too nothing is lost; since nothing is lost, contemplating emptiness is not giving something up; it is seeing something clearly. Holding this sentence, contemplative practice can last.

Further Resonances

The backbone of this chapter is one section of sūtra text and one section of treatise explanation. Sūtra ① begins from Subhūti's asking how the bodhisattva thoroughly penetrates the marks of dharmas, and the Buddha answers with the conjured person, who does not practise lust, anger, and delusion and so on up to having no holy fruit, and does not discriminate these dharmas; in sequence it opens out whether the conjured person has cultivation of the path, that all form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are like a conjuration, that since all is like a conjuration, what kind of work the bodhisattva has to do, whether when originally practising the bodhisattva path he saw any beings obtain liberation from the five destinies, and since he sees and knows them as like an illusion, like a conjuration, why he still practises the six perfections and so on up to purifying buddha-lands and bringing beings to accomplishment—and answers that it is because beings themselves do not know; next it asks in what place beings abide, that the bodhisattva pulls them out, and answers that they abide only within names and marks and the false recollection, imagining, and discrimination, whereupon the Buddha himself sets up the teaching on names and marks—a name is a forced provisional setting-up, and all dharmas of coming together are provisional names; marks are of the two kinds, the mark of form and the mark of the formless, both being the clinging mind of recollection, imagining, and discrimination within emptiness—and he teaches beings to be far from the two marks and abide within the signless nature; next comes the objection that if there are only names and marks, how one benefits oneself and benefits others and makes the grounds complete, and the Buddha answers that precisely because there is no real root-substance and only names and marks one can make the perfections complete, calling out ‘because of signlessness’ thirteen times in a row, and settles it with the proof by the contrary of so much as a hair's breadth; next comes the objection that if signless and without recollecting, how the four kinds of dharmas are counted, and the Buddha asks twice whether they differ and once whether it is precisely so, and concludes that all dharmas are signless, that training in signlessness one obtains the increase of wholesome dharmas, and that training in the three gates of liberation one can train in the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the four truths, the twelve links of causes and conditions, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; next it asks how one trains in the marks of the five aggregates of clinging, and the Buddha brings out the five similes of foam, bubble, mirage, plantain, and conjured troops, each speaking of knowing the mark, knowing the arising and ceasing, and knowing the suchness, and next reaches the sense-fields, the elements, the four noble truths, and the twelve links of causes and conditions; next comes the objection that knowing dharmas by discriminating each one separately may destroy the nature of dharmas, and the Buddha answers that dharmas outside the nature of dharmas are unfindable and therefore it is not destroyed; next comes the objection that training in the nature of dharmas is training in nothing, and the Buddha answers that training in the nature of dharmas is training in all dharmas; next it asks by what causes and conditions all dharmas are precisely the nature of dharmas, and the Buddha answers that all enter into the signless, unconditioned nature; next comes the great question of nineteen successive ‘why train’ with his own statement that form is precisely the nature of dharmas, and the Buddha approves his words and distinguishes that one who sees some dharma outside the nature of dharmas is not seeking awakening, and that knowing the nature of all dharmas to be precisely awakening one speaks of the nameless and signless dharma by means of names and marks; next comes the great simile of the skilled conjurer conjuring men and women, elephants and horses, and so on up to the thirty-two marks of a Buddha's body, setting side by side the praise of those without wisdom and the reflection of those with wisdom; finally it concludes that the bodhisattva does not see any dharma apart from the nature of dharmas and yet practises himself, teaches others, praises the dharma, and praises the people, and because the nature of dharmas is without difference before, after, and in the middle he can display the nature of dharmas and bring beings to accomplishment. Treatise ① explains following the text by question and answer: first it asks why, when the Buddha in chapter after chapter has already spoken of penetrating the marks of dharmas, he asks again now, answering that because prajñā has no fixed mark and is without words and speech, although heard repeatedly it is still not enough, and bringing out the simile of the calf and the sweet milk, and furthermore that he asks because only the Buddha can exhaust it to the end; next it explains that the conjured person has no mind or mental factors and yet can stir the good and evil in others' minds, and the conjurations it performs it can surely bring to accomplishment, as an example for the bodhisattva's body; next it explains that Subhūti, because he prizes, reveres, and honours the Buddha-dharma, does not dare to speak of emptiness, and brings out the simile of the lion not prizing its own strength; next it takes up the three objections in the sūtra and explains that when the bodhisattva obtains the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas he knows and sees them as like an illusion, like a conjuration, and furthermore sets up that dharmas are neither real nor empty, passing beyond all paths of words, and brings out the simile of the blind son drinking poison; next it explains that beings abide only within names and marks and false, deceptive recollection, imagining, and discrimination, and brings out the two similes of seeing a person in the dark and the evil dog barking at its shadow; next, by the coming together of names, it breaks the body down layer by layer to atoms, whereupon it sets up of its own two rounds of question and answer, refuting the fixed existence of the atom and the divine eye's seeing the minute, and concludes that the atom has only a name and no substance, and that if one gives up false and deceptive names and marks and does not cling to the empty dharma one receives the permanence and bliss of nirvāṇa; next it sets up of its own two rounds of question and answer, on what difference there is between name and mark and on name and mark having no difference, distinguishing them layer by layer by the name, mark, and substance of fire, the name and mark of man and woman within the five aggregates, the mark being the root and the name the branch, and what can give rise to a stained and clinging mind being named a mark, and returns to the Buddha's own statement that a name is a provisional name and by the name one takes dharmas; next it explains that if the nature were fixed and really existent there would be no arising, no ceasing, no sin or merit, and takes up the Buddha's words about a hair's breadth to explain sitting at the seat of awakening contemplating the foremost true reality; next it sets up the objection that three of the four truths all have marks, answering that the dharma of the Mahāyāna differs from the dharma of the śrāvakas, that having marks and having recollecting is precisely the outflows, and that the three truths all follow the truth of cessation and the cessation of exhaustion is signless and without object, concluding that dharmas without outflows are all signless and without recollecting; next it explains Subhūti's meaning and states the Buddha's question in return whether the dharmas of the three vehicles differ from the signless dharma, supplying the ground that the extinction of the afflictions is severance and severance is the unconditioned, and brings out of its own the phrase that it is precisely because of signlessness that there are the paths of the three vehicles; next it explains why one abides only in the three gates of liberation—the three gates are the real dharma and the rest is all spoken as skilful means; the three gates are near to nirvāṇa and can also gather in all real wholesome dharmas; next it sets up the question and answer on why training in the three gates is precisely training in the five aggregates, answering that because one goes out of the three realms and exhausts the three outflows, one obtains real wisdom within dharmas, with nothing it does not penetrate; next it explains that the real mark of all dharmas is named the nature of dharmas and that the real mark of the nature of form is precisely the nature of dharmas, one and the same nature, citing as proof that the buddhas and the worthies and sages do not see any further dharma gone out from the nature of dharmas; next it explains that because the nature of dharmas is without nature one trains in all dharmas throughout; next it explains that seeing some dharma gone out from the nature of dharmas is the inversion of permanence and ignorance, and that the bodhisattva by the power of skilful means speaks by means of names and marks; finally it matches and explains the simile of conjuration item by item—the conjurer is the bodhisattva, the conjuring dharmas are the six perfections and the rest, those with wisdom are the buddhas and the great bodhisattvas, those without wisdom are ordinary people and those who have newly aroused the mind—and explains that if the nature of dharmas were first non-existent and afterwards existent it would be the same as the dharmas shared with ordinary people, and if first existent and afterwards non-existent it would fall into annihilation, concluding that the nature of dharmas is empty at first, and so in the middle and after, that it is not made empty by the power of wisdom, that from the very beginning it has always been empty, and finally citing the bodhisattva's teaching beings to contemplate the ultimately empty nature, whereby now nothing is lost and he can assist and benefit beings.

The thread of meaning between this chapter and the chapters before and after it can be seen in three lines. First, inheriting from what precedes: the preceding chapter speaks of the matter of the bodhisattva entering all paths throughout, and this chapter takes up its momentum and asks about thorough penetration—able to enter throughout and yet not be stained, the reason for this lies in thoroughly penetrating the marks of dharmas; therefore the sūtra text at its very start takes the conjured person as a simile and does not light a separate stove. Second, a turn complete within the chapter: the first half takes the conjured person and names and marks as its main theme, speaking of the signlessness of dharmas; the latter half takes the nature of dharmas as its main theme, speaking of why signlessness can make for training in all throughout; the two halves have the sentence 「一切法皆入無相無為性中」 tr. "all dharmas enter into the signless, unconditioned nature" as their pivot—this sentence both inherits the signlessness of the first half and opens the nature of dharmas of the latter half, and thereby the whole chapter unites into one meaning. Third, handing down to what follows: this chapter concludes with 「從本已來常空，今無所失」 tr. "from the very beginning they have always been empty, and now nothing is lost", and the next chapter takes the limit of reality as its title; the two chapters follow one upon the other, one speaking of the original suchness of constant emptiness, the other of the indestructibility of the limit of reality; the reader can view the two chapters together to see that emptiness and the limit of reality are not two.

Of the explanations of the ancient masters, there is one house worth recording for this chapter. Jizang's sectional division of this chapter says: 「此下第二、明為化之能。」 tr. "From here on, the second: it clarifies the ability to transform." And he explains the reason for its name, saying: 「善達者雖遍化六道而無心云化也。」 tr. "One who thoroughly penetrates, though he transforms throughout the six destinies, transforms without mind; this is what is meant." The reason he attaches this chapter after the preceding chapter, he says, is 「以善達法性故能無心而化」 tr. "because he thoroughly penetrates the nature of dharmas, he can transform without mind"—taking thorough penetration of the nature of dharmas as the root of the ability to transform; compared with this treatise's taking thorough penetration of the marks of dharmas as the utmost of non-discrimination, the meaning taken is close while the road of entry differs; they are recorded side by side without judgement. He divides this chapter into seven sections, saying: 「品為七段，第一乘前品明菩薩善達法相故起行，第二明菩薩出化處，第三明菩薩解法化名相堪得大利益，第四明菩薩解法無相故增益善根，第五明學法性名學一切法，第六明諸法雖是法性要須修行，第七略釋法性成上修行立義也。」 tr. "The chapter is in seven sections: the first, following the preceding chapter, clarifies that the bodhisattva gives rise to practice because he thoroughly penetrates the marks of dharmas; the second clarifies the places the bodhisattva comes forth to transform; the third clarifies that the bodhisattva, understanding that dharmas are conjured names and marks, is fit to obtain great benefit; the fourth clarifies that the bodhisattva, understanding that dharmas are signless, therefore increases the roots of goodness; the fifth clarifies that training in the nature of dharmas is called training in all dharmas; the sixth clarifies that although dharmas are the nature of dharmas, one must still cultivate practice; the seventh briefly explains the nature of dharmas to complete the meaning established above of cultivating practice." This sevenfold sectioning differs in format from this treatise's treatise section, which explains following the text—this treatise makes its divisions by question and answer, Jizang makes his by sections; each takes one method, and both are kept. His explanation of the reason for asking again says: 「般若甚深無定相，聞無厭足，是故問也。」 tr. "Prajñā is very deep and has no fixed mark; one hears it without satiety; therefore he asks." And again he says: 「又唯佛究盡法性，降佛已還未能具知，是故問之。」 tr. "Again, only the Buddha exhausts the nature of dharmas to the end; those below the Buddha cannot yet know it completely; therefore he asks about it." These two sayings correspond to the two answers this treatise brings out, while the simile and the wording both differ. His explanation of the question about the conjured person's cultivation of the path says: 「上明化人不行前境，今明化人內無所修也。」 tr. "Above it clarified that the conjured person does not practise the objects before him; now it clarifies that the conjured person inwardly has nothing to cultivate." Dividing it into two questions, earlier and later, by objects before one and inner cultivation is a sectioning this treatise does not state openly, and it can help the reader in dividing the passages. His explanation of the section on benefiting oneself and benefiting others says: 「無定性故罪可捨、福可修，故有自利利人也。」 tr. "Because there is no fixed nature, sin can be given up and merit can be cultivated; therefore there is benefiting oneself and benefiting others." And his explanation of the meaning of a hair's breadth says: 「若有一豪相可得者，則坐道場不見諸法相應是僻悟，以坐道場無有小悟故得佛，是知諸法無一豪相也。」 tr. "If there were a single hair's-breadth mark that could be found, then sitting at the seat of awakening and not seeing the marks of dharmas ought to be a lopsided awakening; because in sitting at the seat of awakening there is no small awakening, therefore one obtains buddhahood; from this one knows that dharmas have not a single hair's-breadth mark." These two sayings bring out each other with the meaning this treatise explains, while the last sentence brings out of its own the judgement 「無一豪相」 tr. "not a single hair's-breadth mark"; its character is written with the variant form read háo that also means ‘hero’, differing from this treatise, which writes the form háo meaning ‘fine hair’; it is recorded side by side and not altered. His explanation of the effect of training in the three gates of liberation says: 「菩薩學空，出三界，盡三漏相，破一切法中無明起，知一切法也。」 tr. "The bodhisattva trains in emptiness, goes out of the three realms, exhausts the marks of the three outflows, breaks the arising of ignorance within all dharmas, and knows all dharmas." This is almost the same in its bones as this treatise's answer. His explanation of the final section says: 「第七、略釋法性以釋上修行義。」 tr. "Seventh: it briefly explains the nature of dharmas in order to explain the meaning of cultivating practice above." And he says: 「法性先無後有同是凡夫法，不成脩行義。」 tr. "If the nature of dharmas were first non-existent and afterwards existent, it would likewise be a dharma of ordinary people, and the meaning of cultivating practice would not be established." 「若法性先有後無，則墮斷見，亦不成修行義。」 tr. "If the nature of dharmas were first existent and afterwards non-existent, one would fall into the view of annihilation, and the meaning of cultivating practice would not be established either." At the end he concludes: 「今法性前後中皆清淨」 tr. "Now the nature of dharmas is pure before, after, and in the middle"—explaining the being without difference before, after, and in the middle by purity, while this treatise explains it by constant emptiness; the meaning taken is different, while the two sides blocked are the same; they are recorded side by side without judgement. His explanation of the section on discriminating dharmas further says: 「雖分別諸法不壞性法也。」 tr. "Although one discriminates dharmas, one does not destroy the dharma of the nature." His word order reads ‘nature-dharma’ while this treatise reads ‘dharma-nature’; the characters differ; it is recorded side by side and not altered. Of Huiying's Commentary, what is extant does not reach this fascicle of this treatise, and this chapter's explanation is lacking; Junzheng's book is not in the form of a chapter-by-chapter commentary, and for this chapter 〔not found〕; in the treatises and commentaries of the Tiantai line too there is 〔not found〕 any specific citation of this chapter. The variant names of this chapter's title, the differences of chapter order, and what is seen in the interlinear note at the end of the fascicle are detailed in the Apparatus layer.

Overview

The very first sentence that opens "The Limit of Reality" is the question that leaves the least room of any in the whole Larger Sūtra of prajñā: 「世尊！若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?" The preceding chapter pushed all dharmas into the nature of dharmas, pushed them as far as the ground where training in the nature of dharmas is precisely training in nothing; since all dharmas have entered wholly into the nature of dharmas, the one who delivers and those who are delivered fall empty all together—it is not that the practice of prajñā is too shallow; it is precisely that it has been practised too thoroughly, and the people to be delivered are gone first. Subhūti asks with the utmost honesty: for whom is such a prajñā practised? The Buddha's answer is only one sentence: 「菩薩為實際故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the limit of reality." The eye of the chapter's title is set up right here. And this one sentence at once draws down the difficulty of the whole chapter: since the limit of reality is precisely the limit of beings, would securely setting beings in the limit of reality not be precisely 「建立實際於實際」 tr. "establishing the limit of reality upon the limit of reality", precisely 「建立自性於自性」 tr. "establishing self-nature upon self-nature"? Self-nature cannot be set upon self-nature, just as the treatise-author's simile has it—「自性不應自性中住，如指端不能自觸指端。」 tr. "Self-nature should not abide within self-nature, as the tip of a finger cannot itself touch the tip of that finger." The Buddha does not evade this line of reasoning; on the contrary, he first concedes it entirely: 「實際不可建立於實際，自性不可建立於自性。」 tr. "The limit of reality cannot be established upon the limit of reality; self-nature cannot be established upon self-nature." Only after conceding does he set down the eye of the explanation of the whole chapter—「今菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，以方便力故，建立眾生於實際」 tr. "Now, when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, by reason of the power of skilful means he establishes beings within the limit of reality". In principle there is nowhere to set it; in fact something is still established; what lies between rests entirely on skilful means. The whole chapter, one sūtra and one treatise, lies together in fascicle ninety: the First Part, one sūtra, asks about the dharma of skilful means and shows the five gates one by one, ending at 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth he is named bodhisattva"; the Last Part, one treatise: the treatise-author first takes up the difficulty of the preceding chapter to fix the pivot, next traces the twelve links of causes and conditions backward to ignorance, and as soon as he seeks the substance of ignorance he speaks the most crucial sentence of this chapter—「復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。」 tr. "Further, when the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality."

The First Part asks how it is to be done. The order of the sūtra text is very clear: first he asks for whom it is practised, second he asks how, since they are not different, anything can be established, third he asks what the power of skilful means is; once the third question is out, the Buddha's reply spreads out into the main body of this unit. Skilful means has five gates, and every gate has one and the same structure: first he sees the sickness of beings, next he speaks to it by the emptiness of nature, and last he gathers it in with 「是世俗法，非第一實義」 tr. "this is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning". In the gate of giving, as soon as the bodhisattva has established beings in giving, he at once says 「前際空、後際空、中際亦空，施者亦空、施報亦空、受者亦空」 tr. "empty in the former limit, empty in the latter limit, empty too in the middle limit; the giver too is empty, the retribution of giving too is empty, the recipient too is empty", and comes back to 「是諸法畢竟自性空故」 tr. "because these dharmas are ultimately empty of self-nature". In the gate of keeping morality he teaches the removal of the ten unwholesome paths, and the reflection the Buddha teaches is not a precept for stopping evil but a question turned back: 「何等是眾生而欲奪命？用何等物奪命？」 tr. "What is a being, that you wish to take its life? By what thing is its life taken?" In the gate of patience he teaches people to ask themselves 「我於何所法中瞋？誰為瞋者？所瞋者誰？」 tr. "Within what dharma am I angry? Who is the one who is angry? Who is the one angered at?", and says that this emptiness is not made by the Buddha, not made by the two vehicles, not made by bodhisattvas, not made by the gods, ghosts, and spirits—emptiness is not something anyone made. In the gate of vigour he says 「諸法性空中無懈怠法、無懈怠者、無懈怠事」 tr. "within the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas there is no dharma of slackness, no one who is slack, and no matter of slackness", and yet still teaches vigour of body and of mind; at the end he turns over one layer more, and even the thought of two and of not two is negated along with it: 「是諸法，汝等莫念二相、莫念不二相！」 tr. "As to these dharmas, you must not think of the mark of two, nor think of the mark of not two!" In the gate of meditative concentration he says 「性空中無有法可得若亂、若一心」 tr. "within the emptiness of nature there is no dharma to be found that is scattered or that is one mind", and yet still teaches 「當修禪定！汝莫生亂想，當生一心」 tr. "You should cultivate meditative concentration! Do not give rise to scattered thoughts; you should give rise to one mind". Having read through the five gates, if the reader reads only ‘all is empty’, he has read this chapter backwards: what the five gates say is all empty, and what the five gates teach is all practice; the two ends hold at one and the same time, and that is precisely why skilful means is skilful means.

When the five gates have been spoken to the end, the sūtra text itself raises the difficulty once more: 「若諸法性常空，常空中眾生不可得，法、非法亦不可得，菩薩摩訶薩云何求一切種智？」 tr. "If the nature of all dharmas is ever empty, and within this constant emptiness beings are unfindable, and what is a dharma and what is not a dharma too are unfindable, how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva seek the omniscience of all kinds?" The Buddha's answer is in two layers. The first layer shows it by the reverse: if the nature of all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva could not, relying on the emptiness of nature, accomplish awakening and teach beings the emptiness of nature. The second layer guards against emptiness destroying itself—「若內空性不空、外空乃至無法有法空性不空者，則壞空性。」 tr. "If the nature of inner emptiness were not empty, and the nature of outer emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas were not empty, that would destroy the nature of emptiness." Emptiness does not set up, apart from itself, something that is not empty; precisely because it 「無住處，亦無所從來、亦無所從去」 tr. "has no abiding-place, nor does it come from anywhere, nor does it go anywhere" can the name 「是名法住相」 tr. "this is named the mark of the abiding of dharmas" be set up, and within it there is 「無聚無散、無增無減、無生無滅、無垢無淨」 tr. "neither gathering nor scattering, without increase and without decrease, non-arising and non-ceasing, without stain and without purity". One who abides in this and arouses the mind is 「不見法有所發，無發無住」 tr. "not seeing any dharma that can be aroused, without arousing and without abiding". Next comes the sharpest simile of the whole chapter: 「譬如佛化作四眾：比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷，常為是諸眾說法，千萬億劫不斷。」 tr. "It is as the Buddha conjures the fourfold assembly—bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, upāsikās—and constantly proclaims the Dharma for these assemblies, unbroken for thousands of myriads of koṭi of kalpas." The Buddha asks in return whether these conjured assemblies can obtain the fruits of the path; Subhūti answers that they cannot, the reason being 「是諸化眾無有根本實故」 tr. "because these conjured assemblies have no real root". The danger of this simile lies in its being read as the delivering of beings being labour in vain; the sūtra text at once sets it straight—the bodhisattva's teaching of the Dharma is also like this, and what he pulls out is inversion, not beings: 「顛倒即是無顛倒；顛倒、不顛倒雖一相，而多顛倒、少不顛倒。」 tr. "Inversion is precisely non-inversion; though inversion and non-inversion are of one mark, there is much inversion and little non-inversion." So pulling beings out is 「於眾生相顛倒中拔出眾生」 tr. "pulling beings out from within the inversion of the mark of beings". Below this it goes a step further, and does not permit people to hold even the limbs of the path without outflows as ultimate—the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, 「雖無漏，亦不如第一義相」 tr. "though without outflows, are still not like the mark of the highest meaning", while the highest meaning is 「無作、無為、無生、無相、無說，是名第一義，亦名性空，亦名諸佛道」 tr. "without making, unconditioned, non-arising, signless, and unspeakable; this is named the highest meaning, is also named the emptiness of nature, and is also named the path of the buddhas"; what the bodhisattva seeks is this: 「非為道法故求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，為諸法實相性空故求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "he does not seek the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi for the sake of the dharmas of the path; he seeks anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi for the sake of the real mark of all dharmas, the emptiness of nature".

The last two sections of the First Part press this chapter to its tightest point. First Subhūti exclaims at how rare it is, saying that one practises the emptiness of nature without destroying the mark of the emptiness of nature, and so on up to 「但色即是性空，性空即是色」 tr. "yet form is precisely the emptiness of nature, and the emptiness of nature is precisely form"; the Buddha answers with the simile of space—「譬如虛空不壞虛空，內虛空不壞外虛空，外虛空不壞內虛空」 tr. "It is as space does not destroy space: inner space does not destroy outer space, and outer space does not destroy inner space", so that form and emptiness are such that 「是二法無有性能有所壞」 tr. "these two dharmas have no such nature as could destroy anything". Next is the difficulty of discrimination: since all dharmas are without discrimination, would not the vow of arousing the mind to seek awakening be precisely discrimination? The Buddha answers 「若不二、不分別諸法，則是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。菩提是不二相、不壞相」 tr. "If one does not make dharmas two and does not discriminate them, that is precisely anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Awakening is the mark of non-duality, the indestructible mark", and sets down one sentence of judgement: 「是菩提非取故行、非捨故行。」 tr. "This awakening is practised neither by reason of taking nor by reason of giving up." Subhūti at once seizes this sentence and presses the question: neither taking nor giving up—then 「菩薩摩訶薩菩提何處行」 tr. "where does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's awakening practise"? The Buddha does not answer it head-on, but puts two questions in return one after the other—first asking where the person conjured by the Buddha practises, then asking 「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行」 tr. "where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise". The second question is asked most strangely, and Subhūti's answer is most direct as well: 「阿羅漢畢竟不眠，云何夢中菩提若取中行、若捨中行？」 tr. "The arhat ultimately does not sleep; then how could the awakening in a dream practise within taking or practise within giving up?" Asking about a place that does not exist at all is precisely to show that there is nowhere to point to. And right after there is nowhere to point to, the sūtra text at once supplies the other side, and this supplement is the most important balance of this chapter: not practising the ten grounds, not practising the six perfections, and so on up to not practising the supernormal powers and the pure lands—can one obtain awakening? The Buddha answers 「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". That there is nowhere to practise is principle; making the myriad practices complete is fact; the two sentences stand side by side and do not obstruct each other. The First Part closes in worldly truth: 「世諦法故分別名阿羅漢道」 tr. "by reason of worldly dharmas the path of the arhat is named with distinctions", 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth he is named bodhisattva"—to say there are bodhisattvas, to say there are form and the omniscience of all kinds, all this is worldly truth; within the highest meaning 「無有色乃至無有阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 tr. "there is no form and so on up to no anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor is there anyone who practises anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi".

The Last Part asks on what grounds. The treatise-author opens his mouth not to explain the sūtra's sentences but first to fix the pivot: the difficulty of the preceding chapter was 「若諸法空，云何有五道生死、善不善法？」 tr. "If all dharmas are empty, how can there be the births and deaths of the five destinies, and wholesome and unwholesome dharmas?", while the difficulty of this chapter is that, beings being unfindable, for whom is prajñā practised; he judges it in one sentence: 「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故」 tr. "before, he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas". The former raises the difficulty from dharmas and it reaches as far as beings; the latter raises the difficulty from beings and it reaches as far as dharmas; the two difficulties share one source but run in opposite directions. The pivot fixed, the treatise-author at once sets himself a question, and this question is the true crux of the whole treatise section: 「一切菩薩見眾生苦惱，為度眾生故發大悲心，今何以言為實際？」 tr. "All bodhisattvas, seeing beings' suffering and vexation, arouse the mind of great compassion for the sake of delivering beings; why is it now said to be for the sake of the limit of reality?" What it asks is precisely the knot in the reader's heart—I plainly aroused the mind for the sake of people, yet you say it was for the sake of a limit of reality. The treatise-author's way of answering is unexpected: he does not argue on the meaning of emptiness; starting from suffering he reasons honestly downward. The bodhisattva at the first arousing of intent 「但為滅眾生苦故發大悲心」 tr. "arouses the mind of great compassion only in order to extinguish the suffering of beings"; to extinguish suffering one must know the cause of suffering, and the cause of suffering is birth—「有生必有死，有死必有苦」 tr. "where there is birth there is definitely death, where there is death there is definitely suffering", so he judges it 「生定是苦本」 tr. "birth is definitely the root of suffering", and takes grass and trees as a simile: 「如草木有生故，必可焚燒；若當不生，雖有猛火、大風，無所燒害。」 tr. "As grass and trees, because they have birth, can definitely be burnt; if they were not born, then even with a fierce fire and a great wind there would be nothing to burn and harm." The cause of birth is existence, the cause of existence is grasping, the cause of grasping is craving, the cause of craving is feeling, the cause of feeling is contact, the cause of contact is the six entries, the cause of the six entries is name-and-form, the cause of name-and-form is consciousness—「若識不入胎，胎初則爛壞」 tr. "if consciousness did not enter the womb, the embryo would rot and decay at its very beginning"; the cause of consciousness is constructions, and constructions are like 「風吹絕焰，空中而去，焰則依止於風」 tr. "the wind blowing a flame that has been cut off, and it goes away through the air, the flame taking support in the wind"; the cause of constructions is ignorance, 「一切煩惱雖是過去業因緣，無明是根本故，但名無明」 tr. "although all the afflictions are causes and conditions of past deeds, because ignorance is the root, it is named only ignorance". Having traced the twelve links backward as far as this, the treatise-author first blocks a side road: if one seeks further for the root of ignorance there is no end to it, and one 「即墮邊見，失涅槃道」 tr. "then falls into the extreme view and loses the path of nirvāṇa", so one should not seek further. Not seeking further, but seeking its substance directly—as soon as he seeks, he seeks his way into ultimate emptiness; and so he sets down that sentence: 「復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。」 tr. "Further, when the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality." Only here is the opening question fully answered: to act for the limit of reality is precisely to act for beings, because what makes beings beings lies only in inversion, the root of inversion is ignorance, and the substance of ignorance is precisely the limit of reality. For this the treatise-author matches a simile, most piercing: 「譬如蠶出絲自裹縛，入沸湯火炙。」 tr. "It is like a silkworm that puts out silk to wrap and bind itself, and goes into boiling water and is scorched by fire." The bonds of ordinary people are silk spun out by themselves. So the bodhisattva's penetrating the limit of reality is not turning his head away and caring nothing; it is taking the root of the sickness in hand—「是故住實際無咎。」 tr. "Therefore there is no fault in abiding in the limit of reality."

Below this the treatise-author explains the sūtra passage by passage, everywhere blocking misreadings for the reader. Explaining ‘the two limits are not different’, he first sketches the view of one who holds them different, so as to show its sickness: 「異者，實際是畢竟空，眾生際是決定有」 tr. "different means: the limit of reality is ultimate emptiness, the limit of beings is definitely existent"—if one follows this view, since beings are empty there is nothing to benefit, and since the limit of reality is definitely existent there is no one to deliver, and neither end can be carried out; so it is now said 「眾生際實不異實際，故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the limit of beings is in reality not different from the limit of reality, and so he practises prajñāpāramitā", and what it is for is only 「欲覺悟狂惑顛倒凡夫」 tr. "in order to awaken ordinary people who are mad, deluded, and inverted". Explaining the difficulty of establishing, the treatise-author does not permit people to read not-different as one: 「菩薩知是二法不一不二，亦不不一、亦不不二，畢竟寂滅無戲論相。」 tr. "The bodhisattva knows that these two dharmas are not one and not two, and also not not-one and also not not-two, ultimately quiescent and without the mark of idle discourse." Explaining the gate of giving, he speaks further a passage in which his compassion shows most: beings, hearing of emptiness, thin out their afflictions, and turn instead to clinging deeply to giving, and so the bodhisattva says to himself 「我從慳中拔出，今復著布施」 tr. "I pulled him out of stinginess, and now he again clings to giving"—saved out of one pit, they fall into another, so he must teach the real mark of giving, saying of it that 「過去已滅，不可見、不可得、不可用，但可憶念，如夢所見無異」 tr. "in the past it has already ceased; it cannot be seen, is unfindable, cannot be used, and can only be recollected, no different from what is seen in a dream"; and what is taken is still a real benefit: 「甘露味者，是八聖道分；甘露果者，是涅槃」 tr. "the flavour of ambrosia is the eightfold noble path; the fruit of ambrosia is nirvāṇa". Explaining the difficulty of the emptiness of nature, the treatise-author with one sentence blocks off the clinging that takes emptiness as a dharma: 「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？」 tr. "The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection?" Explaining the name of the abiding of dharmas, he says straight out 「常住法相是性空之異名，亦名諸法實相」 tr. "the constantly abiding marks of dharmas are another name for the emptiness of nature, and are also named the real mark of all dharmas". Explaining the simile of the conjured fourfold assembly, he lands on the sentence most worth remembering: 「菩薩住此中，但破眾生妄想，不破眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva abides within this and only breaks beings' false imaginings; he does not break beings." Explaining that the emptiness of nature is without stain and without purity, he takes space, wind, and clouds as a simile: people of the world, seeing the film of clouds, say that space is impure, and seeing the wind remove them, say that space is pure, 「而虛空實無垢無淨」 tr. "yet space is in reality without stain and without purity"; the buddhas, 「以說法猛風，吹却顛倒雲翳，令得清淨」 tr. "with the fierce wind of teaching the Dharma, blow away the clouds and films of inversion and cause beings to obtain purity", while the nature of dharmas of itself does not move. Explaining what the path and its fruit are bound to, the treatise-author speaks most weightily—「一切法性空，是諸佛真法！」 tr. "That all dharmas are empty of nature is the true Dharma of the buddhas!" 「離是性空，則無道無果」 tr. "Apart from this emptiness of nature there is no path and no fruit"; those who, apart from the emptiness of nature, practise giving, keeping morality, kindness, and compassion, though by the power of wholesome dharmas they do not fall into the evil destinies, find that 「生天果盡，還墮惡道，如本不異」 tr. "when the fruit of being born in heaven is exhausted, they still fall into the evil destinies, no different from before"; only 「行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃」 tr. "practising the dharma of the emptiness of nature, and also not clinging to the emptiness of nature—this is precisely nirvāṇa".

The closing passage of the Last Part is a fine discrimination rare in this treatise, and also the place where the treatise-author's honesty shows most. In the sūtra Subhūti answers 「阿羅漢畢竟不眠」 tr. "the arhat ultimately does not sleep", but the treatise-author will not let this sentence go, and instead asks it back on the reader's behalf: awakening is of three kinds, and the arhat's awakening practises only within the mind without outflows; why then does the Buddha single out the question 「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行」 tr. "where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise"? He answers himself: precisely because the arhat has no dreams, 「佛以必無處故問，欲明必無行法」 tr. "the Buddha asks because there is definitely no place, wishing to make clear that there is definitely no dharma of practising"—asking about a place that definitely does not exist is in order to show that the practice definitely does not exist. Next he does not evade a still more awkward fact: the Buddha himself still sleeps. So he cites the incident of the Buddha ordering Ānanda to spread his robe and lying down, the Buddha himself saying 「春末夏初，以時熱故小眠息，除食患故」 tr. "at the end of spring and the beginning of summer, because the season is hot, I sleep and rest a little, to remove the discomfort after eating"; he also cites the Nirgrantha Satyaka's taunt that sleeping by day is a mark of delusion, and the Buddha's answer 「諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡；若是諸漏永滅無餘，雖眠不名癡」 tr. "the outflows that can make the later body continue without break—this is named the mark of delusion; even if one constantly does not sleep, it is still delusion; if these outflows have ceased forever without remainder, even if one sleeps it is not named delusion". Since the Buddha still sleeps, why does Subhūti say that the arhat does not even sleep? The treatise-author then divides it in two: 「眠有二種：一者、眠而夢，二者、眠而不夢。」 tr. "There are two kinds of sleep: first, sleeping with dreams; second, sleeping without dreams." The arhat does not sleep for the sake of ease and attachment to pleasure; it is only that, having taken on a body of the four elements, he has food, rest, sleep, and waking, and therefore a little while of rest is named sleep; 「不為夢眠」 tr. "he does not sleep for dreaming". Below this he records as well the different account of another school, clearly attributing it to another's saying and not making it his own: those who are free of desire and have obtained dhyāna have the four elements of the form realm enter their body, and body and mind being joyful, they do not sleep; the arhat liberated by wisdom does not obtain the concentrations of the form realm, so he still sleeps—so 「阿羅漢有眠、有不眠」 tr. "among arhats there are those who sleep and those who do not sleep". At the end he closes on worldly truth and the highest meaning running as two lines side by side: Subhūti himself says 「世諦法故，說言阿羅漢」 tr. "by reason of worldly dharmas, it is said, arhat", and the Buddha at once takes this as the pattern for awakening; and the bodhisattva contemplates the dharma of awakening as without increase and without decrease: 「諸法性是一切法根本尚不可得」 tr. "the nature of dharmas, which is the root of all dharmas, is itself unfindable", how much less could the six perfections and the thirty-seven limbs of the path have something to be attained. The last sentence of the whole treatise section, however, does not land on emptiness; it lands on use: 「菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practising this nature of dharmas, when he becomes a Buddha, can greatly benefit beings."

The difference between the two parts can be settled in a word: the First Part tells why skilful means can establish; the Last Part tells why the limit of reality can be relied on. What the First Part speaks of are mostly matters that can be pointed to—teaching giving, teaching morality, teaching patience, teaching vigour, teaching meditative concentration, establishing gate by gate; what the Last Part speaks of is mostly principle that cannot be pointed to—the backward tracing of the twelve links, ignorance being precisely illumination, the emptiness of nature being precisely the abiding of dharmas, practising nowhere and yet not abandoning the myriad practices. So in the First Part every gate is gathered in with 「是世俗法，非第一實義」 tr. "this is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning", and in the Last Part every section comes back to 「諸法實相，名為實際」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality". And between the two parts one thread runs through, namely the two Chinese characters 「不異」 tr. "not different": in the First Part the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different, so delivering beings is precisely acting for the limit of reality; in the Last Part ignorance and illumination are not different, so in seeking the substance of ignorance one obtains the limit of reality. Why the chapter's title sets up 「實際」 tr. "the limit of reality" and not 「性空」 tr. "the emptiness of nature" is precisely this—the emptiness of nature negates; the limit of reality discloses; speaking of the emptiness of nature, one fears people will take it that there is nothing at all; speaking of the limit of reality, one knows that what is delivered and what is established all have their place. The sūtra text itself also says this point very plainly: 「是名實際性空法。」 tr. "This is named the dharma of the limit of reality and the emptiness of nature." The two names raised together are one substance with two faces.

Therefore, in reading each passage of this chapter, one can ask at least three layers of questions. First, does this sentence negate dharmas or clinging—this chapter negates most fiercely: the five gates all speak of emptiness, even the limbs of the path are not like the highest meaning, and even awakening does not practise within awakening; yet what is negated has never been practice; it is the view that ‘there is a dharma to be found’. Wherever one reads a word of emptiness and feels that practice has lost its footing, first ask: is what it negates my practice, or my clinging to practice? The sūtra text has left the reader iron proof—after negating everything, it goes straight on to say 「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Second, if this passage were used in reverse, what would it become—there are two places in this chapter most easily used in reverse: one is reading 「眾生不可得」 tr. "beings are unfindable" as there being no need to deliver beings, whereas the sūtra text says plainly that the bodhisattva precisely 「於眾生相顛倒中拔出眾生」 tr. "pulls beings out from within the inversion of the mark of beings", and the treatise-author says further 「但破眾生妄想，不破眾生」 tr. "only breaks beings' false imaginings; he does not break beings"; the other is reading 「性空」 tr. "the emptiness of nature" as a thing that can be abided in and obtained, whereas the treatise-author has long since blocked this off—「性空名空性亦無」 tr. "the emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist", and the sūtra text too says 「是性空中無有得者、無有得法、無有得處」 tr. "within this emptiness of nature there is no one who obtains, no dharma obtained, and no place of obtaining". Third, I have not yet reached this ground; of what use is this chapter to me—its use is in fact the most plain and practical. The layer of worldly truth has never been abolished: to say there are bodhisattvas, to say there are the path and its fruit, to say there are arhats—all of it still holds; it is only that one knows it to be worldly truth; and the layer of the highest meaning has not been left hanging in the air either: it is right in your inversion at this moment; seeking the substance of ignorance is precisely it. So what can be taken away from this chapter is that road of tracing backward—meeting suffering, not blaming people but asking the cause of suffering; meeting bondage, not blaming circumstances but asking where the bondage arises from; asking all the way to ignorance, and then asking what ignorance is; at the place where the asking can go no further, the treatise-author says, that is precisely illumination. And having taken it away, one must still return to those five gates of the First Part: what the five gates teach is precisely telling this road to people still in inversion, on one side saying their emptiness to the end, on the other side not abandoning their practice—this is what the whole chapter calls the power of skilful means.

Reading On in the Order of the Treatise

The Limit of Reality, First Part: The Limit of Reality and the Limit of Beings Are Not Different; the Five Gates of the Power of Skilful Means; the Emptiness of Nature Is the Mark of the Abiding of Dharmas; Awakening Is Neither Taking nor Giving Up, and by Reason of Worldly Truth It Is Said That There Is a Bodhisattva

What Is Being Asked

The preceding chapter spoke of all dharmas being ultimately empty, and this at once pressed out the hardest question: since dharmas are empty, are beings still there or not? As soon as this chapter opens, Subhūti pushes this question to the bottom—「世尊！若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "World-Honored One! If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?". If the object to be delivered is at root unfindable, the practice that delivers falls into emptiness; the more thoroughgoing prajñā is, the less footing there is for delivering the living. This is where the whole chapter starts, and it is also the first difficulty this unit must resolve.

The Buddha's answer is only one sentence: 「菩薩為實際故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the limit of reality."—what he acts for is not that being of provisional name, but the limit of reality. But this sentence at once draws out a second difficulty: if the limit of reality is precisely the limit of beings, then to securely set beings in the limit of reality—would that not be 「建立實際於實際」 tr. "establishing the limit of reality upon the limit of reality" and 「建立自性於自性」 tr. "establishing self-nature upon self-nature"? Self-nature cannot be set upon self-nature, just as the tip of a finger cannot itself touch the tip of that finger. The second question is asked most exactly: since the two limits are not different, the matter of securely setting has nowhere to take hold.

The eye of the solution the Buddha gives lies in the three Chinese characters 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means": 「實際不可建立於實際，自性不可建立於自性」 tr. "The limit of reality cannot be established upon the limit of reality; self-nature cannot be established upon self-nature"—this sentence first concedes that Subhūti's line of reasoning is entirely right; only then does he say 「今菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，以方便力故，建立眾生於實際」 tr. "Now, when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, by reason of the power of skilful means he establishes beings within the limit of reality". In principle it cannot be set up, yet in practice it can be set up, and everything in between rests on skilful means. So comes Subhūti's third question: 「何等是諸菩薩摩訶薩方便力？」 tr. "What is the power of skilful means of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas?" The main body of this unit is the Buddha's long answer to this question—the five gates of giving, keeping morality, patience, vigour, and meditative concentration, each one spoken in terms of the emptiness of nature, each one closed with 「是世俗法，非第一實義」 tr. "This is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning"; the teaching is real teaching, and yet of the dharmas taught not one is findable.

After that the sūtra turns over one layer more: since within the emptiness of nature beings are unfindable, by what does the bodhisattva seek the omniscience of all kinds? The Buddha answers it with 「法住相」 tr. "the mark of the abiding of dharmas", and takes the fourfold assembly conjured by the Buddha as a simile—the conjured assemblies are taught the Dharma for thousands of myriads of koṭi of kalpas and do not obtain the fruit of the path; the bodhisattva teaches the Dharma and delivers the living, and yet beings are in reality unfindable: the two sides are one and the same mechanism. The last section turns to awakening itself: awakening 「非取故行、非捨故行」 tr. "is practised neither by reason of taking nor by reason of giving up", and so there is the question 「菩提何處行」 tr. "where does awakening practise", which the Buddha answers with two layers of counter-questions, with the conjured person and with the arhat's awakening in a dream; and having answered, he at once supplies the other side—not making complete the ten grounds, the six perfections, and so on up to the eighty minor marks, 「終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". This unit closes at last on one sentence: 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva"—to say there is a bodhisattva, there is form, there is the omniscience of all kinds, is all worldly truth; within the highest meaning there is no bodhisattva and no awakening either.

So what the First Part must answer is three questions: if beings are unfindable, for whom does one practise; if the two limits are not different, how is anything securely set; if awakening has no place in which it practises, do the myriad practices become empty?

Passage by Passage

1. Beings are ultimately unfindable—for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñā? The first question opening the chapter. What Subhūti asks is not doubting the Buddha; on the readers' behalf he pushes the conclusion of the preceding chapter to its very end: 「若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā?" What prajñā practises has always had the delivering of beings as what it acts for; now that beings are ultimately unfindable, the place it acts for is cut off. In this question one thing must be seen clearly—what he asks is 「為誰」 tr. "for whose sake", not ‘whether there are or not’. Emptiness and non-emptiness were settled in the preceding chapter; what is pressed here is ‘what one acts for’. The Buddha's answer below takes hold exactly from ‘what one acts for’, not from ‘existence or non-existence’; the two sides are fastened most tightly.

2. Practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality—the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different; without destroying the limit of reality he establishes beings in the limit of reality. The Buddha's answer changes only what is acted for: 「菩薩為實際故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of the limit of reality." At once he supplies the reason, positive and negative together: 「實際、眾生際異者，菩薩不行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "If the limit of reality and the limit of beings were different, the bodhisattva would not practise prajñāpāramitā"—if the two limits differed, delivering the living and practising prajñā would become two matters, and prajñā would have nothing to apply itself to; 「實際、眾生際不異，以是故，菩薩摩訶薩為利益眾生故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "The limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different; because of this, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of benefiting beings"—the two limits are not different, so acting for beings is precisely acting for the limit of reality, and benefiting others and tending toward reality are not two roads. The last sentence points out the name of this chapter: 「以不壞實際法，立眾生於實際中」 tr. "without destroying the dharma of the limit of reality, he establishes beings within the limit of reality"—establishing without destroying is the joint of the whole chapter. Do not misunderstand it as ‘abandoning beings to take hold of the limit of reality’: what the sūtra says is that he practises for the sake of benefiting beings; only the place where they are established has changed.

3. If the two limits are one, there arises the difficulty of establishing the limit of reality upon the limit of reality. Subhūti at once seizes the 「不異」 tr. "not different" of the sentence above and pushes out the difficulty: 「若實際即是眾生際，菩薩則為建立實際於實際」 tr. "If the limit of reality is precisely the limit of beings, the bodhisattva would then be establishing the limit of reality upon the limit of reality", and goes one layer further: 「若建立實際於實際，則為建立自性於自性」 tr. "If the limit of reality is established upon the limit of reality, then self-nature is established upon self-nature", while 「不得建立自性於自性」 tr. "self-nature cannot be established upon self-nature". The three sentences tighten layer by layer: not different, then one; one, then what is set up and what it rests on are the same thing; the same thing, then there is no securely setting to speak of. This difficulty is not a game of words—whenever one says ‘set A upon B’, A and B must be distinct; now A and B are not distinct, and the matter of securely setting breaks down of itself. If the reader skips over this point, the three Chinese characters 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means" below will have nothing to rest on.

4. The limit of reality cannot be established upon the limit of reality—by reason of the power of skilful means he establishes beings in the limit of reality. The Buddha's way of answering deserves a close look: he first concedes Subhūti's line of reasoning in full—「實際不可建立於實際，自性不可建立於自性」 tr. "The limit of reality cannot be established upon the limit of reality; self-nature cannot be established upon self-nature", refuting not a single word; only then does he turn out what can be done in practice—「今菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，以方便力故，建立眾生於實際」 tr. "Now, when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā, by reason of the power of skilful means he establishes beings within the limit of reality". At the end he says 「不異」 tr. "not different" once again: 「實際亦不異眾生際，實際、眾生際無二無別」 tr. "the limit of reality too is not different from the limit of beings; the limit of reality and the limit of beings are without duality and without difference". Not being able to be set up in principle yet being able to be set up in practice is not self-contradiction: what is set up is beings in delusion, what it rests on is the limit as it originally is; when the deluded awaken, there is no thing that has been moved onto another thing. The two Chinese characters ‘skilful means’ point exactly to this place—not an expedient device, but the only crossing between principle and practice.

5. The question: what is the power of skilful means? Following on from the above he asks: 「何等是諸菩薩摩訶薩方便力？用是方便力，菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時，建立眾生於實際，亦不壞實際相？」 tr. "What is the power of skilful means of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas? Using this power of skilful means, does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, when practising prajñāpāramitā, establish beings within the limit of reality and yet not destroy the mark of the limit of reality?" Within the question two conditions are already written fast: first, beings must be established; second, the mark of the limit of reality must not be destroyed. The answer of the five gates below fastens on these two in every sentence—wherever a dharma is taught, its emptiness is always told, which is not destroying the mark of the limit of reality; wherever emptiness is told, they are always made to practise, which is establishing beings. Reading what follows with these two conditions set against it, one knows why every gate closes with words of the kind 「是世俗法，非第一實義」 tr. "This is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning".

6. The first skilful means, the gate of giving—telling that giving is empty in all three limits, and yet it can take the flavour of ambrosia. The first gate of the Buddha's answer: 「以方便力故，建立眾生於布施。建立已，說布施先後際相」 tr. "by reason of the power of skilful means he establishes beings in giving. Having established them, he proclaims the marks of the former limit and the latter limit of giving". The sequence is first establishing, then telling: first he has them practise giving, and only after they have practised does he tell them 「前際空、後際空、中際亦空，施者亦空、施報亦空、受者亦空」 tr. "empty in the former limit, empty in the latter limit, empty too in the middle limit; the giver too is empty, the retribution of giving too is empty, the recipient too is empty". Why not tell of emptiness first? If emptiness is told first, giving does not arise; if giving is established first and emptiness told afterwards, the giving is accomplished without clinging. What is warned against is 「莫念布施異、施者異、施報異、受者異」 tr. "you must not think that giving is different, that the giver is different, that the retribution of giving is different, that the recipient is different"—to think of difference is to discriminate the four matters as real, and what is real becomes bondage. And the fruit is in the last sentence: when one does not think of difference, 「布施能取甘露味、得甘露味果」 tr. "giving can take the flavour of ambrosia and obtain the fruit of the flavour of ambrosia". The close still returns to the emptiness of nature: 「是諸法畢竟自性空故」 tr. "because these dharmas are ultimately empty of self-nature". This passage is the pattern of the five gates; the four gates below all follow this pattern.

7. The second skilful means, the gate of keeping morality—as for the dharmas as you discriminate them, these dharmas have no such nature. The next gate teaches the keeping of morality, and the words taught are very close to hand: 「除捨殺生法，乃至除捨邪見」 tr. "Give up the dharma of killing living beings, and so on up to giving up wrong views". And the reason one can give them up lies not in the rules of the precepts but in 「如汝所分別法，是諸法無如是性」 tr. "As for the dharmas as you discriminate them, these dharmas have no such nature"—that ‘one who can be killed’ and that ‘matter of killing’ which you have discriminated out have no such nature in dharmas. So he teaches him to reflect carefully: 「何等是眾生而欲奪命？用何等物奪命？」 tr. "What is a being, that you wish to take its life? By what thing is its life taken?"—when the questioning reaches here, what the deed of killing rests on breaks down of itself. After that he speaks of the retribution: the retribution of giving and of keeping morality is 「自性空」 tr. "empty of self-nature"; because one knows it is empty one does not cling, and because one does not cling 「心不散，能生智慧」 tr. "the mind is not scattered and can give rise to wisdom", and with this wisdom one severs the fetters and 「入無餘涅槃」 tr. "enters nirvāṇa without remainder". The last sentence most needs attention: 「是世俗法，非第一實義。何以故？空中無有滅、亦無使滅者。」 tr. "This is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning. Why? Within emptiness there is nothing that ceases, nor anything that causes cessation."—even the section on entering nirvāṇa is judged a worldly dharma. Do not read these words as belittling nirvāṇa: the sūtra explains the reason itself—within ultimate emptiness there is no cessation and nothing that can cause cessation, so 「諸法畢竟空，即是涅槃」 tr. "all dharmas being ultimately empty is precisely nirvāṇa".

8. The third skilful means, the gate of patience—who is the one angered at? Who is the one who is angry? This emptiness is made neither by the buddhas nor by the gods. The third gate counters anger. The method of teaching is still first establishing, then telling: first he has him 「修行忍辱，作忍辱人，當樂忍辱」 tr. "cultivate patience, become a person of patience; you should delight in patience", then he tells the reason—「汝所瞋者自性空故」 tr. "because what you are angry at is empty of self-nature". And the method of breaking anger is three questions sent down together: 「我於何所法中瞋？誰為瞋者？所瞋者誰？」 tr. "Within what dharma am I angry? Who is the one who is angry? Who is the one angered at?" Anger must arise in dependence on three matters; when the three matters are all unfindable, anger of itself has nothing to rest on. After that, a long passage is a laying-out rarely seen in this chapter: this emptiness was not made by anyone—「是空非諸佛作，非辟支佛、聲聞作，非菩薩摩訶薩作」 tr. "This emptiness is not made by the buddhas, not made by the pratyekabuddhas or the śrāvakas, not made by the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas", and so on up to the gods, ghosts and spirits, nāga kings, and the gods of the form realm and the formless realm—none of them can make it. The use of this passage is exactly to cut off the thought ‘emptiness is cultivated into being’: if emptiness were made by someone, it could be made and could be destroyed, and patience would become a temporary strength. The closing sentence points out the name of this chapter once again: 「是名實際性空法」 tr. "This is named the dharma of the limit of reality and the emptiness of nature", and makes good the difficulty raised at the opening—the bodhisattva practises this dharma for the sake of beings, and 「眾生亦不可得」 tr. "beings too are unfindable", because 「一切法離眾生相」 tr. "all dharmas are apart from the mark of beings".

9. The fourth skilful means, the gate of vigour—within the emptiness of nature there is no one who is slack; you must not think of the mark of two, nor think of the mark of not two. The fourth gate counters slackness. The words taught still first break what it rests on: 「諸法性空中無懈怠法、無懈怠者、無懈怠事」 tr. "Within the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas there is no dharma of slackness, no one who is slack, and no matter of slackness", and at once he sets up the practice proper: 「汝等生身精進、心精進，為生善法故，莫懈怠！」 tr. "You should give rise to vigour of body and vigour of mind, and for the sake of giving rise to wholesome dharmas, do not be slack!"—first saying there is no dharma of slackness and afterwards saying do not be slack, the two sentences do not contradict each other: ‘there is no’ is with regard to self-nature; ‘do not’ is with regard to the practice of matters. The items in which one should be vigorous are enumerated from giving and keeping morality up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and of all of them it is said 「莫懈怠」 tr. "do not be slack". The next section goes a step further: after teaching vigour, he warns against thinking of marks—「汝等莫念二相、莫念不二相」 tr. "you must not think of the mark of two, nor think of the mark of not two". These words are the easiest to miss in reading: breaking the mark of two is easy to understand; that even 「不二相」 tr. "the mark of not two" may not be thought of is because once not-two is thought of as a mark, it is still a mark. At the end it comes back to the stages: having brought beings to accomplishment, 「次第教令得須陀洹果」 tr. "he teaches them in sequence to obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna", and so on up to 「菩薩位，令得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "the bodhisattva's position, causing them to obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—the teaching of the emptiness of nature does not abolish the stages.

10. The fifth skilful means, the gate of meditative concentration—within the emptiness of nature there is neither scattering nor one mind; abiding in the supernormal powers obtained as retribution, he enters the five destinies without diminishment. The fifth gate counters the scattered mind. The words taught are of the same form: 「當修禪定！汝莫生亂想，當生一心」 tr. "You should cultivate meditative concentration! Do not give rise to scattered thoughts; you should give rise to one mind", and the reason is 「性空中無有法可得若亂、若一心」 tr. "within the emptiness of nature there is no dharma to be found that is scattered or that is one mind". After that comes the longest string of listing in the whole unit: the deeds of body, speech, and mind done while abiding in this samādhi, enumerated from giving up to the omniscience of all kinds, bringing beings to accomplishment, and purifying buddha-lands, of all of which it is said 「汝等皆當應隨所願得；行性空故」 tr. "you shall all obtain according to your wishes; because you practise the emptiness of nature"—the ground for obtaining according to one's wishes lies not in the size of the power of the vow but in the three Chinese characters 「行性空」 tr. "practise the emptiness of nature". The last section turns to the practitioner's own marks: from the first arousing of intent 「終不懈廢」 tr. "he never slackens or abandons it", 「從一佛國至一佛國，供養諸佛」 tr. "going from one buddha-land to another, he makes offerings to the buddhas", giving up bodies and taking on bodies and yet 「終不忘失」 tr. "he never forgets or loses it"; 「常得諸陀羅尼，諸根具足」 tr. "he constantly obtains the dhāraṇīs and is complete in all his faculties". The closing sentence is 「住報得神通，利益眾生，入生死五道，終不耗減」 tr. "he abides in the supernormal powers obtained as retribution, benefits beings, enters the five destinies of birth and death, and never suffers diminishment"—entering the five destinies without diminishment is exactly the concrete look of establishing beings without destroying the limit of reality.

11. Abiding in the emptiness of nature and doing the three kinds of deeds, taking the flavour of ambrosia; practising oneself and teaching others, from the ten wholesome paths to the unsurpassed path. This passage is the summing-up after the five gates, and also the place where the power of skilful means lands in practice. First he sets up the practice: 「觀一切法性空」 tr. "contemplate the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas", and 「當作諸業，若身業、若口業、若意業，取甘露味，得甘露果」 tr. "you should do deeds—whether deeds of body, or deeds of speech, or deeds of mind—take the flavour of ambrosia and obtain the fruit of ambrosia"; next he cuts off the doubt: 「性空中無有法退。何以故？性空不退，亦無退者」 tr. "Within the emptiness of nature there is no dharma that can retreat. Why? The emptiness of nature does not retreat, nor is there one who retreats", and explains the reason himself—「以性空非法亦非非法，於無所有法中，云何當有退？」 tr. "because the emptiness of nature is neither a dharma nor not a dharma, within a dharma without anything existent, how could there be retreat?". After that comes the long table of practising oneself and teaching others: the ten wholesome paths, the five precepts, the eight precepts, the four dhyānas, the mind of kindness up to the mind of equanimity, the four formless spheres, the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighty minor marks—all of them he 「自行」 tr. "himself practises" and 「亦教他人」 tr. "also teaches others". One sentence among them is most important: from the fruit of the srota-āpanna up to the fruit of the arhat and the path of the pratyekabuddha, it is always 「自於須陀洹果中生智慧，亦不住是中」 tr. "he himself gives rise to wisdom within the fruit of the srota-āpanna and yet does not abide within it"—only by giving rise to wisdom without abiding can he teach others without himself falling. It closes with 「終不懈怠」 tr. "never slackens", echoing the fourth gate from afar.

12. Within constant emptiness beings are unfindable—how then does one seek the omniscience of all kinds? The five gates finished, Subhūti raises a second round of difficulty: 「若諸法性常空，常空中眾生不可得，法、非法亦不可得，菩薩摩訶薩云何求一切種智？」 tr. "If the nature of all dharmas is ever empty, and within this constant emptiness beings are unfindable, and what is a dharma and what is not a dharma too are unfindable, how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva seek the omniscience of all kinds?" The earlier difficulty asked about the beings to be delivered; this difficulty asks about the fruit of buddhahood to be sought—since what is delivered is not there, what is sought is not there either; prajñā falls empty at both ends. This question goes one layer deeper than the first question, because it no longer aims only at the object, but at the very practice that seeks.

13. The Buddha grants his words and shows the reverse—if dharmas were not empty there would be no way to accomplish awakening; the emptiness of nature is the mark of the abiding of dharmas. The Buddha's way of answering is first to grant entirely and then to show the reverse: 「如是！如是！如汝所言」 tr. "Just so! Just so! It is as you say", restating Subhūti's words word for word; at once he turns out the reverse side—「若一切法性不空，菩薩摩訶薩不依性空成阿耨多羅三藐三菩提、為眾生說性空法」 tr. "If the nature of all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva-mahāsattva could not, relying on the emptiness of nature, accomplish anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and proclaim for beings the dharma of the emptiness of nature". This sentence is the pivot of the whole passage: the emptiness of nature is not a hindrance to seeking the path but exactly what seeking the path relies on; if dharmas were not empty, there would on the contrary be no path to accomplish. Below it he enumerates the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, the four formless absorptions, the limbs of the path, the three gates of liberation, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds that severs the afflictions and their habitual residues—all are 「性空法」 tr. "the dharma of the emptiness of nature". He goes a layer further to speak of the emptinesses themselves: 「若內空性不空、外空乃至無法有法空性不空者，則壞空性」 tr. "If the nature of inner emptiness were not empty, and the nature of outer emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas were not empty, that would destroy the nature of emptiness"—emptiness too is not set up as real, or else emptiness becomes a thing and destroys the meaning of emptiness. At the end the name 「法住相」 tr. "the mark of the abiding of dharmas" appears: the emptiness of nature is 「不常不斷」 tr. "neither permanent nor annihilated", 「無住處，亦無所從來、亦無所從去」 tr. "has no abiding-place, nor does it come from anywhere, nor does it go anywhere", 「無聚無散、無增無減、無生無滅、無垢無淨」 tr. "neither gathering nor scattering, without increase and without decrease, non-arising and non-ceasing, without stain and without purity"; the bodhisattva abides in this and arouses the mind, 「不見法有所發，無發無住，是名法住相」 tr. "not seeing any dharma that can be aroused, without arousing and without abiding; this is named the mark of the abiding of dharmas". With this the second difficulty is answered: one who seeks the omniscience of all kinds seeks exactly by abiding in this mark of the abiding of dharmas.

14. The Buddha asks whether the conjured fourfold assembly obtain the fruits and receive the prediction. The Buddha does not at once state the point of the simile; he first sets up the matter: 「譬如佛化作四眾：比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷，常為是諸眾說法，千萬億劫不斷」 tr. "It is as the Buddha conjures the fourfold assembly—bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, upāsikās—and constantly proclaims the Dharma for these assemblies, unbroken for thousands of myriads of koṭi of kalpas", and at once asks back: 「是諸化眾，當得須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記不？」 tr. "Will these conjured assemblies obtain the fruit of the srota-āpanna, the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, the fruit of the anāgāmin, the fruit of the arhat, and receive the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" The manner of asking is the Buddha's habitual form—he does not pass judgement himself but has the other answer for himself, and the principle answered out is then his own principle.

15. Subhūti answers no—because they have no real root. The answer is two sentences: 「是諸化眾無有根本實故」 tr. "because these conjured assemblies have no real root", and 「一切諸法性空，亦無根本實事」 tr. "all dharmas are empty of nature and also have no real root-substance". Look at the three Chinese characters 「根本實」 tr. "real root": it does not say that the conjured assemblies are false and real people true; it says that all dharmas alike are without a real root—on this point the conjured assemblies and beings have no difference of degree. So at the end of the answer he asks back: 「何等是眾生得須陀洹果乃至阿羅漢果、得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提記？」 tr. "then what is a being that obtains the fruit of the srota-āpanna and so on up to the fruit of the arhat, and receives the prediction of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" This answer once given, in the next passage the Buddha uses it to match the simile.

16. The bodhisattva's teaching of the Dharma is also like this—pulling beings out from within inversion; inversion is precisely non-inversion. The words matching the simile: 「菩薩摩訶薩亦如是，為眾生說性空法，是眾生實不可得」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva too is like this: he proclaims for beings the dharma of the emptiness of nature, and yet these beings are in reality unfindable". The reason he must still teach is 「眾生墮顛倒故，拔眾生令住不顛倒」 tr. "because beings have fallen into inversion, he pulls beings out and makes them abide in non-inversion". At once one sentence turns it over: 「顛倒即是無顛倒；顛倒、不顛倒雖一相，而多顛倒、少不顛倒」 tr. "Inversion is precisely non-inversion; though inversion and non-inversion are of one mark, there is much inversion and little non-inversion"—with regard to their one mark, ‘is precisely’ is said; with regard to their much and little, they must be pulled out. Do not read 「即是」 tr. "is precisely" as ‘there is no need to pull out’: the sūtra itself speaks of much and little in the same sentence, exactly to leave room for pulling out. In the place of non-inversion there is no self, no being, and so on up to no knower and no seer, and also no form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, no twelve sense-fields, and so on up to no awakening: 「是為諸法性空」 tr. "this is precisely all dharmas being empty of nature". And the marks pulled out from are told most finely: it is 「所謂無眾生有眾生相中拔出」 tr. "namely he pulls them out from within there being no beings and yet a mark of beings", and pulling out 「於無色色相中」 tr. "from within there being no form and yet a mark of form"—what is pulled away is the mark, not beings; what is broken is false imagining, not people.

17. Even the dharmas without outflows are not like the highest meaning; he does not seek awakening for the sake of the dharmas of the path; practising all paths throughout, he seeks knowledge of the kinds of paths. This passage first sets up a demarcation: the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eightfold noble path, 「雖無漏，亦不如第一義相」 tr. "though without outflows, are still not like the mark of the highest meaning". What is the mark of the highest meaning? The sūtra itself gives its items: 「無作、無為、無生、無相、無說」 tr. "without making, unconditioned, non-arising, signless, and unspeakable", with three names glossing one another—「是名第一義，亦名性空，亦名諸佛道」 tr. "this is named the highest meaning, is also named the emptiness of nature, and is also named the path of the buddhas". Below it speaks of what the bodhisattva seeks: 「非為道法故求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，為諸法實相性空故求」 tr. "he does not seek the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi for the sake of the dharmas of the path; he seeks it for the sake of the real mark of all dharmas, the emptiness of nature"—the dharmas of the path are the road, the emptiness of nature is where it returns to, and the road may not be taken as where it returns to. Next it speaks of the emptiness of nature holding at all times: 「前際亦是性空，後際亦是性空，中際亦是性空；常性空，無不性空時」 tr. "the former limit too is the emptiness of nature, the latter limit too is the emptiness of nature, the middle limit too is the emptiness of nature; it is constantly the emptiness of nature, and there is no time when it is not the emptiness of nature". Next it speaks of why he practises throughout: in order to pull beings out of the mark of beings he 「求道種智」 tr. "seeks knowledge of the kinds of paths", and when seeking knowledge of the kinds of paths he 「遍行一切道——若聲聞道、若辟支佛道、若菩薩道」 tr. "practises all paths throughout—whether the path of the śrāvaka, or the path of the pratyekabuddha, or the bodhisattva path". At the end the buddhas of the three times are gathered in together: 「過去十方諸佛道性空，未來、現在十方諸佛道亦性空；離性空，世間無道、無道果。」 tr. "The path of the buddhas of the ten directions in the past is the emptiness of nature; the path of the buddhas of the ten directions in the future and the present is also the emptiness of nature; apart from the emptiness of nature, there is no path in the world and no fruit of the path." And it leaves one sentence as the place of actual practice: 「要從親近諸佛，聞是諸法性空，行是法，不失薩婆若。」 tr. "One must, by drawing near to the buddhas, hear of this emptiness of the nature of all dharmas and practise this dharma; only then does one not lose sarvajñā."

18. Subhūti exclaims at the rarity—form is precisely the emptiness of nature, and the emptiness of nature is precisely form. Here Subhūti breaks into exclamation: 「甚希有！諸菩薩摩訶薩行是性空法，亦不壞性空相」 tr. "Most rare! The bodhisattva-mahāsattvas practise this dharma of the emptiness of nature and also do not destroy the mark of the emptiness of nature". What he exclaims at is exactly the difficult point: practising emptiness without destroying the mark of emptiness. His words first list what is not so—「所謂色與性空異，受、想、行、識與性空異，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提與性空異」 tr. "namely that form and the emptiness of nature are different, that feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness and the emptiness of nature are different, and so on up to that anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and the emptiness of nature are different"; then he gives what is so—「但色即是性空，性空即是色」 tr. "yet form is precisely the emptiness of nature, and the emptiness of nature is precisely form", and so on up to awakening, which is likewise. Here the two sides ‘different’ and ‘is precisely’ come out together, laying the ground for the Buddha's answer in the next passage: if different, the knowledge of all kinds is not obtained; if ‘is precisely’, it can be obtained.

19. The Buddha grants it—not destroying the two marks of form and emptiness; the simile of space not destroying space. The Buddha first, following his words, makes the negative judgement: if form and so on up to awakening 「與性空異」 tr. "were different from the emptiness of nature", then 「菩薩摩訶薩不能得一切種智」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva could not obtain the omniscience of all kinds"; then he makes the positive judgement: 「今色不異性空，乃至阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不異性空」 tr. "Now form is not different from the emptiness of nature, and so on up to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is not different from the emptiness of nature", so the bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are empty of nature and arouses the intent to seek awakening. Below it speaks of the sickness of ordinary people: 「無有法若實、若常，但凡夫著色、受、想、行、識」 tr. "there is no dharma that is real or permanent; it is only that ordinary people cling to form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness", taking hold of marks and, 「有我心著內外物故」 tr. "because they have the thought of a self and cling to inner and outer things", thereupon 「受後身」 tr. "they receive a later body" and do not get free of birth, old age, sickness, and death, going back and forth in the five destinies. So the bodhisattva practises the pāramitā of the emptiness of nature and 「不壞色等諸法相若空、若不空」 tr. "does not destroy the marks of form and the other dharmas, whether empty or not empty". As for why he is able not to destroy them, the sūtra explains it itself: 「是色性空相不壞色，所謂是色、是空」 tr. "this mark of the emptiness of the nature of form does not destroy form, namely that this is form, this is emptiness", and takes space as a simile—「譬如虛空不壞虛空，內虛空不壞外虛空，外虛空不壞內虛空」 tr. "It is as space does not destroy space: inner space does not destroy outer space, and outer space does not destroy inner space". The last sentence states why it is so: 「是二法無有性能有所壞」 tr. "these two dharmas have no such nature as could destroy anything"—destroying requires a nature that can destroy; the two dharmas are both without nature, so nothing is destroyed.

20. If all dharmas are without discrimination, how does one make the vow that one shall obtain awakening? Subhūti's third round of difficulty, a difficulty about arousing the mind: 「若一切法空無分別，云何菩薩摩訶薩從初發意已來作是願『我當得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提』？」 tr. "If all dharmas are empty and without discrimination, then how does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, from the first arousing of intent onward, make this vow: ‘I shall obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi’?" And he himself brings out the pincer of two difficulties: without discrimination there is nothing to arouse; 「若分別諸法，不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "if one discriminates dharmas, one cannot obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—making a vow requires discriminating, and discriminating means not obtaining. This difficulty differs from the first two: the first two concerned what is delivered and what is sought; this one concerns the mind that arouses.

21. Practising the mark of two, there is no awakening—awakening is the mark of non-duality, the indestructible mark, practised neither by reason of taking nor by reason of giving up. The Buddha's answer is again first granting, then turning: 「若菩薩摩訶薩行二相者，無阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；若分別作二分者，無阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises the mark of two, there is no anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; if he discriminates and makes two divisions, there is no anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—what Subhūti worries about is not groundless; at once he turns it out: 「若不二、不分別諸法，則是阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "If one does not make dharmas two and does not discriminate them, that is precisely anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". The substance of awakening thereupon appears: 「菩提是不二相、不壞相」 tr. "Awakening is the mark of non-duality, the indestructible mark". Below it speaks of awakening not practising within dharmas—not practising within form, not practising within feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, 「乃至菩提亦不菩提中行」 tr. "and so on up to awakening too does not practise within awakening"; the reason is 「色即是菩提、菩提即是色，不二、不分別」 tr. "form is precisely awakening and awakening is precisely form, not two and not discriminated". The last sentence sets up the starting point of the question below: 「是菩提非取故行、非捨故行。」 tr. "This awakening is practised neither by reason of taking nor by reason of giving up."

22. The question of where awakening practises. Following on from the last sentence above he asks: 「若菩薩摩訶薩菩提非取故行、非捨故行，菩薩摩訶薩菩提何處行？」 tr. "If the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's awakening is practised neither by reason of taking nor by reason of giving up, then where does the bodhisattva-mahāsattva's awakening practise?" Since the two gates of taking and giving up are both not set up, what is practised has no place that can be pointed to. This question is asked very concretely and is not a delving into words: whenever 「行」 tr. "practise" is spoken of, there must be a place where it is practised; now both gates are blocked, so the place must be asked about.

23. The Buddha asks back where a conjured person practises. The Buddha does not answer directly but asks back with a matter: 「於汝意云何？如佛所化人在何處行——若取中行？若捨中行？」 tr. "What do you think? Where does a person conjured by the Buddha practise—does he practise within taking? Or does he practise within giving up?" He asks with the conjured person for its being without mind—the conjured person has the marks of practice but no mind that can take or give up, which is exactly the ready-made model of ‘practising without a place’. The simile of the conjured fourfold assembly of the earlier passage is used once more here, but what it makes clear is different: there it made clear that there is no reality of obtaining the path; here it makes clear that there is no place of taking and giving up.

24. Subhūti answers: neither taking nor giving up. The answer is only one sentence: 「世尊！非取中行，非捨中行。」 tr. "World-Honored One! He does not practise within taking, nor does he practise within giving up." The answer is cut clean, because the matter is self-evident. This answer once given, the Buddha at once matches it to awakening.

25. The Buddha asks again with the arhat's awakening in a dream. The Buddha first matches the earlier simile: 「菩薩摩訶薩菩提亦如是，非取中行、非捨中行」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's awakening is also like this: it does not practise within taking, nor practise within giving up"; at once he sets another question: 「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行——若取中行？若捨中行？」 tr. "Where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise—does it practise within taking? Or does it practise within giving up?" This question goes a layer further—the conjured person is conjured by another, while the dream is manifested by one's own mind; the one question concerns the mindlessness of an outer object, the other the unreality of the inner mind. With the two questions used together, the two gates of taking and giving up have no ground to stand on.

26. Subhūti answers that the arhat ultimately does not sleep. The answer has two sections: first he answers in accord, 「非取中行、非捨中行」 tr. "it does not practise within taking, nor practise within giving up", then brings out the reason himself—「阿羅漢畢竟不眠，云何夢中菩提若取中行、若捨中行？」 tr. "The arhat ultimately does not sleep; then how could the awakening in a dream practise within taking or practise within giving up?" The force of this answer is this: he does not say that the awakening in a dream has no taking or giving up; he says that at root there is no such dream, so the place asked about is not set up from the start. The Buddha's setting of the question takes exactly this point, making clear ‘there is necessarily no place of practice’. This is the hinge where the First Part and the Last Part fasten together: the treatise-author here sets out several rounds of question and answer, discussing in detail the matter of sleep and dreams, and the reader may wait for the Last Part.

27. The Buddha concludes—awakening is neither taking nor giving up, namely practising within form and so on up to practising within the omniscience of all kinds. With this the Buddha concludes the meaning of awakening: 「菩薩摩訶薩阿耨多羅三藐三菩提亦如是，非取中行、非捨中行，所謂色中行乃至一切種智中行。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva's anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is also like this: it does not practise within taking, nor practise within giving up, namely practising within form and so on up to practising within the omniscience of all kinds." The last sentence needs attention: having said neither taking nor giving up, he also says 「色中行乃至一切種智中行」 tr. "practising within form and so on up to practising within the omniscience of all kinds"—this is not self-contradiction: ‘neither taking nor giving up’ blocks the mind of taking and giving up; ‘practising within form and so on up to within the knowledge of all kinds’ makes clear that its practice pervades all dharmas without abiding. Blocking and showing come out together, which is exactly the manner of this chapter.

28. The doubt: might one obtain awakening without practising the dharmas? Subhūti at once asks out the doubt that readers are bound to have: 「將無菩薩摩訶薩不行十地，不行六波羅蜜，不行三十七助道法，不行十四空，不行諸禪定、解脫、三昧，不行佛十力乃至八十隨形好、住五神通、淨佛國土、成就眾生，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "Put this way, is it not that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva, not practising the ten grounds, not practising the six perfections, not practising the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, not practising the fourteen emptinesses, not practising the meditative concentrations, liberations, and samādhis, not practising the ten powers of the Buddha and so on up to the eighty minor marks, abiding in the five supernormal powers, purifying buddha-lands, and bringing beings to accomplishment, obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?"—if awakening has no place in which it practises, do the myriad practices not fall into emptiness? If this doubt is not removed, all the talk of the emptiness of nature above becomes talk of abandoning practice.

29. The Buddha grants his words and does not abandon the myriad practices—not making these dharmas complete, he never obtains awakening. The Buddha's answer shows the greatest sense of measure: first he grants entirely, 「如是！如是！如汝所言」 tr. "Just so! Just so! It is as you say", then he sets up a turn—「今菩薩雖菩提無處行」 tr. "Now, though the bodhisattva has no place in awakening in which to practise", and, enumerating the ten grounds, the six perfections, and so on up to the dharma of constant equanimity and the dharma of non-error, he cuts it off: 「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Having no place to practise is principle; not obtaining without making complete is practice; the two do not hinder each other. Next it speaks of abiding in marks and being able to make complete: 「是菩薩摩訶薩住色相中」 tr. "This bodhisattva-mahāsattva abides within the mark of form", passing through the marks of feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, 「乃至住阿耨多羅三藐三菩提相中，能具足十地」 tr. "and so on up to abides within the mark of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and can make the ten grounds complete"; and 「是相常寂滅，無有法能增能減、能生能滅、能垢能淨、能得道、能得果」 tr. "this mark is constantly of quiescent extinction: there is no dharma that can increase or decrease, can arise or cease, can be stained or be pure, can obtain the path, or can obtain the fruit". So at the end he judges it: 「世諦法故，菩薩摩訶薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，非第一實義」 tr. "It is by reason of worldly dharmas that the bodhisattva-mahāsattva obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; it is not the foremost real meaning", and explains it himself—within the foremost real meaning there is no form and so on up to no awakening, 「亦無行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 tr. "nor is there anyone who practises anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". One closing sentence is the weightiest: 「菩提亦不增、眾生亦不減，菩薩亦無增減。」 tr. "Awakening does not increase, beings do not decrease, and the bodhisattva too has no increase or decrease." Below that the Buddha sets another question, turning to Subhūti's own realisation: when he first obtained the path, abode in the samādhi without interval, obtained the faculties without outflows, and so on up to accomplishing the four fruits—「汝爾時有所得若夢、若心、若道、若道果不？」 tr. "at that time was there anything you obtained, whether a dream, or a mind, or the path, or the fruit of the path?"

30. Subhūti answers that nothing was obtained. The answer carries only the sense of three Chinese characters: 「世尊！不得也！」 tr. "World-Honored One! Nothing was obtained!" This answer takes what he himself realised as evidence—the questioner does not ask about principle, but asks whether he himself had anything obtained at that time; the one answering does not cite the scriptural teachings either, but answers straightway with actual realisation. Below, the Buddha presses one step further on this answer.

31. The Buddha asks how it is known that there is one who has obtained the path of the arhat. The Buddha turns his answer back on him: 「云何當知得阿羅漢道者？」 tr. "Then how is it known that there is a person who has obtained the path of the arhat?" Since at that time nothing was obtained, from where is the matter ‘obtaining arhatship’ securely set? This question points straight at the border of name and reality, and is the pivot on which the whole unit closes.

32. The answer: by reason of worldly dharmas the path of the arhat is named with distinctions. Subhūti answers most simply: 「世尊！世諦法故分別名阿羅漢道。」 tr. "World-Honored One! By reason of worldly dharmas the path of the arhat is named with distinctions."—the name is the distinction-making of worldly truth; it is not that within the highest meaning there is a dharma named arhat. These words come from Subhūti's own mouth, so in the next passage the Buddha uses these very words to establish the names of bodhisattva and of awakening, and the answer is completed without waiting to set up anything further.

33. The Buddha concludes—by reason of worldly truth one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva; within the emptiness of nature there is no increase and no decrease, and nothing obtained. The Buddha matches it with Subhūti's words: 「世諦故說名菩薩，說名色、受、想、行、識乃至一切種智。」 tr. "It is by reason of worldly truth that one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva, and that form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, are spoken of and named." Next he makes clear that awakening has no obtaining: 「是菩提中無法可得若增、若減，以諸法性空故」 tr. "Within this awakening there is no dharma to be found that increases or decreases, because all dharmas are empty of nature"; then by the method of comparison he pushes to the very end—「諸法性空尚不可得，何況得初地心乃至十地心、六波羅蜜、三十七助道法、空三昧、無相、無作三昧乃至一切佛法當有所得，無有是處！」 tr. "The emptiness of the nature of all dharmas is itself unfindable, how much less could there be anything to be attained in obtaining the mind of the first ground and so on up to the mind of the tenth ground, the six perfections, the thirty-seven dharmas that aid the path, the emptiness samādhi, the signless samādhi, the non-action samādhi, and so on up to all the dharmas of the Buddha—there is no such principle!" At the end it still returns to practice and to benefiting the living: 「菩薩摩訶薩行阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，利益眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and benefits beings."—speaking of nothing obtained without abandoning practice and without abandoning the benefiting of the living is exactly where this unit closes, matching head and tail with the opening 「為實際故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality".

Do Not Misread

First, 「實際、眾生際不異」 tr. "the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different" is not the same as ‘beings simply are the limit of reality and need no delivering’. In the same passage the sūtra both says they are not different and says 「立眾生於實際中」 tr. "he establishes beings within the limit of reality", from which it can be seen that ‘not different’ is said with regard to substance, and ‘establishing’ is said with regard to delusion. If one holds to ‘not different’ and abandons teaching, the passage on the five gates of skilful means has nothing at all to attach to.

Second, 「是世俗法，非第一實義」 tr. "This is a worldly dharma, not the foremost real meaning" is not a word of disparagement. At the end of the gate of keeping morality these words judge the section on entering nirvāṇa without remainder, because within the highest meaning there is no cessation and nothing that can cause cessation; the telling of worldly truth is for establishing beings, the judgement of the highest meaning is for not destroying the limit of reality, and only when the two hold at the same time is it the meaning of this chapter.

Third, 「顛倒即是無顛倒」 tr. "inversion is precisely non-inversion" may not be read as ‘there is no need to pull out’. In the same sentence the sūtra says 「多顛倒、少不顛倒」 tr. "much inversion and little non-inversion", and lists in detail the marks pulled out from—what is pulled away is the mark, not the person; what is broken is false imagining, not beings.

Fourth, in 「莫念二相、莫念不二相」 tr. "you must not think of the mark of two, nor think of the mark of not two", the latter half is the easiest to miss. Breaking the mark of two is what everyone knows; that even the mark of not two may not be thought of is because once not-two is thought of as a mark, it again becomes two. These words are this unit's needle against ‘taking emptiness as something attained’.

Fifth, the answer to 「菩提何處行」 tr. "where does awakening practise" is not ‘no practice’. With the two layers of counter-questions, the conjured person and the arhat's dream, the Buddha makes clear that it has no place of taking and giving up, and at once says himself 「色中行乃至一切種智中行」 tr. "practising within form and so on up to practising within the omniscience of all kinds", and further answers Subhūti's doubt, saying 「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Having no place to practise and practice that may not be lacking are both true at the same time.

Sixth, 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva" does not say that the bodhisattva is false and practice may be abandoned. The sūtra closes the whole passage with it, and the last sentence still says 「得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，利益眾生」 tr. "obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and benefits beings"—the name is provisional and yet the matter is not false, which is exactly where worldly truth and the highest meaning stand together.

Bearing on Practice

1. The teaching sequence of this unit can be taken up and used directly: first establish the practice, afterwards tell of its emptiness. The gate of giving is 「建立已，說布施先後際相」 tr. "having established them, he proclaims the marks of the former limit and the latter limit of giving", and the four gates of keeping morality, patience, vigour, and meditative concentration all follow this form. Used on oneself it is the same—first get going what ought to be done, then, right where it is done, contemplate that its three limits are all empty; if it is reversed, first contemplating emptiness and being unwilling to act, the five gates have nowhere to apply their strength.

2. The method of breaking anger can be used word for word: 「我於何所法中瞋？誰為瞋者？所瞋者誰？」 tr. "Within what dharma am I angry? Who is the one who is angry? Who is the one angered at?" With the three questions sent down together, the three matters anger rests on are all examined at one time. The sūtra further says that this emptiness is 「非諸佛作」 tr. "not made by the buddhas", and so on up to not made by the gods, which exactly cuts off the thought ‘emptiness must be cultivated into being’—emptiness is as it originally is, and patience is nothing but no longer going against it.

3. Using together the two sentences of the gate of vigour, 「莫懈怠」 tr. "do not be slack" and 「性空中無懈怠法」 tr. "within the emptiness of nature there is no dharma of slackness", is this unit's complete prescription against laziness: in nature there is no slackness to be found, so one need not first seek a mind that is not slack; in practice do not be slack, so act right now. Taking the emptiness of nature as one's rest, and not taking the emptiness of nature as an excuse for slackness—this is the dividing line of this gate.

4. The words 「自於須陀洹果中生智慧，亦不住是中」 tr. "he himself gives rise to wisdom within the fruit of the srota-āpanna and yet does not abide within it" can serve as the measure of daily effort: wherever there is something attained, examine whether one abides in it or not. If one gives rise to wisdom and abides, what is attained becomes bondage; only if one gives rise to wisdom and does not abide is there the strength to teach others.

5. The sentence of the last passage, 「諸法性空尚不可得」 tr. "the emptiness of the nature of all dharmas is itself unfindable", is best taken out and read when one feels one has realised something. This unit begins with 「為實際故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality" and closes with 「利益眾生」 tr. "benefits beings"; all the words of nothing obtained in between are said for the sake of this practice, not for the sake of stopping this practice.

Further Resonances

The single unit of the First Part, one stretch of sūtra text, sets up the pivot of this chapter. The sūtra text asks from 「若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñāpāramitā", takes 「實際、眾生際不異」 tr. "the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different" as the general answer, takes the five gates of the power of skilful means as the method of establishing, passes through the emptiness of nature being the mark of the abiding of dharmas, the simile of the conjured fourfold assembly, the teaching on pulling out from inversion, the exclamation that form is precisely the emptiness of nature, and the judgement that non-duality is precisely awakening, and at the end makes clear, with the two layers of counter-questions of the conjured person and the arhat's dream, that awakening has no place in which it practises, and with 「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi" does not abandon the myriad practices, closing on 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth one is spoken of and named a bodhisattva". The whole passage can be gathered into one sentence: what is set up lies in the deluded; what it rests on has never moved.

Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, at the opening of this chapter, at once judges its position and general meaning: 「此下第三、明為化之意。菩薩所以為化萬端者，正欲置眾生於實際中，是故此品明為化之意。」 tr. "From here down, third, the intent of transforming is made clear. The reason the bodhisattva transforms in myriad ways is precisely that he wishes to place beings within the limit of reality; therefore this chapter makes clear the intent of transforming." And on the one name 「實際」 tr. "the limit of reality" he makes a discrimination of the general and the particular: 「然實際是無之異名、正法之別目耳，何但是此經為化之意？十方三世佛菩薩為化之意，亦令悟實道也。」 tr. "Yet the limit of reality is only another name for non-existence and a separate title for the true Dharma; how could it be the intent of transforming of this sūtra alone? The intent of transforming of the buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and the three times is also to cause the awakening to the real path." His structural division divides this chapter in two: 「品為二：第一、正明為化之意，建立眾生於際；第二、廣明菩薩建立之法。」 tr. "The chapter is in two: first, it makes clear directly the intent of transforming, establishing beings in the limit; second, it makes clear broadly the bodhisattva's dharma of establishing."—the sūtra text of this unit corresponds exactly to the whole of these two divisions, and his second division, 「就建立中有二：就因行以建立令住六度；第二、就果德以建立令住種智」 tr. "within establishing there are two: establishing by way of the causal practices, causing them to abide in the six perfections; second, establishing by way of the virtues of the fruit, causing them to abide in the knowledge of all kinds", corresponds to the order of this unit, with the five gates first and the knowledge of all kinds after.

The question opening the chapter Jizang ties to the difficulty of the preceding chapter, and he discerns its turn: 「上品須菩提種種難：若諸法空，云何有五道生死、善不善等法？今難眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰行般若？先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法。」 tr. "In the chapter above Subhūti raised all kinds of difficulties: if all dharmas are empty, how are there the births and deaths of the five destinies, and dharmas wholesome and unwholesome and so on? Now he objects that beings are ultimately unfindable, so for whom does the bodhisattva practise prajñā? Before he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas." And he lists four phrasings of the objection, two of which say: 「一者、以法難法，如六度不可得，云何行六度？二者、以人難人，眾生不可得，何故度眾生？」 tr. "First, objecting to dharmas by dharmas: as, the six perfections are unfindable, so how does one practise the six perfections? Second, objecting to persons by persons: beings are unfindable, so why deliver beings?" On the Buddha's answer 「為實際故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality", Jizang points out the view it breaks: 「有所得人皆云實際是真諦故，眾生是世諦，但為度眾生故行般若，不度真諦故般若，所以佛破之云二際不異。」 tr. "People with something to be attained all say that, because the limit of reality is the real truth and beings are worldly truth, one practises prajñā only for the sake of delivering beings, and does not practise prajñā to deliver the real truth; therefore the Buddha breaks this, saying that the two limits are not different." And with the simile of the fingertip he makes clear the reason for Subhūti's second difficulty: 「一際云何還建立一際？如指端不自觸」 tr. "How can one limit in turn be established upon one limit? As the tip of a finger does not touch itself". This simile and the sūtra's words 「不得建立自性於自性」 tr. "self-nature cannot be established upon self-nature" shed light on each other; both are seen side by side, and they are recorded without judgement.

On the section 「菩提何處行」 tr. "where does awakening practise", Jizang divides it by two similes: 「舉化人喻，菩提無處行是處喻也。舉羅漢，如文中菩提何處行是重虗喻也。」 tr. "Raising the simile of the conjured person: awakening having no place in which to practise—this is the simile of place. Raising the arhat: as in the text, where does awakening practise—this is the simile of doubled unreality." And on the matter of the arhat's sleep he brings out a division into two kinds: 「眠有二：一者、眠而夢，羅漢無此眠也；二者、消息眠，羅漢有此眠也。」 tr. "Sleep is of two kinds: first, sleeping with dreams—the arhat does not have this sleep; second, the sleep of resting—the arhat does have this sleep." What he discusses belongs to the side of the treatise's explanation; the sūtra text of this unit stops at Subhūti's words 「阿羅漢畢竟不眠」 tr. "the arhat ultimately does not sleep", and the detailed discussion waits for the Last Part.

The extant text of Huiying's Commentary does not reach this chapter, and here his explanation is lacking; the form of Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises is profound meanings by topic, not a chapter-by-chapter commentary, and this chapter has nothing in it to be tied to—in both places the lack is marked according to the facts, and it is not filled with text from elsewhere.

As for the name of the limit of reality and the real mark of all dharmas, the tracing back of the twelve links of causes and conditions to make clear the limit of reality, the detailed explanation of the limit of beings and the limit of reality not being different, and the several rounds of question and answer on the arhat's sleeping and not sleeping—all these the treatise-author opens in the treatise's explanation of this chapter; they are not anticipated here, and wait for the Last Part.

The Limit of Reality, Last Part: Taking Up the Sūtra to Explain the Limit of Reality, Tracing the Twelve Links of Causes and Conditions Back to the Root of Suffering, the Emptiness of Nature and Skilful Means, and Where the Arhat's Awakening in a Dream Practises

What Is Being Asked

The First Part is sūtra; the Last Part is treatise. The general headrope set up by the sūtra section is only one sentence—the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different, and so the bodhisattva practises prajñā neither for the sake of a really existent being, nor by leaving beings to guard a really existent limit of reality. Here Subhūti presses objection after objection all the way along: since they are not different, does not establishing beings in the limit of reality become setting the limit of reality upon the limit of reality, setting self-nature within self-nature? The Buddha takes only the three Chinese characters 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means" as the eye of his explanation, and then passes through five places—giving, keeping morality, patience, vigour, and meditative concentration—showing in each one the order of teaching and transforming in which ‘the emptiness of nature is the substance, skilful means is the function’; at the end he presses with the two marks of taking and giving up, presses on as far as 「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行」 tr. "where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise", and gathers it all up in the one sentence 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth he is named bodhisattva".

What the Last Part asks is the same topic as the First Part, with another way of asking put in its place. What the sūtra section asks is 「怎麼做」 tr. "how is it done"—by what skilful means the bodhisattva establishes beings in the limit of reality; what the treatise section asks is 「憑什麼」 tr. "on what grounds"—why it is said that the bodhisattva practises prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality and not for the sake of beings. As soon as he opens his mouth the treatise-author takes up the objection of the previous chapter and points out the dividing line between the two objections: 「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故。」 tr. "Before, he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas." Before, the objection was set up on the side of dharmas and the question was about beings; now the objection is set up on the side of beings and the question is about dharmas; the pivot between the one sūtra and the one treatise falls on just this sentence.

The pivot once set up, the treatise-author at once poses a question himself, and this question is the true joint of the whole unit: 「一切菩薩見眾生苦惱，為度眾生故發大悲心，今何以言為實際？」 tr. "All bodhisattvas, seeing beings' suffering and vexation, arouse the mind of great compassion for the sake of delivering beings; why is it now said to be for the sake of the limit of reality?" The question is asked in the most ordinary way, yet it strikes the heart-sickness of all who train in the Great Vehicle—I aroused the mind for the sake of beings; now you say it is for the sake of the limit of reality, so do not beings fall into emptiness? The treatise-author's way of answering is beyond expectation: he does not argue from the meaning of emptiness, but instead pushes down, plainly and honestly, from 「苦」 tr. "suffering". To extinguish suffering one must know the cause of suffering; the cause of suffering is birth, the cause of birth is existence, the cause of existence is grasping, the cause of grasping is craving, the cause of craving is feeling, the cause of feeling is contact, the cause of contact is the six entries, the cause of the six entries is name-and-form, the cause of name-and-form is consciousness, the cause of consciousness is constructions, the cause of constructions is ignorance. The twelve links are traced back to ignorance, and then it is asked what the substance and mark of ignorance are—and as soon as it is sought, the seeking goes straight into ultimate emptiness. 「復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。」 tr. "Further, when the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality."

Only here is the question of the beginning fully answered: to be for the sake of the limit of reality is precisely to be for the sake of beings. For beings are beings only by inversion; the root of inversion lies in ignorance; the substance of ignorance is precisely the limit of reality. So the bodhisattva's penetrating the limit of reality is not turning his head away and paying no heed to beings; it is taking the root of beings' sickness into his own hand. This tracing back of the twelve links of causes and conditions is, within this treatise, a long and connected chain of reasoning rarely to be seen, and it is also the place in this unit where the treatise-author's hand is most clearly seen—he does not press people down with the meaning of emptiness; he wins them over with the course of the sickness.

The text below turns into the second layer: since the emptiness of nature breaks all dharmas, how can the bodhisattva, abiding within the emptiness of nature, still practise giving, still seek the omniscience of all kinds, still deliver beings? The treatise-author's answer has only one vital sentence—「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？」 tr. "The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection?" Your objection can stand only because you have also taken 「性空」 tr. "the emptiness of nature" as a mark; if the emptiness of nature has from the first no mark to be taken hold of, the difficulty dissolves of itself. After this, passing through the similes of the eighteen emptinesses, the constantly abiding marks of dharmas, the conjured person teaching the Dharma, the madman's false seeing, and the wind and clouds in space, it says again and again only one thing: by reason of worldly truth there is speaking and there is delivering; within the highest meaning there is no speaking and no delivering; and the two do not obstruct each other.

The last layer is the most perilous, and also shows most clearly what is extraordinary in this treatise. At the end of the sūtra section 「阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行」 tr. "where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise" presses the question of taking and giving up, and the treatise-author sets up three questions in a row on this one sentence: the arhat's awakening from the first does not practise within the mind with outflows or the indeterminate mind, so why does the Buddha use a dream to ask? Even the Buddha sleeps, so why is it said that the arhat does not sleep? The answer lies in 「眠有二種」 tr. "there are two kinds of sleep"—sleeping with dreams and sleeping without dreams; the arhat, having taken on a body of the four elements, has the sleep of rest, yet has no dreaming sleep. This passage looks like a side-branch, but in fact it is the key at the gathering-up place of the whole unit: a dream is the extreme of grasping at marks, and that within a dream there is no place where awakening practises shows precisely that awakening from the first has no place in which it practises; while the Buddha's showing sleep is, again, the two Chinese characters 「方便」 tr. "skilful means" teaching the Dharma in their own person.

So what is to be read in the Last Part is the three sentences of the sūtra text of the First Part brought down to solid ground: one sentence is 「實際、眾生際不異」 tr. "the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different"—proved by tracing back the twelve links of causes and conditions; one sentence is 「以方便力故」 tr. "by the power of skilful means"—proved by the signlessness of the emptiness of nature and the setting-up of worldly truth; one sentence is 「世諦故說名菩薩」 tr. "by reason of worldly truth he is named bodhisattva"—proved by the threefold simile of the dream, the conjured person, and the arhat. Only here do the two Chinese characters 「實際」 tr. "the limit of reality" of the chapter's name find their footing.

Passage by Passage

1. Taking up the objection of the previous chapter, and pointing out the pivot between the two objections. As soon as it opens, the treatise section looks back at the previous chapter: 「上品中須菩提種種因緣難：『若諸法空，云何有五道生死、善不善法？』」 tr. "In the previous chapter Subhūti raised objections by way of all kinds of causes and conditions: ‘If all dharmas are empty, how can there be the births and deaths of the five destinies, and wholesome and unwholesome dharmas?’" First ask a question: since this is an explanation of the sūtra, why does it not explain this chapter's sūtra text directly, but first turn back to cite the previous chapter? Because the problem of this chapter does not arise out of nothing; it is the overturning of the question of the previous chapter. What the previous chapter objected to was dharmas—since dharmas are empty, how can the births and deaths of the five destinies and the distinction of good and evil be set up; what this chapter objects to is the person—「若眾生畢竟不可得，菩薩為誰故行般若？」 tr. "If beings are ultimately unfindable, for whose sake does the bodhisattva practise prajñā?" The treatise-author lays this pivot bare in one sentence: 「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故。」 tr. "Before, he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas." The former question took the emptiness of dharmas to press upon the existence of beings; this question takes the emptiness of beings to press upon the existence of dharmas. In reading this passage, first get ready for one thing: the whole of the treatise text below walks between these two ends, and one may not keep to one end only.

2. The Buddha answers that it is for the sake of the limit of reality, while what Subhūti has in mind is beings. 「佛答：『為實際故，菩薩行般若波羅蜜。』」 tr. "The Buddha answered: ‘It is for the sake of the limit of reality that the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā.’" The treatise-author at once sets out the minds of the two sides of question and answer separately: 「須菩提意謂：菩薩為度眾生故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "What Subhūti had in mind was: the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of delivering beings." 「佛意：眾生假名虛誑、畢竟不可得；菩薩為一切實法故，行般若波羅蜜。實法即是實際。」 tr. "The Buddha's meaning: beings are a provisional name, false and deceptive, ultimately unfindable; it is for the sake of all real dharmas that the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā. The real dharma is precisely the limit of reality." The crux of this passage lies in the Chinese character 「意」 tr. "meaning". The treatise-author is not checking, at the level of the wording, who is right and who is wrong between the Buddha and Subhūti; he takes apart for people to see what each of the two is pointing at: what Subhūti points at is an object to be delivered; what the Buddha points at is all true and real dharmas. Here one slip must be guarded against—do not read 「為實際」 tr. "for the sake of the limit of reality" as the Buddha denying the delivering of beings. The whole passage of seeking through the twelve links of causes and conditions below is done precisely for the sake of delivering beings; what the Buddha changes is not the aim, but where the aim is fastened.

3. Between great compassion and the limit of reality—the first question. The treatise-author poses it himself: 「一切菩薩見眾生苦惱，為度眾生故發大悲心，今何以言為實際？」 tr. "All bodhisattvas, seeing beings' suffering and vexation, arouse the mind of great compassion for the sake of delivering beings; why is it now said to be for the sake of the limit of reality?" This question asks on behalf of all readers. The answer: 「初發意菩薩但為滅眾生苦故發大悲心。苦者，所謂老、病、死等，及身心衰惱。」 tr. "The bodhisattva at the first arousing of intent arouses the mind of great compassion only in order to extinguish the suffering of beings. Suffering means old age, sickness, death, and the like, together with the decline and vexation of body and mind." The answer is not hasty—it first admits that arousing the mind is indeed for extinguishing suffering, and defines 「苦」 tr. "suffering" clearly: not the abstract two Chinese characters for the truth of suffering, but these visible things, old age, sickness, death, and the decline and vexation of body and mind. The three Chinese characters 「初發意」 tr. "the first arousing of intent" especially deserve attention: the treatise-author does not say that arousing the mind in this way is wrong; he says only that this is the position of the first arousing of intent. A difference of position and not a difference of right and wrong—this is the general rule of this treatise.

4. To extinguish suffering one must first seek its cause, and the cause lies in birth. 「云何滅是苦？尋苦因緣，由生故」 tr. "How is this suffering to be extinguished? Seeking the causes and conditions of suffering, it is because of birth"—this sentence is the starting-point of the reasoning of the whole passage. The treatise-author at once cites the Buddha's words as proof: 「何因緣故有老、病、死？以有生故。」 tr. "By what causes and conditions are there old age, sickness, and death? Because there is birth." First ask a question: why must one first seek the cause in order to extinguish suffering? Because extinguishing suffering without seeking the cause can extinguish only the one matter before one's eyes; only by finding the cause and severing it can the continuity of suffering be extinguished. This is the physician's reasoning, and it is also where the simile of the good physician later in this passage comes from. The reader should here get ready for one thing: the tracing back of the twelve links below is not the recitation of a table of names and marks; it is asking, layer upon layer, ‘where does this come from?’

5. Beings too know that birth is suffering, so what is exceptional about the bodhisattva—the second question. The question: 「一切眾生皆知生因緣是苦，菩薩有何奇特？」 tr. "All beings know that the causes and conditions of birth are suffering; what then is exceptional about the bodhisattva?" This question is a sly one: that birth brings suffering, everyone understands, so where is the bodhisattva's insight higher? The answer: 「眾生不知由生有苦，若遭苦時，但怨恨人，自不將適，初不怨生；……」 tr. "Beings do not know that suffering comes from birth; when they meet with suffering they only resent other people and their own failure to take proper care, and never at all blame birth; ……" The answer is most exact—what beings know is the sentence ‘life is suffering’, not the fact ‘suffering comes from birth’. The evidence lies in how they respond when they meet with suffering: they blame other people, blame themselves for not having taken proper care, and never once lay the blame on 「生」 tr. "birth". Because they never lay the blame on birth, 「增長結使、重增生法，不知真實苦因」 tr. "they increase the fetters, make heavier the dharma of birth, and do not know the true and real cause of suffering"—every remedy they apply instead thickens that true root of the sickness. Here do not read the treatise-author as harshly rebuking ordinary people; what he offers is a method of verification: see where your mind goes when you meet with suffering, and you will know whether you recognise the cause of suffering. The treatise-author offers a further proof: 「有人無鞭杖、刀兵、諸愁惱苦，而有死苦」 tr. "Some people have no suffering of whips and staves, knives and weapons, or the various sorrows and vexations, and yet they have the suffering of death"—this person has never been beaten in his whole life, never met with weapons, has no sorrows or vexations, and still has to die; where does this death come from? 「從生而有。」 tr. "It exists from birth." Take away all the other conditions, and the one that remains is the true cause.

6. Birth is definitely the root of suffering—the simile of grass and trees. The treatise-author pushes one layer further: 「復次，鞭杖、刀兵、愁惱，皆由生故有。」 tr. "Further, whips and staves, knives and weapons, sorrows and vexations, all exist because of birth." The previous passage was subtraction; this passage is addition: those sufferings that seem to have some other source still have birth as their root. 「餘法或有苦、或無苦，是生法必定有苦」 tr. "Other dharmas may have suffering or may have no suffering; this dharma of birth definitely has suffering"—between other dharmas and suffering the relation is one of maybe; only between birth and suffering is the relation one of necessity. The treatise-author pushes the range further to the extreme: 「正使大智及諸天，有生必有死，有死必有苦，是故知『生定是苦本』。」 tr. "Even people of great wisdom and the gods: where there is birth there is definitely death, where there is death there is definitely suffering; so it is known that ‘birth is definitely the root of suffering’." People of great wisdom and the gods are the best situations that can be thought of in the world, and still they do not escape this rule. At the end grass and trees are taken as a simile: 「如草木有生故，必可焚燒；若當不生，雖有猛火、大風，無所燒害。」 tr. "As grass and trees, because they have birth, can definitely be burnt; if they were not born, then even with a fierce fire and a great wind there would be nothing to burn and harm." The point the simile takes lies in one place only—the nature of being burnable is fastened to having birth, not to the fierceness of the fire or the greatness of the wind. So the remedy lies not in hiding from the fire but in not being born. In reading this simile do not drag in the rest: the arising and ceasing of grass and trees and the birth and death of beings are different as matters and marks; what is taken is only the one meaning ‘only where there is birth is there something burnable’.

7. Tracing back as far as the six entries—existence, grasping, craving, feeling, contact. 「菩薩既得苦因緣，復推生因緣」 tr. "Having found the causes and conditions of suffering, the bodhisattva goes on to trace the causes and conditions of birth"—from here the reasoning formally unfolds. The cause of birth is existence, and existence is divided into three: 「欲有、色有、無色有」 tr. "the existence of desire, the existence of form, the existence of the formless"; clinging to these three existences one gives rise to good and evil deeds, and this is the cause of receiving birth. The cause of existence is the four kinds of grasping; the cause of grasping is craving and the other afflictions. Here the treatise-author lays down a most important definition: 「小者未能起業，故名為愛；增長能起業，故名為取：……」 tr. "When it is small and cannot yet give rise to deeds, it is therefore named craving; when it has grown and can give rise to deeds, it is therefore named grasping: ……" Craving and grasping are not two different things; they are two stages of the same affliction—when it cannot yet make deeds it is called craving, when it can make deeds it is called grasping. The items of the four kinds of grasping the treatise-author lists one by one: 「欲取、見取、戒取、我語取」 tr. "grasping at sense-desires, grasping at views, grasping at precepts, grasping at the doctrine of self"—all four are marks of grasping and clinging, while the objects grasped differ; 「取著是四事故，能起種種業」 tr. "because one grasps and clings to these four things, one can give rise to all kinds of deeds". The cause of craving is the three kinds of feeling; the cause of feeling is the six kinds of contact. The definition of contact is also in this passage: 「觸名受等諸心數法」 tr. "contact is named together with feeling and the other mental-factor dharmas", and the principle of its arising is 「情、塵、識三事和合故，心中生受等心數法」 tr. "because the three things, faculty, sense-object, and consciousness, come together, feeling and the other mental-factor dharmas arise in the mind". The last sentence most deserves attention: 「根本雖三事，和合故生觸，為六情依止住處故，但說六入」 tr. "although the root is three things, contact arises because they come together; because the six faculties are the place where support is taken and abiding is, only the six entries are spoken of"—only when the three things come together does contact arise, and yet among the twelve links only the six entries are marked, because the six faculties are the place where mind and consciousness take support and abide securely. This is naming what is relied on so as to gather in what relies on it; it is not saying that the outer sense-objects and consciousness can be discarded.

8. The dividing line between the six entries and name-and-form. 「六入因緣，名色。六入雖即是名色分，成就名六入，未成就名名色」 tr. "The causes and conditions of the six entries are name-and-form. Although the six entries are precisely a part of name-and-form, when accomplished they are named the six entries, when not yet accomplished they are named name-and-form"—first ask a question: since the six entries are a part of name-and-form, do the two not overlap? The treatise-author answers clearly: the distinction lies not in the substance but in being accomplished or not yet accomplished. Dividing more finely: 「色成就名五入，名成就名一入。」 tr. "When form is accomplished it is named the five entries; when name is accomplished it is named the one entry." The five entries of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body belong to form; the mind-entry belongs to name. The last sentence points out the place of this whole passage: 「是胎中時因緣次第。」 tr. "This is the sequence of causes and conditions at the time in the womb." What is spoken of is not the coarse appearance of one whole life, but the order, earlier and later, in which body and mind take shape after entering the womb. In reading this passage do not take the treatise-author to be giving a physiological account; what he distinguishes is the dividing line of names and marks, and what he relies on is whether or not something is accomplished, not the setting up of a separate thing.

9. The cause of name-and-form lies in consciousness—the five aggregates of the intermediate existence. 「名色因緣，是識。若識不入胎，胎初則爛壞。」 tr. "The causes and conditions of name-and-form are consciousness. If consciousness did not enter the womb, the embryo would rot and decay at its very beginning." The treatise-author at once defines the consciousness meant here: 「識名中陰中五眾。是五眾細故，但名為識。」 tr. "Consciousness is named the five aggregates within the intermediate existence. Because these five aggregates are subtle, they are named only consciousness." First ask a question: why are the five aggregates called only consciousness? Because in the position of the intermediate existence the five aggregates are extremely subtle and hard to speak of separately, so one of them is named to gather in the rest. At the end he closes it with a proof from the contrary: 「若識不入而胎成者，如一切和合時，皆應成胎！」 tr. "If the embryo were formed without consciousness entering, then at every time of coming together an embryo should be formed!" If consciousness were not a necessary condition, then whenever the various conditions came together an embryo should be formed—in fact it is not so, and so it can be seen that consciousness is a link that cannot be lacking. This sentence is a standard reduction to absurdity: it does not prove directly that consciousness enters the womb; it shows what absurdity denying it would lead to.

10. By what causes and conditions consciousness enters the womb—the simile of the wind blowing a cut-off flame. The question: 「識何因緣故入胎？」 tr. "By what causes and conditions does consciousness enter the womb?" The answer: 「行因緣。行即是過去三種業，業將識入胎。」 tr. "By the causes and conditions of constructions. Constructions are precisely the three kinds of deeds of the past; deeds carry consciousness into the womb." The vital point lies in the Chinese character 「將」 tr. "carry"—consciousness does not walk in by itself; deeds bring it in. The simile says: 「如風吹絕焰，空中而去，焰則依止於風；……」 tr. "As the wind blows a flame that has been cut off and it goes away through the air, the flame taking support in the wind; ……" The flame itself has no power of travelling; it is the wind that carries it and moves it; consciousness's entering the womb is also like this. 「先世作人身時然六識故，命終時，業將識入胎」 tr. "Because in a former life, when one had a human body, the six consciousnesses were kindled, at the end of life deeds carry consciousness into the womb"—when one had a human body in the former life the six consciousnesses were kindled; at the moment of the end of life deeds then carry this consciousness to receive a later existence. In reading this simile one slip must be guarded against: do not read consciousness as a real thing blown along by the wind. What the simile takes lies only in the one point ‘having no power of its own to travel and travelling by the power of another’, not in the flame's having a substance.

11. Both are deeds, yet one is named existence and one is named constructions—where the names come from. The question: 「上業何以名有？今業何以名行？」 tr. "Why are the deeds above named existence? Why are the deeds here named constructions?" Earlier it was said that the link of existence is deeds, and here it is said that the link of constructions is also deeds; both are deeds yet the names differ, and doubt can hardly fail to arise. The answer: 「上是『今世業，為未來有，故名為有』；今『業過去世已滅盡，但有名，名為行』。」 tr. "Above is ‘deeds of this present life, which are to be future existence, and so are named existence’; here is ‘deeds of past lives that have already ceased entirely, with only a name remaining, which are named constructions’." The distinction lies only in the position in time: what is made in this present life and is about to bring about a future fruit is named existence with regard to its ability to bring it about; what has already ceased entirely in past lives, with only the name remaining, is named constructions with regard to its having already passed away. So the names and marks among the twelve links are not each a thing of its own; they are different names for one and the same matter at different positions in time. This question and answer is the place where reading the twelve links of causes and conditions most easily gets stuck, and the treatise-author picks it out specially.

12. The causes and conditions of constructions are named ignorance—why ignorance alone is marked. 「是行因緣名無明。」 tr. "The causes and conditions of these constructions are named ignorance." He at once explains why this one link alone is marked: 「一切煩惱雖是過去業因緣，無明是根本故，但名無明。」 tr. "Although all the afflictions are causes and conditions of past deeds, because ignorance is the root, it is named only ignorance." This is the same method as 「但說六入」 tr. "only the six entries are spoken of" in the earlier passage—naming the root so as to gather in the rest. The treatise-author further speaks by setting present against past: 「今世現在著愛、取多故，愛、取愛名；過去世中是疑、邪見處故，但名無明。」 tr. "Because in this present life the clinging to craving and grasping is much, craving and grasping take the name; because within past lives was the place of doubt and wrong views, it is named only ignorance." What is prominent in this present life is craving and grasping; what is fastened to past lives is doubt and wrong views; so each sets up its name by what is prominent in it. The last sentence closes very weightily: 「今得一切苦惱根本，是無明。」 tr. "The root of all suffering and vexation now found is ignorance." Pushing all the way from old age and death to here, that 「真實苦因」 tr. "true and real cause of suffering" that was sought is only here found.

13. Why the tracing stops at ignorance. The question: 「無始生死展轉甚多，何以止齊無明？」 tr. "Since beginningless time birth and death have turned round a great many times; why does the tracing stop at ignorance?" Since birth and death are beginningless, is there not still something before ignorance? The answer: 「是事先已答。」 tr. "This matter has already been answered before." The answer is extremely short, so short that the reader easily slides past it. Here there is no need to think the treatise-author is putting the questioner off: the earlier text of this treatise has already discussed this meaning, and its direct principle lies in the seventeenth passage below—seeking further for the root, one falls into the extreme view and falls into idle discourse. So the brevity here is because the meaning is already complete elsewhere, not because there is nothing to answer. When reading the treatise and meeting this kind of extremely brief answer, one should turn back to seek what it points to, and may not straightway take it as a gap.

14. What is severed lies only in the future—the similes of the good physician and of putting out a fire. 「菩薩思惟，為人從苦得脫故，求苦因緣」 tr. "The bodhisattva reflects: in order that people may obtain liberation from suffering, he seeks the causes and conditions of suffering"—he returns to the starting-point, and what was sought has been found, so he turns to 「怎麼斷」 tr. "how to sever it". The treatise-author first sets a limitation: 「眾生過去、現在老死等苦，不可得除；為除未來世老死苦，斷相續，不令復生。」 tr. "The past and present sufferings of old age, death, and the rest of beings cannot be removed; it is in order to remove the suffering of old age and death of future lives that he severs the continuity and does not let it arise again." First ask a question: since he speaks of extinguishing suffering, why can past and present suffering not be removed at all? Because the past has already passed away and the present is already formed, and neither is within reach of human strength; what strength can be applied to is only the cause of the future. There are two similes. The simile of the good physician: 「過去病不可治，現在病亦不可治；服藥但能治應起病，破其冷熱，不復令起。」 tr. "Past illness cannot be cured, present illness also cannot be cured; taking medicine can cure only the illness that is about to arise, breaking its cold and heat so that it does not arise again." The simile of putting out a fire: 「不為已過去火故勤滅，亦不為現在火故勤滅，但為未來火不令更燒故勤滅。」 tr. "One does not strive to put it out for the sake of the fire that has already passed, nor does one strive to put it out for the sake of the present fire; one strives to put it out only for the sake of the future fire, so that it does not burn further." The treatise-author at once adds to these two similes a vital remark: 「良醫、滅火人勤方便亦不虛」 tr. "the striving and skilful means of the good physician and of the person putting out the fire are not in vain either"—after the limitation one may not topple over into passivity. Although what is severed lies only in the future, its work is not in vain. Applied to the bodhisattva: 「破是生法，老死等苦自然永滅。」 tr. "When this dharma of birth is broken, the suffering of old age, death, and the rest naturally ceases forever." Break the cause and the fruit passes away of itself; there is no need to counter the fruits one by one.

15. Counting forward the eight present causes and conditions. The previous passage traced backward; this passage looks back over it: 「是故菩薩欲滅未來世老死等苦因緣生，得現在『有』等八因緣：……」 tr. "Therefore the bodhisattva, wishing to extinguish birth, the causes and conditions of the suffering of old age, death, and the rest of future lives, finds the eight present causes and conditions, ‘existence’ and the rest: ……" The items of the eight links the treatise-author sets up one by one: the first is deeds with outflows; the second is the various afflictions of the present life, namely 「四取、一愛」 tr. "the four kinds of grasping and the one craving"; these two kinds of affliction arise from the two mental-factor dharmas of feeling and contact; contact can be named the causes and conditions of feeling because 「觸能生一切心數法，受前生故」 tr. "contact can give rise to all mental-factor dharmas, and feeling arises first"; although feeling can give rise to the three poisons, 「一切眾生，愛是舊煩惱」 tr. "for all beings, craving is the old affliction"; the causes and conditions of contact are the inner six entries, and here he specially makes clear why the outer six entries are not taken: 「雖有外六入，內六入無故觸等心數法不生，是故內六入得名」 tr. "although there are the outer six entries, because without the inner six entries contact and the other mental-factor dharmas do not arise, therefore the inner six entries obtain the name"—although the outer sense-objects are there, if the inner faculties are lacking contact does not arise, so the name is set up by what is decisive; name-and-form is the causes and conditions of the six entries; 「初入胎識，是名色因緣」 tr. "the consciousness that first enters the womb is the causes and conditions of name-and-form". The crux of this passage lies in the three Chinese characters 「得現在」 tr. "finds the present": the twelve links the bodhisattva traces are not a chart of the past; they are matters that can be verified right now.

16. From the womb to adulthood—the real face of the sequence. The treatise-author sets the names and marks of the previous passage back within one life to look at them: 「識、名色在胎中，此中雖有六入，未成就、未可用故，未得名字。」 tr. "Consciousness and name-and-form are in the womb; although within this there are the six entries, because they are not yet accomplished and cannot yet be used, they have not yet obtained their names." Once born as an infant, 「未能有所作，但有六入」 tr. "it cannot yet do anything; there are only the six entries"; growing older, 「有六觸」 tr. "there are the six contacts", and 「如小兒蹈火履氷，但有觸，未知苦樂」 tr. "as a small child treads on fire and steps on ice: there is only contact, and it does not yet know suffering and pleasure"; growing older still, 「受苦樂，未深愛著」 tr. "it experiences suffering and pleasure, but has not yet deeply craved and clung", the evidence being 「如小兒雖瞋，未能起殺等惡業；雖喜，未能起施等善業」 tr. "as a small child, though it grows angry, cannot yet give rise to evil deeds such as killing; though it is glad, cannot yet give rise to wholesome deeds such as giving"; coming to adulthood, 「得苦生恚、得樂生愛」 tr. "obtaining suffering one gives rise to anger, obtaining pleasure one gives rise to craving", 「求樂具故，取欲等四取」 tr. "for the sake of seeking the things of pleasure, one grasps the four kinds of grasping, of sense-desires and the rest", 「取時，能起善惡業」 tr. "at the time of grasping, one can give rise to good and evil deeds". First ask a question: why must the treatise-author tell in such detail of one person's growing up? Because the twelve links are most easily read as an abstract arrangement of rebirth through the three times; once they come down onto one person, the difference between craving and grasping and the difference between contact and feeling all become matters that can be verified. Here the reader should make a self-examination: is one at this moment at contact, at feeling, or already at grasping?

17. From one life the myriads of koṭi of lives can be known; seeking further for the root, one falls into idle discourse. 「若知先一世無明、業因緣，則億萬世可知；譬如現在火熱，過去、未來火亦如是。」 tr. "If one knows the causes and conditions of ignorance and deeds of a single former life, then myriads of koṭi of lives can be known; just as present fire is hot, past and future fire are also like this." The simile takes one point: fire's being hot does not differ with the times and ages; the principle of causes and conditions is also so. Knowing the principle of one life, there is no need to count life after life. He at once cuts off further seeking: 「若無明因緣更求其本，則無窮，即墮邊見，失涅槃道，是故不應求；若更求，則墮戲論，非是佛法。」 tr. "If one seeks further for the root of the causes and conditions of ignorance, there is no end to it; one then falls into the extreme view and loses the path of nirvāṇa, so one should not seek it; if one seeks further, one falls into idle discourse, and it is not the Buddha's Dharma." This is precisely what 「是事先已答」 tr. "this matter has already been answered before" in the thirteenth passage points to. One slip must be guarded against: do not read 「不應求」 tr. "one should not seek it" as forbidding people to think. What is forbidden is tracing the root back toward an endless prior limit—that is a road on which nothing can be found and which is sure to give rise to an extreme view; what is not forbidden is seeking the substance and mark of ignorance, which is exactly what the next passage does. The one is pushing forward, the other is looking inward; the directions are wholly different.

18. Seeking the substance and mark of ignorance is at once entering ultimate emptiness. 「菩薩欲斷無明故，求無明體相；求時，即入畢竟空。」 tr. "Because the bodhisattva wishes to sever ignorance, he seeks the substance and mark of ignorance; when he seeks, he at once enters ultimate emptiness." First ask a question: why is it empty as soon as it is sought? The treatise-author cites a sūtra of the Buddha as proof: 「無明相：內法不知，外法不知，內外法不知。」 tr. "The mark of ignorance: not knowing inner dharmas, not knowing outer dharmas, not knowing inner and outer dharmas." The mark of ignorance is not an existent; it is a threefold 「不知」 tr. "not knowing". Since it is not knowing, when it is illumined by the contemplation of emptiness it scatters: 「菩薩以內空觀內法，內法即空；以外空觀外法，外法即空；以內外空觀內外法，內外法即空。」 tr. "The bodhisattva contemplates inner dharmas by inner emptiness, and inner dharmas are at once empty; he contemplates outer dharmas by outer emptiness, and outer dharmas are at once empty; he contemplates inner and outer dharmas by inner-and-outer emptiness, and inner and outer dharmas are at once empty." The three contemplations answer the three kinds of not knowing, each matching each. At the end an older text is taken as proof: 「如先品《德女經》中『破無明』廣說。」 tr. "As is broadly said under ‘refuting ignorance’ in the Sūtra of the Virtuous Woman in an earlier chapter." Here attention should be paid to the treatise-author's method: he does not use the meaning of emptiness to deny ignorance; he looks at ignorance by following its own definition—it has from the first 「不知」 tr. "not knowing" as its mark, and not knowing has no substance to be found.

19. Seeking the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination—the simile of the silkworm making its cocoon. 「復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。」 tr. "Further, when the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality." Only here is the title of the whole unit pointed out directly for the first time. The two Chinese characters 「即時」 tr. "at that very moment" may not be passed over: it is not that after ignorance is broken another illumination is obtained; it is that the very moment its substance is sought, that is illumination. Below this he speaks of why beings undergo suffering: 「觀諸法如幻如化，眾生顛倒因緣故，起諸煩惱，作惡罪業，輪轉五道，受生死苦。」 tr. "He contemplates all dharmas as like an illusion, like a conjuration; beings, because of the causes and conditions of inversion, give rise to the various afflictions, make evil and sinful deeds, turn round in the five destinies, and undergo the suffering of birth and death." The simile says: 「譬如蠶出絲自裹縛，入沸湯火炙。」 tr. "It is like a silkworm that puts out silk to wrap and bind itself, and goes into boiling water and is scorched by fire." The point the simile takes lies in the Chinese character 「自」 tr. "itself"—what binds the silkworm is not someone outside, but the silk it has spat out itself. Applying the simile: ordinary people 「初生時未有諸煩惱，後自生貪欲、瞋恚等諸煩惱；是煩惱因緣故，覆真智慧，轉身受地獄火燒湯煮」 tr. "at the time of their first birth have none of the various afflictions; later they themselves give rise to greed, anger, and the other afflictions; because of the causes and conditions of these afflictions, true wisdom is covered over, and turning their bodies they undergo being burnt by fire and boiled in water in the hells". At the end it comes back to the bodhisattva: 「菩薩知是法本末皆空，但眾生顛倒錯故受如是苦」 tr. "the bodhisattva knows that these dharmas are all empty from root to branch, and that it is only because beings are inverted and confused that they undergo such suffering", and so 「於此眾生起大悲心，欲破是顛倒故，求於實法，行般若波羅蜜，通達實際」 tr. "toward these beings he gives rise to the mind of great compassion, and, in order to break this inversion, seeks the real dharma, practises prajñāpāramitā, and penetrates the limit of reality", and after that 「種種因緣教化眾生，令住實際」 tr. "by all kinds of causes and conditions teaches and transforms beings and causes them to abide in the limit of reality". The closing sentence is the judgement of the whole passage: 「是故住實際無咎。」 tr. "Therefore there is no fault in abiding in the limit of reality." The question of the third passage, 「今何以言為實際」 tr. "why is it now said to be for the sake of the limit of reality", is only here truly answered in full—to be for the sake of the limit of reality is precisely to be for the sake of beings, because the root of beings' sickness lies exactly where the limit of reality is covered over.

20. If the limit of beings and the limit of reality were different, practising prajñā would accomplish nothing. 「復次，經中說：『若眾生與實際異，菩薩不應行般若波羅蜜。』」 tr. "Further, the sūtra says: ‘If beings and the limit of reality were different, the bodhisattva should not practise prajñāpāramitā.’" The treatise-author at once pins down the meaning of 「異」 tr. "different": 「異者，實際是畢竟空，眾生際是決定有；……」 tr. "Different means: the limit of reality is ultimate emptiness, the limit of beings is definitely existent; ……" The one empty, the other existent, the two do not reach each other. If it were so, there would be a double objection: first, 「若諸法實際相空，菩薩云何為眾生故修是實際」 tr. "if the mark of the limit of reality of all dharmas is empty, how could the bodhisattva, for the sake of beings, cultivate this limit of reality"—what is cultivated is empty, what it is for is existent, and they do not correspond; second, 「若眾生畢竟空、實際定有，無眾生則無所利益，為誰故行實際」 tr. "if beings were ultimately empty and the limit of reality definitely existent, then with no beings there would be nothing to benefit; for whose sake would he practise the limit of reality"—put the other way round, they still do not correspond. The treatise-author's conclusion is only one sentence: 「今眾生際實不異實際，故行般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "Now the limit of beings is in reality not different from the limit of reality, and so he practises prajñāpāramitā." Its use lies in the next sentence: 「欲覺悟狂惑顛倒凡夫故，行般若波羅蜜；令眾生住實際中，而不壞實際。」 tr. "In order to awaken ordinary people who are mad, deluded, and inverted, he practises prajñāpāramitā; he causes beings to abide within the limit of reality, and yet does not destroy the limit of reality." Not different, so they can be delivered; not destroyed, so they are delivered and yet there is no one delivered. This passage is the doctrinal core of this chapter's title; in reading it one must keep 「不異」 tr. "not different" and 「是一」 tr. "being one" clearly apart—the next passage discusses exactly this.

21. The objection of setting the limit of reality upon the limit of reality—the tip of a finger cannot touch the tip of that finger. 「是時，須菩提更問：『若眾生際、實際不異，云何以實際著實際？』」 tr. "At this time Subhūti asked further: ‘If the limit of beings and the limit of reality are not different, how can the limit of reality be set upon the limit of reality?’" The objection is most ingenious: since you say they are not different, is not establishing beings in the limit of reality the same as setting the limit of reality upon the limit of reality? The treatise-author supplies for this objection the general rule it rests on: 「自性不應自性中住，如指端不能自觸指端。」 tr. "Self-nature should not abide within self-nature, as the tip of a finger cannot itself touch the tip of that finger." The point the simile takes lies in one place only—one and the same thing cannot take itself as an object it faces. A knife does not cut itself, an eye does not see itself; all follow the same principle. If this objection were not resolved, the phrase 「建立眾生於實際」 tr. "establishing beings in the limit of reality" would destroy itself.

22. Not one and not two, and also not not-one and not not-two. 「佛可其意，菩薩以方便故，建立眾生於實際，如眾生、實際不異，一亦不可得。」 tr. "The Buddha approved his meaning: the bodhisattva, by skilful means, establishes beings in the limit of reality; as beings and the limit of reality are not different, even one is unfindable." First he admits that the objection stands—if they were truly one, then 「若是一，則壞實際相」 tr. "if it were one, the mark of the limit of reality would be destroyed", and why? 「所以者何？得是一性故」 tr. "Why? Because a nature of one would be found": once it is said to be one, there is a self-nature of one to be found, while the limit of reality has precisely the absence of self-nature as its mark. Thereupon the treatise-author lays down the most important sentence of this passage: 「菩薩知是二法不一不二，亦不不一、亦不不二，畢竟寂滅無戲論相。」 tr. "The bodhisattva knows that these two dharmas are not one and not two, and also not not-one and also not not-two, ultimately quiescent and without the mark of idle discourse." Sending away all four alternatives together is not playing with turns of phrase; it is taking 「不異」 tr. "not different" apart from 「是一」 tr. "being one": not different is not one, and not one and yet not two. At the end it still returns to the place of practice: 「菩薩生大悲心，但欲拔出眾生離於顛倒故，教化眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva gives rise to the mind of great compassion and teaches and transforms beings only because he wishes to pull beings out and free them from inversion." The principle is most profound and the matter most plain; this is the usual state of this treatise.

23. What is named skilful means—establishing beings in dāna and saying that dāna is empty in the three times. 「又問：『云何名方便？』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘What is named skilful means?’" The pattern of the Buddha's answer is 「建立眾生於檀中，說是檀先際、後際空，中際亦爾」 tr. "he establishes beings in dāna, and says that this dāna is empty in the former limit and in the latter limit, and the middle limit is likewise". The treatise-author first points out where it comes from: 「如經中廣說」 tr. "as is broadly said in the sūtra", 「如先〈檀品〉中說」 tr. "as was said earlier in the chapter ‘Dāna’", and further points out where the bodhisattva who uses skilful means takes his stand: 「菩薩知實際者到眾生邊。」 tr. "The bodhisattva who knows the limit of reality goes over to the side of beings." The one who knows the limit of reality does not abide unmoving within the limit of reality; he goes over to the side where beings are. Below this he writes out why skilful means is necessary—this is the most vivid place in the whole passage: after hearing the Dharma beings 「發心，折薄煩惱，深著布施」 tr. "arouse the mind, break down and thin their afflictions, and cling deeply to giving"; the bodhisattva pities them, and what he thinks in his heart is 「我從慳中拔出，今復著布施」 tr. "I pulled him out of stinginess, and now he again clings to giving"; the after-trouble of clinging to giving the treatise-author tells very plainly: 「眾生若受布施，福盡受諸苦惱；又受富貴因緣，得作大罪，則墮地獄」 tr. "if beings receive the retribution of giving, when the merit is exhausted they undergo all kinds of suffering and vexation; and receiving the causes and conditions of riches and honour, they come to commit great sins and then fall into the hells", in short 「得少許時樂而受苦長久」 tr. "they obtain a little while of pleasure and undergo suffering for a long time". So only the next step speaks of the real mark of giving: 「是布施過去已滅，不可見、不可得、不可用，但可憶念，如夢所見無異；未來未生故，亦無所有、畢竟空。是布施先、後際無故，中際亦無。」 tr. "This giving in the past has already ceased; it cannot be seen, is unfindable, cannot be used, and can only be recollected, no different from what is seen in a dream; the future, because it has not yet arisen, is also without anything existent, ultimately empty. Because this giving has neither a former nor a latter limit, there is no middle limit either." The present portion he breaks by citing an older text: 「現在布施雖眼見，分分破析，乃至微塵不可得。」 tr. "Although present giving is seen by the eye, when it is broken down and analysed part by part, even down to atoms it is unfindable." The three times being empty, then 「布施三世空，施者、受者、果報亦如是」 tr. "giving is empty in the three times, and so likewise are the giver, the recipient, and the retribution". In this passage one slip must be guarded against: do not read the saying that giving is empty as telling people not to give. The order is first to pull out of stinginess and then to break the clinging; the two steps may not be inverted—inverted, it becomes discarding practice by means of emptiness.

24. The flavour of ambrosia and the fruit of ambrosia. 「菩薩語施者言：『布施等法是初入佛法門；實際中，實際相亦無，何況布施！……』」 tr. "The bodhisattva says to the giver: ‘Giving and the other dharmas are the gate of first entering the Buddha's Dharma; within the limit of reality there is not even the mark of the limit of reality, how much less giving! ……’" With one sentence he cuts off the place of clinging, and at once gives the right practice: 「汝莫念、莫著布施等法！若不念、不著如布施體相，如是布施者，則得甘露味、甘露果。」 tr. "You must not recollect, must not cling to giving and the other dharmas! If one does not recollect and does not cling, as is the substance and mark of giving, one who gives thus obtains the flavour of ambrosia and the fruit of ambrosia." The treatise-author afterwards sets these two names down on solid ground: 「甘露味者，是八聖道分；甘露果者，是涅槃。」 tr. "The flavour of ambrosia is the eightfold noble path; the fruit of ambrosia is nirvāṇa." The last sentence brings skilful means back: 「菩薩雖住實際中，以方便力，布施門度眾生。」 tr. "Although the bodhisattva abides within the limit of reality, by the power of skilful means he delivers beings through the gate of giving." Abiding in the limit of reality is the substance, the gate of giving is the function; the substance does not obstruct the function, the function does not part from the substance. Reading this passage, one can know that what this treatise calls 「方便」 tr. "skilful means" is not a stopgap accommodation; it is knowing that something is empty and still going in by its gate.

25. The other pāramitās are of the same pattern. 「餘波羅蜜亦如是，如經中廣說。」 tr. "The other pāramitās are likewise, as is broadly said in the sūtra." It is passed over in one sentence, and what it points to is the four gates of the sūtra section, keeping morality, patience, vigour, and meditative concentration. Here the treatise-author does not explain them again gate by gate, because the principle is already complete in the gate of dāna. When reading the treatise and meeting this kind of abbreviated wording, one should turn back and take the principle of the preceding gate to serve as the pattern for the rest, and may not straightway take it as a gap in the explanation.

26. Abiding within the emptiness of nature, how does he seek the omniscience of all kinds? 「須菩提白佛言：『世尊！若一切法性空，性空中無法及非法、亦無眾生，菩薩云何住是空中求一切種智？』」 tr. "Subhūti said to the Buddha: ‘World-Honored One! If all dharmas are empty of nature, and within the emptiness of nature there is neither dharma nor what is not a dharma, nor are there beings, how does the bodhisattva abide within this emptiness and seek the omniscience of all kinds?’" The objection is most upright: what is set up is emptiness, what is sought is knowledge, and the two do not fit together. 「佛答：『菩薩安立性空中故，能行是布施等諸法。』」 tr. "The Buddha answered: ‘Because the bodhisattva is securely set within the emptiness of nature, he can practise giving and these various dharmas.’" The answer is extremely short and runs extremely counter to ordinary feeling—it is not ‘although he abides in the emptiness of nature he can still practise’; it is ‘precisely because he is securely set within the emptiness of nature he can practise’. Why it is so is explained only in the next passage.

27. The emptiness of nature breaks all dharmas; how can he still practise wholesome dharmas? 「又問：『性空破一切法悉盡無餘，云何菩薩住性空中能行布施等諸善法？』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘The emptiness of nature breaks all dharmas completely with nothing remaining; how can the bodhisattva abide within the emptiness of nature and practise giving and the various wholesome dharmas?’" This presses the previous objection one layer further. 「佛可須菩提意而說因緣」 tr. "The Buddha approved Subhūti's meaning and spoke the causes and conditions"—first he acknowledges that his question is right, then he speaks of why it is so: 「菩薩知諸法實相，住是中，能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。諸法實相者，即是性空。」 tr. "The bodhisattva knows the real mark of all dharmas and, abiding within it, can obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. The real mark of all dharmas is precisely the emptiness of nature." The joint lies in the sentence 「諸法實相者，即是性空」 tr. "the real mark of all dharmas is precisely the emptiness of nature": the emptiness of nature is not an instrument for breaking dharmas; it is the real mark of dharmas; one abides in the real mark and practises, and so the practice is not broken. Below this he speaks of teaching and transforming in order: 「若一切法性不空，菩薩不應住是諸法性空中」 tr. "If the nature of all dharmas were not empty, the bodhisattva should not abide within this emptiness of the nature of all dharmas"; having obtained awakening, 「為眾生說性空法」 tr. "he speaks for beings the dharma of the emptiness of nature"—from form being empty of nature, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness being empty of nature, up to 「一切種智、斷煩惱習性空法」 tr. "the dharma that the omniscience of all kinds and the severance of the afflictions and their habitual residues are empty of nature".

28. If the nature of the eighteen emptinesses were not empty, this would be destroying the substance of emptiness. 「復次，『須菩提！十八空，若性不空，是為壞空體。』」 tr. "Further: ‘Subhūti! If the nature of the eighteen emptinesses were not empty, this would be destroying the substance of emptiness.’" The treatise-author explains why: 「十八空能令一切法空，若自不空，則為虛誑」 tr. "the eighteen emptinesses can make all dharmas empty; if they themselves were not empty, they would be false and deceptive"—able to make everything empty and yet not itself empty would be going against its own rule; 「又若不空者，則墮常邊著處，能生煩惱」 tr. "further, if they were not empty, they would fall to the side of permanence, a place of clinging, able to give rise to afflictions"—wherever there is one dharma not empty, there is a place to cling to, and afflictions arise. Below this he speaks directly of the mark of the emptiness of nature: 「性空無實住處，無所從來、去無所至，是名常住法相。」 tr. "The emptiness of nature has no real abiding-place, comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere; this is named the constantly abiding marks of dharmas." He at once sets out its other names alongside: 「常住法相是性空之異名，亦名諸法實相。」 tr. "The constantly abiding marks of dharmas are another name for the emptiness of nature, and are also named the real mark of all dharmas." At the end he lists the six absences of its mark: 「是相中無生無滅、無增無減、無垢無淨。」 tr. "Within this mark there is non-arising and non-ceasing, no increase and no decrease, no stain and no purity." The place in this passage most easily misread lies in the two Chinese characters 「常住」 tr. "constantly abiding"—the constantly abiding marks of dharmas do not say that there is a dharma that abides constantly; they say that this fact of coming from nowhere and going to nowhere does not shift with time, and so it is named constantly abiding. The 「不退」 tr. "non-retrogressing" of the next passage is fastened precisely to this.

29. Abiding within this, he does not retrogress, does not doubt, does not regret—the right understanding of the power of skilful means. 「『菩薩住是中，見一切法性空，於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不退、不疑、不悔。何以故？不見諸法能障礙者，以方便力故度眾生。』」 tr. "‘The bodhisattva abides within this, sees that all dharmas are empty of nature, and with regard to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is non-retrogressing, does not doubt, and does not regret. Why? Because he does not see any dharma that can obstruct, and by the power of skilful means he delivers beings.’" Why there are these three negations is only one sentence: he does not see any dharma that can make an obstruction. Obstruction arises because first there is a mark that can be clung to; since the mark is unfindable, where would obstruction come from? At the end the treatise-author lays down for 「方便力」 tr. "the power of skilful means" the most essential definition of the whole unit: 「方便力者，畢竟無法、亦無眾生，而度眾生。」 tr. "The power of skilful means is this: ultimately there are no dharmas and no beings, and yet he delivers beings." It is not first admitting that there are beings and then skilfully delivering them; it is delivering within ultimate non-existence—only this is called skilful means. Reading this one sentence, all the words of the five gates of teaching and transforming in the sūtra section before only now find their footing.

30. Since there are no beings, for whom is skilful means made? The question: 「若眾生及法從本已來無，為誰作方便？為度脫誰？」 tr. "If beings and dharmas have from the beginning not existed, for whom is skilful means made? Whom is it to deliver and liberate?" This presses 「畢竟無法、亦無眾生」 tr. "ultimately there are no dharmas and no beings" to the bottom. The answer: 「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？若有性空相，應當作難！」 tr. "The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection? If there were a mark of the emptiness of nature, you would be right to raise an objection!" This answer is the pivot of the whole unit. The treatise-author answers neither 「有誰」 tr. "there is someone" nor 「無誰」 tr. "there is no one"; he points out that the questioner's objection itself has a hidden premise—he has taken the emptiness of nature as a thing with a mark, and then on this mark he infers ‘since it is empty there is no one to deliver’. If the emptiness of nature has not even a nature of emptiness, the footing of this inference does not exist. The last sentence, 「若有性空相，應當作難」 tr. "if there were a mark of the emptiness of nature, you would be right to raise an objection", is a frank way of speaking by concession: only if you can produce a mark of the emptiness of nature does this objection stand.

31. The simile of the madman's false seeing—spoken for the sake of ordinary people. 「復次，得諸法實相者，知是性空，是人則知諸法性空——無法、無眾生。」 tr. "Further, one who obtains the real mark of all dharmas knows that this is the emptiness of nature; this person then knows that all dharmas are empty of nature—there are no dharmas and no beings." So it is for one who has obtained the real mark; for one who has not obtained it, it is not so: 「凡夫未得實相故，種種憶想分別；如狂人妄有所見，以為實有。」 tr. "Ordinary people, because they have not obtained the real mark, engage in all kinds of recollection, imagining, and discrimination; as a madman falsely sees things and takes them to really exist." The simile takes one point: the things the madman sees are from the first non-existent, while his seeing is itself genuine. 「為度凡夫狂人故言：『為眾生說狂法中有是諸法分別，實法中則無。』」 tr. "For the sake of delivering ordinary people, these madmen, it is said: ‘For beings it is said that within the dharma of madness there are these distinctions of dharmas, but within the real dharma there are not.’" Teaching the Dharma is set up by speaking with regard to the realm the madman sees, not by admitting that realm to be real. At the end he fills out why the bodhisattva delivers beings: 「菩薩欲滿本願故、又不著性空故，有度眾生。」 tr. "Because the bodhisattva wishes to fulfil his original vow, and further because he does not cling to the emptiness of nature, there is the delivering of beings." One is the vow, one is not clinging to emptiness; the two being complete, the matter of delivering beings is not obstructed. The closing sentence: 「此中則不應難。」 tr. "Here then one should not raise an objection."

32. The Buddha himself states the causes and conditions; by reason of worldly truth, not real. 「復次，此經中佛自說因緣：『性空中眾生不可得，知者、見者亦不可得，乃至八十隨形好亦如是。』」 tr. "Further, in this sūtra the Buddha himself states the causes and conditions: ‘Within the emptiness of nature beings are unfindable, the knower and the seer are also unfindable, and so on up to the eighty minor marks, which are likewise.’" He cites the sūtra as proof, and then gives his judgement: 「而菩薩立是法為眾生說，是世諦故，非是實。」 tr. "Yet the bodhisattva sets up these dharmas and speaks them for beings; this is by reason of worldly truth, and is not real." This passage is where the 「二諦」 tr. "two truths" thread of the whole unit is stated in plain words. Attention should be paid to the treatise-author's wording: he says 「非是實」 tr. "is not real"; he does not say 「是虛妄」 tr. "is false"—what is spoken in worldly truth is not deceiving people; it simply does not occupy the position of the highest meaning.

33. The simile of the conjured person teaching the Dharma for the fourfold assembly. 「此中佛說譬喻：『如佛作化人，又化作四部眾而為說法，可有得道者不？』」 tr. "Here the Buddha speaks a simile: ‘As if the Buddha made a conjured person, and further conjured the fourfold assembly and taught the Dharma for them—could there be anyone who obtains the path?’" The next sentence reads: 「須菩提言：『不也。所以者何？無定根本實事，何有得須陀洹乃至得佛者？』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘No. Why? There is no fixed real root-substance; how could there be anyone who obtains srota-āpanna-hood and so on up to anyone who obtains buddhahood?’" The point the simile takes lies in the six Chinese characters 「無定根本實事」 tr. "there is no fixed real root-substance"—the speaker is conjured, the hearers are also conjured, both ends are without real substance, and so no person who obtains the path can be spoken of. First ask a question: does this simile not say that the Buddha's teaching the Dharma is also useless? No. What the simile sends away is the structure ‘there is a really existent one who obtains the path’, not the matter of teaching the Dharma. The next passage closes it by applying the simile.

34. Breaking false imaginings, not breaking beings. 「菩薩說法度眾生亦如是：眾生無有定實，但欲於顛倒中拔出眾生，著無顛倒中。」 tr. "The bodhisattva's teaching the Dharma to deliver beings is also like this: beings have no fixed reality; he only wishes to pull beings out of inversion and set them in non-inversion." The application of the simile once set up, the treatise-author at once makes clear that the place of non-inversion also may not be held to: 「無顛倒法亦無處所，是中無眾生，乃至無知者、見者。」 tr. "The dharma of non-inversion also has no place; within it there are no beings, and so on up to no knower and no seer." The next sentence most shows his sense of measure: 「雖空性一相，而顛倒多、不顛倒少；是故貴是性空不顛倒法。」 tr. "Although the nature of emptiness is of one mark, inversion is much and non-inversion little; therefore this dharma of the emptiness of nature, non-inversion, is prized." Although the nature of emptiness is one mark, on the side of beings those inverted are many and those not inverted few, and so this dharma is precious—this is said with regard to what is directly seen, not with regard to the substance of the principle. The last sentence is the judgement of the whole passage, and also the sentence of this unit most to be remembered: 「菩薩住此中，但破眾生妄想，不破眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva abides within this and only breaks beings' false imaginings; he does not break beings." What is broken is false imagining, not the person.

35. The dharmas without outflows, because of arising and ceasing, are not like the highest meaning. 「又無漏法，乃至八聖道分，雖是無漏，以生滅故，不如第一義。」 tr. "Again, the dharmas without outflows, and so on up to the eightfold noble path, although they are without outflows, because of arising and ceasing are not like the highest meaning." First ask a question: why do the dharmas without outflows still fall short? What it rests on lies only in the two Chinese characters 「生滅」 tr. "arising and ceasing"—having arising and ceasing, they are conditioned, and being conditioned they are not the highest meaning. This passage is extremely short, yet it is the foreshadowing of 「唯有是道」 tr. "only this is the path" in the next passage: since even the limbs of the path cannot be the highest meaning, what is called the one path of the buddhas surely does not lie among the limbs of the path.

36. The emptiness of nature is the only path; there is no other path. 「『須菩提！是性空，一切諸佛唯有是道，更無異道。』」 tr. "‘Subhūti! This emptiness of nature—all the buddhas have only this path; there is no other path.’" The treatise-author explains why: 「諸佛皆求實智不壞不異法」 tr. "all the buddhas seek the dharma of real knowledge, indestructible and not different"—what is sought is the dharma that is indestructible and not different. Although the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and such dharmas are superior, 「不名為一道」 tr. "they are not named the one path"—why? 「此皆是有為法，轉變無常故。」 tr. "Because these are all conditioned dharmas, changing and impermanent." This is the same criterion as in the previous passage. Below this he restates the mark of the emptiness of nature: 「是性空中，無眾生，亦無色等諸法。」 tr. "Within this emptiness of nature there are no beings, nor are there form and the various dharmas." The last sentence comes round to the place of arousing the mind: 「菩薩不為菩薩道故求阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，但為性空故。」 tr. "The bodhisattva seeks anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi not for the sake of the bodhisattva path, but only for the sake of the emptiness of nature." This saying is extremely easy to misread; the next passage sets up a question to discuss it.

37. What is the emptiness of nature, and what is the bodhisattva path? The question: 「何等是性空？何等是菩薩道？」 tr. "What is the emptiness of nature? What is the bodhisattva path?" The answer first sets up the division of the two truths: 「第一義中無分別，世諦中有分別。」 tr. "Within the highest meaning there is no discrimination; within worldly truth there is discrimination." And then gives each its definition: 「諸法實相名性空，餘布施等乃至八十隨形好是菩薩道。」 tr. "The real mark of all dharmas is named the emptiness of nature; the rest, giving and so on up to the eighty minor marks, is the bodhisattva path." The two once divided, the meaning of that sentence in the previous passage also becomes clear: 「雖行是法，不為此法，為求性空故，是故說：『不為菩薩道故行。』」 tr. "Although he practises these dharmas, it is not for the sake of these dharmas; it is for the sake of seeking the emptiness of nature; therefore it is said: ‘He does not practise for the sake of the bodhisattva path.’" It is not that he does not practise the bodhisattva path; it is that he practises it and does not take the bodhisattva path as his aim. This passage is the clearest footnote in this unit to the meaning ‘practising and not clinging’.

38. The emptiness of nature is not brought about by any power—the simile of the wind and clouds in space. 「是性空，先亦性空，中、後亦性空；從本已來常空，無有作者；……」 tr. "This emptiness of nature was the emptiness of nature before, and in the middle and afterwards is also the emptiness of nature; from the beginning it is ever empty, and there is no maker of it; ……" He at once blocks two kinds of misunderstanding: 「非是福德力故使空，亦非智慧力故使空，但性自爾故。」 tr. "It is not by the power of merit that it is made empty, nor is it by the power of wisdom that it is made empty; it is only that its nature is so of itself." Emptiness is not something produced by cultivation. Then what use are the merit and wisdom of the buddhas and the worthies and sages? 「破眾生心中顛倒，令知性空」 tr. "To break the inversion in the minds of beings and cause them to know the emptiness of nature"—what they do lies in breaking inversion, not in creating emptiness. The simile says: space 「性常清淨，不著垢闇」 tr. "is by nature ever pure and is not touched by stain and darkness"; when wind and clouds cover it people then say 「虛空不淨」 tr. "space is impure"; when a fierce wind blows them away people then say 「虛空清淨」 tr. "space is pure", 「而虛空實無垢無淨」 tr. "yet space is in reality without stain and without purity". Applying the simile: 「諸佛亦如是，以說法猛風，吹却顛倒雲翳，令得清淨，而諸法性常自無垢無淨。」 tr. "The buddhas are also like this: with the fierce wind of teaching the Dharma they blow away the clouds and films of inversion and cause beings to obtain purity, while the nature of all dharmas is ever of itself without stain and without purity." The point the simile takes lies only in stain and purity belonging to the clouds and films and not belonging to space. In reading this simile one slip must be guarded against: do not, because of 「無垢無淨」 tr. "without stain and without purity", think that the work of removing obstructions can be discarded—the wind that blows the clouds still has to blow.

39. A life-span as he wishes—the bodhisattva path like an illusion. 「是菩薩知一切法性空故，能行一切種種道度眾生；具足一切道，淨佛國土、教化眾生；得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，隨意壽命。」 tr. "Because this bodhisattva knows that all dharmas are empty of nature, he can practise all kinds of paths to deliver beings; making all paths complete, he purifies buddha-lands and teaches and transforms beings; when he obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, he has a life-span as he wishes." The treatise-author specially explains 「隨意壽命」 tr. "a life-span as he wishes": 「菩薩得無生忍法，入如幻菩薩道，能一時變化作千億萬身，周遍十方，具足行一切菩薩道；處處國土中，隨眾生壽命長短而受其形。」 tr. "The bodhisattva obtains the dharma of the acceptance of non-arising, enters the bodhisattva path like an illusion, and can at one time transform himself into thousands of koṭi of myriads of bodies, pervading the ten directions, and practise all the bodhisattva paths completely; in lands everywhere, according to the length or shortness of beings' life-spans, he takes on their form." And he offers an actual case as proof: 「如釋迦牟尼佛，於此國土壽命百年，於莊嚴佛國壽七百阿僧祇劫。」 tr. "As Śākyamuni Buddha in this land has a life-span of a hundred years, and in the Adorned Buddha-land a life-span of seven hundred asaṃkhyeya kalpas." The last sentence fixes its position: 「佛法於五不可思議中是第一不可思議。」 tr. "Among the five kinds of the inconceivable, the dharmas of the Buddha are the foremost inconceivable." This passage comes on from ‘because he knows that all dharmas are empty of nature he can practise all paths’, and what it shows is precisely that the emptiness of nature and great function do not obstruct each other—the more one knows emptiness, the more the function is without bounds.

40. Apart from the emptiness of nature there is no path and no fruit. 「佛告須菩提：一切法性空，是諸佛真法！」 tr. "The Buddha told Subhūti: That all dharmas are empty of nature is the true Dharma of the buddhas!" Below this three sentences follow one upon another: 「若得是法，則名為佛；若說此法，名為度眾生。三世佛皆亦如是。」 tr. "If one obtains this Dharma, one is named a Buddha; if one teaches this Dharma, it is named delivering beings. The buddhas of the three times are all likewise." And then he judges it: 「離是性空，則無道無果。」 tr. "Apart from this emptiness of nature there is no path and no fruit." The items of path and fruit are at once given: 「道者，八聖道分；果者，七種果。」 tr. "The path is the eightfold noble path; the fruit is the seven kinds of fruit." Why is there nothing apart from the emptiness of nature? 「若離性空別有定法，則取相生著，著故亦無離欲，無離欲故則無道果」 tr. "If apart from the emptiness of nature there were some other fixed dharma, one would grasp at marks and give rise to clinging; because of clinging there would be no freedom from desire either, and because there is no freedom from desire there would be no path and fruit"—grasping at marks one clings, clinging one is not free from desire, not free from desire there is no path and fruit: three steps linked together. Below this he further speaks of the fruit of practising wholesome dharmas apart from the emptiness of nature: 「雖行布施、持戒，行慈、悲等，善法力故，雖不墮惡道，生天果盡，還墮惡道，如本不異。」 tr. "Although one practises giving and keeping morality, and practises kindness, compassion, and the rest, by the power of wholesome dharmas, although one does not fall into the evil destinies, when the fruit of being born in heaven is exhausted, one still falls into the evil destinies, no different from before." Wholesome dharmas can bring about good destinies but cannot bring one out of the round of rebirth; this is a most important dividing line. The last sentence closes by contrast: 「行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃。行餘法，生著心，有退失；若行此法，則無退失。」 tr. "Practising the dharma of the emptiness of nature, and also not clinging to the emptiness of nature—this is precisely nirvāṇa. Practising other dharmas, one gives rise to a clinging mind and there is retreat and loss; if one practises this dharma, there is no retreat and loss."

41. Practising the emptiness of nature without destroying the mark of the emptiness of nature—the simile of inner and outer space. 「須菩提歡喜白佛言：『甚希有！菩薩行是性空法，亦不壞性空相。』」 tr. "Subhūti joyfully said to the Buddha: ‘Most rare! The bodhisattva practises this dharma of the emptiness of nature, and yet does not destroy the mark of the emptiness of nature.’" The Buddha's answer first sets it up from the reverse side: 「若色等法與性空異，菩薩則不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。何以故？有空法則不可得離。」 tr. "If form and the other dharmas were different from the emptiness of nature, the bodhisattva would not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. Why? If there were a dharma of emptiness, parting from it could not be obtained." Next it sets it up from the direct side: 「今色等諸法實性空；菩薩知是法已，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Now form and the various dharmas are in reality empty of nature; having known this dharma, the bodhisattva obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Within this he discerns the sickness of ordinary people: 「此中無有一法定是常，但凡夫生我心故，著內外法，不得脫生、老、病、死，……」 tr. "Within this there is not one dharma that is definitely permanent; it is only because ordinary people give rise to the mind of self that they cling to inner and outer dharmas and cannot escape birth, old age, sickness, and death, ……" So the bodhisattva's practice is 「行是性空，和合六波羅蜜，不壞色等諸法相」 tr. "practising this emptiness of nature, he brings the six perfections together and does not destroy the marks of form and the various dharmas". The meaning of 「不壞」 tr. "not destroying" the treatise-author explains most finely: 「所謂若空、若不空、若空不空、若非空非不空；不作如是示諸法相，是名不壞。」 tr. "Namely either empty, or not empty, or empty and not empty, or neither empty nor not empty; not representing the marks of dharmas in this way is named not destroying." Only when none of the four alternatives is made is it called not destroying—whatever is represented, something is destroyed. At the end he takes its not destroying itself as proof: 「色實相即是性空，性空云何自壞性空？」 tr. "The real mark of form is precisely the emptiness of nature; how could the emptiness of nature itself destroy the emptiness of nature?" The simile says: 「如內虛空不壞外虛空，以同體故。」 tr. "As inner space does not destroy outer space, because they are of one substance." Being of one substance, they do not destroy each other; this simile is set exactly against 「指端不能自觸指端」 tr. "the tip of a finger cannot touch the tip of that finger" of the twenty-first passage: that one breaks 「是一」 tr. "being one" by a thing's not facing itself; this one establishes 「不異」 tr. "not different" by one substance's being without destruction; the two similes each rest on one side.

42. Where is awakening obtained—if two marks are discriminated it is not obtained. 「須菩提問：『世尊！若諸法性空無別異，菩薩於何處得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked: ‘World-Honored One! If all dharmas are empty of nature and without distinction or difference, where does the bodhisattva obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?’" Since there is no distinction or difference, there is no place that can be pointed to. 「佛可其意言：『如是！若分別有二相，則不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』」 tr. "The Buddha approved his meaning and said: ‘Just so! If one discriminates and has two marks, one does not obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.’" The answer is straight to the point: the place of the question is the place of the sickness—once you want a 「何處」 tr. "where", you have already discriminated two marks. From this passage on, this unit enters the line of interrogation on taking and giving up, right through to the end of the fascicle.

43. Awakening is named real wisdom; it does not practise within form. 「阿耨多羅三藐三菩提名實智慧，於色法中不行，所謂不著、不染。」 tr. "Anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi is named real wisdom; it does not practise within the dharma of form, namely it does not cling and is not stained." First ask a question: does not practising within form mean that there is something apart from form? The treatise-author at once explains why: 「是智慧不為取色故行，是故不行色中。」 tr. "This wisdom does not practise for the sake of taking form, and therefore it does not practise within form." Not practising is not not taking as object; it is not doing so in order to take. This one sentence pins down the measure of the two Chinese characters 「不行」 tr. "does not practise"—what is blocked is taking, not taking as object.

44. Threefold distinction of taking and giving up. 「須菩提復問：『若菩提不取中行、不捨中行，當於何處行？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked again: ‘If awakening does not practise within taking and does not practise within giving up, where then should it practise?’" Here the treatise-author is not in a hurry to answer where; he first defines the two names 「取」 tr. "taking" and 「捨」 tr. "giving up" layer by layer: 「取名實法，捨名空法。取名著行，捨名不著行。取名二行，捨名不二行。如是等分別。」 tr. "Taking names the real dharma; giving up names the empty dharma. Taking names clinging practice; giving up names non-clinging practice. Taking names the practice of two; giving up names the practice of not two. Such are the distinctions." Of the three layers, the first is the dharma taken as object, the next two are the practising aspect of the mind, and the third is the count of discrimination. Listing these three layers is to make one thing clear: taking and giving up are not one matter but a chain of structure; whoever asks 「何處行」 tr. "where does it practise", what he seeks lies within this chain of structure; and awakening is not within it. The three passages and three similes below break exactly this, in order.

45. Where does the conjured person practise—no mind and no mental-factor dharmas. 「佛反問須菩提：『於汝意云何？佛所化人為何處行？』」 tr. "The Buddha in turn asked Subhūti: ‘What do you think? Where does the person conjured by the Buddha practise?’" The next sentence reads: 「須菩提言：『是化人無處行，化人無心、無心數法故。菩提亦如是。』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘This conjured person has no place in which it practises, because the conjured person has no mind and no mental-factor dharmas. Awakening is also like this.’" The first simile. The point it takes lies in the six Chinese characters 「無心、無心數法」 tr. "no mind and no mental-factor dharmas"—for a place of practice to be set up, there must be a mind that can practise; since there is neither mind nor mental factors, there is of itself no place of practice. Subhūti himself answers 「菩提亦如是」 tr. "awakening is also like this", from which it can be seen that this simile does not wait for the Buddha to apply it.

46. Where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise? 「復問：『於汝意云何？阿羅漢夢中菩提為在何處行？』」 tr. "He asked again: ‘What do you think? Where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise?’" The next sentence reads: 「須菩提言：『阿羅漢尚不眠，何況夢中菩提有行處！』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘The arhat does not even sleep, how much less could awakening in a dream have a place in which it practises!’" The second simile, one layer heavier than the previous simile: the conjured person is without mind, while here there is not even the condition of a dream. Subhūti's way of answering is by steps—there is not even sleep, how much less a place where awakening in a dream practises. This answer seems offhand, yet it draws out the threefold question and answer below, and is the place at the gathering-up of this unit where the most ink is spent.

47. Why does the Buddha use a dream to ask—he asks because there is definitely no place. The question first distinguishes the three kinds of awakening and the minds in which they practise: 「菩提有三種：阿羅漢菩提、辟支佛菩提、佛菩提。阿羅漢菩提不在有漏心中、無記心中行，但在無漏心中行；……」 tr. "Awakening is of three kinds: the awakening of the arhat, the awakening of the pratyekabuddha, and the awakening of the Buddha. The arhat's awakening does not practise within the mind with outflows or within the indeterminate mind; it practises only within the mind without outflows; ……" Since it is so, 「佛何以故問『阿羅漢夢中菩提何處行』？」 tr. "why does the Buddha ask ‘where does the arhat's awakening in a dream practise’?" The question is reasonable: the mind in a dream is not without outflows, and the arhat's awakening from the first does not practise within it, so is this question not superfluous? The answer: 「阿羅漢是一切漏盡聖人則無夢，佛以必無處故問，欲明必無行法。」 tr. "The arhat is a sage whose outflows are all exhausted, and so he has no dreams; the Buddha asks because there is definitely no place, wishing to make clear that there is definitely no dharma of practising." The vital point of the answer lies in 「佛以必無處故問」 tr. "the Buddha asks because there is definitely no place"—the Buddha takes precisely a realm where there is decidedly no place in order to ask, so as to make plain that awakening has no dharma of practising. Taking the most extreme case to set up a general rule—this is a way of reading the sūtra the treatise-author often uses.

48. Even the Buddha sleeps, so why is it said that the arhat does not even sleep—there are two kinds of sleep. The question cites two matters as proof. The first is the Buddha's instruction to Ānanda: 「汝四襞優多羅僧敷，我欲小眠，汝為諸比丘說法。」 tr. "Fold the uttarāsaṅga in four and spread it out; I wish to sleep a little; you teach the Dharma for the bhikṣus." The second is the question and answer of the Nirgrantha Satyaka: he asked 「佛自念晝日有眠不」 tr. "does the Buddha, thinking of himself, sleep by day", and the Buddha said 「春末夏初，以時熱故小眠息，除食患故」 tr. "at the end of spring and the beginning of summer, because the season is hot, I sleep and rest a little, to remove the discomfort after eating"; the Nirgrantha Satyaka put forward what others said, 「晝日眠是癡相」 tr. "sleeping by day is a mark of delusion", and the Buddha then corrected the name and mark: 「汝置！汝不別癡相。諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡；若是諸漏永滅無餘，雖眠不名癡。」 tr. "Stop! You do not distinguish the mark of delusion. The outflows that can make the later body continue without break—this is named the mark of delusion; even if one constantly does not sleep, it is still delusion; if these outflows have ceased forever without remainder, even if one sleeps it is not named delusion." Since the Buddha himself says that he sleeps, then 「須菩提何以言『阿羅漢尚不眠』」 tr. "why does Subhūti say ‘the arhat does not even sleep’"? The answer sets up a distinction to resolve it: 「眠有二種：一者、眠而夢，二者、眠而不夢。」 tr. "There are two kinds of sleep: first, sleeping with dreams; second, sleeping without dreams." The arhat's sleep belongs to the latter, and why it is so is that 「非為安隱著樂故眠，但受四大身法，應有食、息、眠、覺，是故少許時息名為『眠』；不為夢眠」 tr. "he does not sleep for the sake of ease and attachment to pleasure; it is only that, having taken on the dharma of a body of the four elements, he must have food, rest, sleep, and waking; therefore a little while of rest is named ‘sleep’; he does not sleep for dreaming". Since he does not sleep for dreaming, Subhūti's words are not mistaken. The crux of this passage lies in the Buddha's own correction of the name of the mark of delusion: delusion is fastened not to sleeping or not sleeping, but to whether the outflows have ceased or not.

49. Someone says—one who is free from desire and has obtained concentration does not sleep. 「有人言：『離欲者，得禪定，色界繫四大入身中，身心歡樂則無有眠；慧解脫阿羅漢，色界四大不入身中，故有眠。』」 tr. "Someone says: ‘One who is free from desire and has obtained meditative concentration has the four elements bound to the form realm enter his body; body and mind are joyful and so there is no sleep; the arhat liberated by wisdom does not have the four elements of the form realm enter his body, and so he sleeps.’" This account is not of the same category as the preceding answer: the preceding answer divides by the two kinds of sleep; this account divides by two classes of arhat—one who is free from desire and has obtained meditative concentration does not sleep because the four elements of the form realm enter his body; the arhat liberated by wisdom sleeps because the four elements of the form realm do not enter his body. The treatise-author records it and follows it on with 「是故須菩提言：『阿羅漢尚不眠。』」 tr. "Therefore Subhūti says: ‘The arhat does not even sleep.’", and the last sentence makes a general gathering-up: 「是故阿羅漢有眠、有不眠。」 tr. "Therefore among arhats there are those who sleep and those who do not sleep." The two accounts stand side by side and he does not judge which is better; he takes only what they share in coming back to Subhūti's words being not mistaken. In reading this passage attention should be paid to the treatise-author's practice: wherever an older account can hold, he records it and does not discard it.

50. The Buddha shows sleep by skilful means. 「佛以方便力，為度眾生，受人法故現眠。」 tr. "The Buddha, by the power of skilful means, in order to deliver beings, having taken on the dharma of humans, shows sleep." One sentence resolves the question of the forty-eighth passage. The Buddha's sleep is not within the two kinds of sleep; it is a third kind—a showing that conforms to the dharma of humans for the sake of delivering beings. This sentence answers exactly to 「方便力者，畢竟無法、亦無眾生，而度眾生」 tr. "the power of skilful means is this: ultimately there are no dharmas and no beings, and yet he delivers beings" of the twenty-ninth passage: that speaks of the substance of skilful means; this shows the mark of skilful means.

51. Since there is no place in which it practises, how does one go from the first ground to the tenth ground? 「須菩提復問：『若不行者，云何菩薩從一地至十地，乃至得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？』」 tr. "Subhūti asked again: ‘If it does not practise, how does the bodhisattva go from the first ground to the tenth ground, and so on up to obtaining anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?’" With no place of practice, the stages have nothing on which to be set up; this objection is most upright. 「佛可其意」 tr. "The Buddha approved his meaning", and then supplies what was lacking: 「菩提雖無處行，未具足六波羅蜜諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」 tr. "Although awakening has no place in which it practises, if the six perfections and the various dharmas are not yet made complete, one never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." Having no place to practise is the principle; making the myriad practices complete is the matter; the two stand side by side. Below this he speaks of the bodhisattva's abiding and not abiding: 「是菩薩住色相，乃至菩提相中住，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；不捨色等法，亦不著菩提相，知色等法即是菩提，常寂滅，無法若增、若減，若垢、若淨，若得道、若得果。」 tr. "This bodhisattva abides in the mark of form, and so on up to abiding within the mark of awakening, and obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; he does not give up form and the other dharmas, nor does he cling to the mark of awakening; he knows that form and the other dharmas are precisely awakening, ever quiescent, with no dharma that either increases or decreases, is either stained or pure, either obtains the path or obtains the fruit." Abiding and not clinging, not giving up and not taking. At the end he gathers it up with the two truths: 「但世諦故說菩薩得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，第一義中無有色乃至菩提。」 tr. "It is only by reason of worldly truth that it is said that the bodhisattva obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; within the highest meaning there is no form and so on up to no awakening."

52. When you obtained the path, did you obtain anything? 「佛欲明是事故，反問須菩提：『於汝意云何？汝斷煩惱得道時，有所得不？所謂如夢等五眾、若道、若道果，決定一法不？』」 tr. "The Buddha, wishing to make this matter clear, in turn asked Subhūti: ‘What do you think? When you severed the afflictions and obtained the path, did you obtain anything? Namely the five aggregates that are like a dream and so on, or the path, or the fruit of the path—was there one decided dharma?’" This question is the sharpest: taking Subhūti's own realisation as the case, it asks him whether, on the day he obtained the path, he obtained a single dharma. 「須菩提言：『不得也！』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘I did not obtain anything!’" The treatise-author supplies the reason for this answer: 「須菩提意：住無相門中入道，云何取相？」 tr. "Subhūti's meaning: having entered the path abiding within the gate of signlessness, how could he grasp at marks?" He entered by the gate of signlessness; at the time of entering there was no mark to be grasped, and so at the time of obtaining too there was no dharma to be obtained. The wonder of this passage lies in the Buddha's not citing another case but citing the questioner's own experience—the principle does not wait to be argued, and is clear of itself.

53. Since you did not obtain any dharma, how is it said that you are an arhat? 「佛言：『汝若乃至不得微細少法，云何說汝為阿羅漢？』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘If you do not obtain even the most subtle trifling dharma, how is it said that you are an arhat?’" He presses to the bottom: since not one dharma is obtained, to what is the name of arhat fastened? 「須菩提言：『世諦法故，說言阿羅漢；凡夫顛倒法中有得、有失，有眾生、有法。』」 tr. "Subhūti said: ‘By reason of worldly dharmas, it is said, arhat; within the inverted dharmas of ordinary people there is gain and there is loss, there are beings and there are dharmas.’" The answer is clean: the name is fastened to worldly truth, gain and loss are fastened to inversion. This answer is the model the Buddha will take up and use in the next passage—Subhūti himself has already spoken out the division of the two truths.

54. Awakening is also like this—even the nature of dharmas is unfindable. 「佛言：『菩提亦如是，世諦法故，說有菩薩、說有色等乃至菩提；菩提中，無有定法，亦無眾生，亦無菩提。……』」 tr. "The Buddha said: ‘Awakening is also like this: by reason of worldly dharmas, it is said that there is a bodhisattva, said that there is form and so on up to awakening; within awakening there is no fixed dharma, nor are there beings, nor is there awakening. ……’" The Buddha takes Subhūti's own answer as a pattern for awakening, and in one sentence it fits. Below this he speaks of the bodhisattva's contemplation: 「菩薩觀是菩提法，無有增、無有減。所以者何？諸法性如是。」 tr. "The bodhisattva contemplates this dharma of awakening as without increase and without decrease. Why? Because the nature of dharmas is like this." Then one layer further: 「菩薩亦不得是諸法性，何況有初發心乃至十地，及六波羅蜜、三十七品乃至十八不共法當有所得！無有是處！」 tr. "The bodhisattva does not find even this nature of dharmas, how much less could there be the first arousing of the mind and so on up to the ten grounds, and the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, that should have something to be attained! There is no such case!" Even the nature of dharmas is unfindable, how much less the rest. For this the treatise-author gives one more sentence of reason: 「諸法性是一切法根本尚不可得，何況六波羅蜜等是作法當有定實！」 tr. "The nature of dharmas, which is the root of all dharmas, is itself unfindable; how much less could the six perfections and the rest, which are made dharmas, have a fixed reality!" Since the root is unfindable, how could made dharmas have a fixed reality? The last sentence is where the whole fascicle comes to rest: 「如是！菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生。」 tr. "Just so! The bodhisattva practising this nature of dharmas, when he becomes a Buddha, can greatly benefit beings." Not obtaining a single dharma, and yet greatly benefiting beings—the whole unit, which began asking from 「為實際故行般若」 tr. "practising prajñā for the sake of the limit of reality", only here comes to its close: what is called being for the sake of the limit of reality is precisely being for the sake of beings in just this way.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「為實際故」 tr. "for the sake of the limit of reality" as the Buddha not permitting one to act for the sake of beings. At the opening of the passage the treatise-author writes out the meaning of the two parties separately: what Subhūti has in mind is 「菩薩為度眾生故行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā for the sake of delivering beings"; what the Buddha means is 「菩薩為一切實法故，行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "it is for the sake of all real dharmas that the bodhisattva practises prajñāpāramitā". What is changed is the place for whose sake one acts, not the mind that acts for its sake; the proof lies in the text below—the seeking all the way through the twelve links of causes and conditions is, sentence by sentence, for the sake of extinguishing the suffering of beings. If it were read as the Buddha denying the delivering of beings, then the whole passage of the nineteenth section from 「菩薩於此眾生起大悲心」 tr. "toward these beings the bodhisattva gives rise to the mind of great compassion" onward would have no footing.

Do not read 「止齊無明」 tr. "stopping at ignorance" as ignorance being the first cause. To 「無始生死展轉甚多，何以止齊無明」 tr. "since beginningless time birth and death have turned round a great many times; why does the tracing stop at ignorance" the treatise-author answers only 「是事先已答」 tr. "this matter has already been answered before", and its direct principle lies in the text below: 「若無明因緣更求其本，則無窮，即墮邊見，失涅槃道，……」 tr. "If one seeks further for the root of the causes and conditions of ignorance, there is no end to it; one then falls into the extreme view and loses the path of nirvāṇa, ……" Stopping at ignorance is in order not to fall into an extreme view, not an assertion that there is nothing at all before ignorance. What is blocked is tracing back endlessly toward the prior limit; what is permitted is seeking its substance and mark inwardly—the eighteenth section's 「求無明體相；求時，即入畢竟空」 tr. "he seeks the substance and mark of ignorance; when he seeks, he at once enters ultimate emptiness" is precisely the latter. The two matters are wholly different in direction and may not be mixed up as one.

Do not read 「求無明體，即時是明」 tr. "seeking the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination" as obtaining another illumination after ignorance is broken. The two Chinese characters 「即時」 tr. "at that very moment" are the joint: it is not first extinguishing one thing and then producing another; it is that at the very moment its substance is sought, no substance can be found, and no substance being findable is precisely illumination. If it were read as two things replacing each other, then the phrase 「所謂諸法實相，名為實際」 tr. "namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality" would become a realm waiting to be taken, and the 「實際中，實際相亦無」 tr. "within the limit of reality there is not even the mark of the limit of reality" of the text below would contradict it.

Do not read 「實際、眾生際不異」 tr. "the limit of reality and the limit of beings are not different" as the two being one. Subhūti makes his objection precisely with 「是一」 tr. "being one"—「若眾生際、實際不異，云何以實際著實際」 tr. "if the limit of beings and the limit of reality are not different, how can the limit of reality be set upon the limit of reality"—and the treatise-author's answer sends away all four alternatives together: 「菩薩知是二法不一不二，亦不不一、亦不不二，……」 tr. "The bodhisattva knows that these two dharmas are not one and not two, and also not not-one and also not not-two, ……" He further says plainly 「一亦不可得」 tr. "even one is unfindable", and sets out the reason, 「若是一，則壞實際相」 tr. "if it were one, the mark of the limit of reality would be destroyed". Not different is not one, and not one and yet not two; if it were taken as one, the limit of reality would become a thing with self-nature, and the meaning of this chapter would be wholly lost.

Do not read ‘saying that giving is empty in the three times’ as urging people that there is no need to give. The order of the sūtra text and the treatise text is two steps: first 「從慳中拔出」 tr. "pulling out of stinginess", then 「為說布施實相」 tr. "speaking for them of the real mark of giving". The treatise-author says plainly that emptiness is spoken only because of the trouble of beings' 「深著布施」 tr. "clinging deeply to giving", and that after emptiness is spoken what it returns to is still 「則得甘露味、甘露果」 tr. "then one obtains the flavour of ambrosia and the fruit of ambrosia" and 「以方便力，布施門度眾生」 tr. "by the power of skilful means he delivers beings through the gate of giving". If the second step were brought before the first, it would be discarding practice by means of emptiness—precisely the view of annihilation that this treatise breaks everywhere.

Do not treat 「性空」 tr. "the emptiness of nature" as a mark that can be taken up to raise an objection. That answer of the thirtieth section is the pivot of the whole unit: 「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？若有性空相，應當作難！」 tr. "The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection? If there were a mark of the emptiness of nature, you would be right to raise an objection!" Every inference of the kind ‘since all is empty, then such-and-such cannot be established’ has as its hidden premise the taking of emptiness as a thing with a mark. The treatise-author does not argue with its conclusion; he points out directly that its premise does not stand. This method appears again and again in this unit, and in reading one should recognise its consistency.

Do not read 「破眾生妄想，不破眾生」 tr. "breaking beings' false imaginings, not breaking beings" as beings being really existent. The dividing line this sentence sets up is: what is broken is false imagining, not the person; and that the person has no fixed reality the earlier text has already said plainly, 「眾生無有定實」 tr. "beings have no fixed reality". Only by looking at the two sentences together is the full meaning had—not breaking beings is not because beings are really existent and cannot be broken; it is because what makes the sickness lies in false imagining, and when false imagining is broken the matter is done.

Do not read ‘the dharmas without outflows are not like the highest meaning’ as the Buddha's Dharma being something that can be discarded. What it rests on lies only in 「以生滅故」 tr. "because of arising and ceasing"—conditioned dharmas cannot be the highest meaning, and that is all. The proof lies in the next passage: the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, 「諸異法，不名為一道」 tr. "these different dharmas are not named the one path", and why? 「此皆是有為法，轉變無常故」 tr. "because these are all conditioned dharmas, changing and impermanent". And the fifty-first section says plainly again: 「未具足六波羅蜜諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "if the six perfections and the various dharmas are not yet made complete, one never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi". Not being like the highest meaning is not the same as being something one may leave unpractised.

Do not read 「非是福德力故使空，亦非智慧力故使空」 tr. "it is not by the power of merit that it is made empty, nor is it by the power of wisdom that it is made empty" as practice being useless. What this sentence blocks is the misunderstanding ‘emptiness is produced by cultivation’; and the same passage goes straight on to say that the buddhas and the worthies and sages, 「以大福德、智慧方便力故，破眾生心中顛倒，令知性空」 tr. "by the power of great merit, wisdom, and skilful means, break the inversion in the minds of beings and cause them to know the emptiness of nature". The simile of space has the same intent—stain and purity do not belong to space, and yet the fierce wind that blows away the clouds and films still has to blow. What is empty is not made by any power, while removing obstructions needs exactly that power.

Do not read 「阿羅漢尚不眠」 tr. "the arhat does not even sleep" as the arhat having no sleep at all. The treatise-author himself sets up this objection and himself resolves it: 「眠有二種：一者、眠而夢，二者、眠而不夢。」 tr. "There are two kinds of sleep: first, sleeping with dreams; second, sleeping without dreams." The arhat 「但受四大身法，應有食、息、眠、覺」 tr. "only, having taken on the dharma of a body of the four elements, must have food, rest, sleep, and waking"; what he lacks is dreaming sleep, not the sleep of rest. At the end he further records a differing account, gathered up in 「是故阿羅漢有眠、有不眠」 tr. "therefore among arhats there are those who sleep and those who do not sleep". If it were read as there being no sleep at all, the passage in which the Buddha himself says 「春末夏初，以時熱故小眠息」 tr. "at the end of spring and the beginning of summer, because the season is hot, I sleep and rest a little" would have nowhere to be placed.

Do not read the Buddha's own saying that he sleeps as the Buddha being the same as ordinary people. In the question of the Nirgrantha Satyaka the Buddha has already himself corrected the name: 「諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡；若是諸漏永滅無餘，雖眠不名癡。」 tr. "The outflows that can make the later body continue without break—this is named the mark of delusion; even if one constantly does not sleep, it is still delusion; if these outflows have ceased forever without remainder, even if one sleeps it is not named delusion." The criterion of delusion lies in whether the outflows have ceased or not, not in sleeping or not sleeping. And the treatise-author adds one more sentence: 「佛以方便力，為度眾生，受人法故現眠。」 tr. "The Buddha, by the power of skilful means, in order to deliver beings, having taken on the dharma of humans, shows sleep." The Buddha's sleep is a showing, and does not enter into the count of the former two kinds.

Do not read 「世諦法故，說言阿羅漢」 tr. "by reason of worldly dharmas, it is said, arhat" as the noble fruit being false. Subhūti's answer has two sentences, which must be read together: 「世諦法故，說言阿羅漢；凡夫顛倒法中有得、有失，有眾生、有法。」 tr. "By reason of worldly dharmas, it is said, arhat; within the inverted dharmas of ordinary people there is gain and there is loss, there are beings and there are dharmas." The first sentence says where the name is fastened; the second says where gain and loss lie. The name is fastened to worldly truth and is not false; gain and loss belong to inversion and are not really existent; if because of 「世諦故說」 tr. "said by reason of worldly truth" one thought the noble fruit could be discarded, then the Buddha's words below, 「菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生」 tr. "the bodhisattva practising this nature of dharmas, when he becomes a Buddha, can greatly benefit beings", would also have to be discarded.

Bearing on Practice

Take 「眾生不知由生有苦，若遭苦時，但怨恨人」 tr. "beings do not know that suffering comes from birth; when they meet with suffering they only resent other people" and examine with it the mind with which you meet events. This is the first method of verification this unit gives, and it is most useful: there is no need to ask yourself whether you believe in the truth of suffering; only look at where your mind goes at the time of suffering—to blaming other people, to blaming yourself for not having taken proper care, or back to where suffering comes from. The difference among these three places is the difference between shallow and deep insight, and within a single day there is a great deal by which to examine it.

Take 「餘法或有苦、或無苦，是生法必定有苦」 tr. "other dharmas may have suffering or may have no suffering; this dharma of birth definitely has suffering" and tell maybe apart from necessity. People who apply themselves often take a condition of maybe as a cause of necessity and treat it—changing their surroundings, changing their methods, changing their circumstances and people, thinking that once these are removed there will be no suffering. This sentence is a measuring-rod: whatever has been changed and the suffering still comes, what was changed was not the cause.

Take 「服藥但能治應起病」 tr. "taking medicine can cure only the illness that is about to arise" and settle with it your own regret over the past. Past suffering is already formed; present suffering 「先世因緣成就故不可却」 tr. "cannot be pushed away, because the causes and conditions of former lives have already been accomplished"; what strength can be applied to lies only in the cause of the future. The uselessness of regret lies precisely in its spending strength where strength cannot be applied; and the treatise-author says in the same passage 「良醫、滅火人勤方便亦不虛」 tr. "the striving and skilful means of the good physician and of the person putting out the fire are not in vain either"—limiting the range is not urging people to passivity; it is telling them to put their strength where it can be used.

Take 「小者未能起業，故名為愛；增長能起業，故名為取」 tr. "when it is small and cannot yet give rise to deeds, it is therefore named craving; when it has grown and can give rise to deeds, it is therefore named grasping" and recognise the position you are in now. One and the same thought of greed is, in the position of craving, only an inclination, and in the position of grasping can already make deeds; between the two positions there is a stretch in which one can still turn back. The point where practice applies its strength mostly lies on just this stretch—not waiting until it has become a deed and then repenting, but recognising it at the moment it turns from craving into grasping.

Take 「如小兒蹈火履氷，但有觸，未知苦樂」 tr. "as a small child treads on fire and steps on ice: there is only contact, and it does not yet know suffering and pleasure" and look at how coarse or fine you are. When a realm appears before one, some are only at contact, some are already at feeling, some have long been at grasping without knowing it themselves. This text speaks of one person's growing up, but taken to look at the arising and ceasing of a single thought it fits as well—the earlier the stage at which one can recognise it, the less strength it costs.

Take 「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難」 tr. "the emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection" and examine for yourself the way you talk about emptiness. Whenever you come out with words of the kind ‘since it is all empty, then still ……’, first turn back and look: has that ‘it is all empty’ already become a thing in your own mind? If so, then all the conclusions inferred from it are not to be relied on—the sickness lies not in the conclusion but in the premise.

Take 「菩薩住此中，但破眾生妄想，不破眾生」 tr. "the bodhisattva abides within this and only breaks beings' false imaginings; he does not break beings" and settle with it how you deal with people. To reason with someone with the intent of breaking the person already goes against this sentence; what should be broken is only that one false imagining, and the person must be kept. This saying can be used in teaching people, in disputes, and in self-reproach—at the time of self-reproach too one should break the false imagining and not break oneself.

Take 「行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃」 tr. "practising the dharma of the emptiness of nature, and also not clinging to the emptiness of nature—this is precisely nirvāṇa" and tell practising apart from clinging. Practising a dharma and thinking that holding on to it is arriving home—this is called clinging; practising and knowing it is empty of nature, and not holding even to the emptiness of nature—only this is called practising. The treatise-author goes straight on to give the sign by which to verify it: 「行餘法，生著心，有退失；若行此法，則無退失。」 tr. "Practising other dharmas, one gives rise to a clinging mind and there is retreat and loss; if one practises this dharma, there is no retreat and loss." Whether or not there is retreat and loss is the most honest of mirrors.

Take 「若離性空，雖行布施、持戒，行慈、悲等，善法力故，雖不墮惡道，生天果盡，還墮惡道，如本不異」 tr. "if one is apart from the emptiness of nature, then although one practises giving and keeping morality, and practises kindness, compassion, and the rest, by the power of wholesome dharmas, although one does not fall into the evil destinies, when the fruit of being born in heaven is exhausted, one still falls into the evil destinies, no different from before" and weigh with it the direction of what you cultivate. Wholesome dharmas can bring about good destinies—this is true; good destinies do not bring one out of the round of rebirth—this too is true. Remember the two sentences together, and you will neither slight merit nor take merit as the ultimate—what is lacking is only the one act of ‘dedication to the emptiness of nature’.

Take 「不作如是示諸法相，是名不壞」 tr. "not representing the marks of dharmas in this way is named not destroying" and check your habits in teaching the Dharma and in talking to yourself. Empty, not empty, both empty and not empty, neither empty nor not empty—as soon as one falls into any one of the four alternatives to show to people, something is destroyed. This saying need not be used only in teaching the Dharma; when in your own mind you pass a final verdict on a matter, it is the same case.

Take 「是智慧不為取色故行，是故不行色中」 tr. "this wisdom does not practise for the sake of taking form, and therefore it does not practise within form" and tell taking as object apart from taking. A realm cannot but be taken as object; taking it as object and not doing so in order to take is precisely not practising within it. To think that practice is not coming into contact with realms is to read 「不行」 tr. "does not practise" as not taking as object; the real dividing line lies in the motive—is it in order to take, or not in order to take?

Take 「住無相門中入道，云何取相」 tr. "having entered the path abiding within the gate of signlessness, how could he grasp at marks" and ask yourself what you seek. When one applies oneself and in one's heart secretly expects a result that can be pointed to, this saying is a question straight to the head: by which gate did you go in? If it was by the gate of signlessness, then that result you expect itself goes against the gate.

Take 「諸漏能生後身相續不斷者，是名癡相，雖常不眠亦是癡」 tr. "the outflows that can make the later body continue without break—this is named the mark of delusion; even if one constantly does not sleep, it is still delusion" and reset your own criterion. Practitioners most easily examine themselves by outward signs—whether they sit long or not, whether they sleep little or not. These words of the Buddha move the criterion onto whether the outflows have ceased or not. Diligence in outward signs can be a help; it cannot be proof.

Take 「菩薩亦不得是諸法性，何況有初發心乃至十地，及六波羅蜜、三十七品乃至十八不共法當有所得」 tr. "the bodhisattva does not find even this nature of dharmas, how much less could there be the first arousing of the mind and so on up to the ten grounds, and the six perfections, the thirty-seven limbs of the path, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, that should have something to be attained" and gather in your mind that counts up merit. Stages, gates of the Dharma, daily practices—whatever can be counted is a made dharma; since even the nature of dharmas is unfindable, how much less the things counted. This saying is not telling people not to cultivate; it is telling them to cultivate and not count—the last sentence, 「得佛時，能大利益眾生」 tr. "when he becomes a Buddha, he can greatly benefit beings", is precisely the fruit after not counting.

Further Resonances

Within the whole chapter this unit is the 「論」 tr. "treatise" half, and its relation to the sūtra section the ancient masters judged most clearly. Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, explaining this chapter, sets up its main intent at the very beginning of the chapter, saying: 「此下第三、明為化之意。」 tr. "From here on, third: making clear the intent of transforming." He also says: 「然實際是無之異名、正法之別目耳」 tr. "Yet the limit of reality is simply another name for non-existence, a different heading for the true Dharma"—taking 「實際」 tr. "the limit of reality" as another name for non-existence and a different heading for the true Dharma is of the same category as the treatise-author's words 「求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際」 tr. "when he seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality". His division of the chapter's sections is in two: 「品為二：第一、正明為化之意，建立眾生於際；第二、廣明菩薩建立之法。」 tr. "The chapter is in two: first, directly making clear the intent of transforming, establishing beings in the limit; second, broadly making clear the dharma of the bodhisattva's establishing." On the pivot the treatise-author points out, what Jizang states is wholly the same as the treatise text: 「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法。」 tr. "Before, he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas."

On the most important meaning of this unit, 「二際不異」 tr. "the two limits are not different", Jizang further sets up a question and answer to show what it breaks: 「有所得人皆云實際是真諦故，眾生是世諦」 tr. "people with something to be attained all say that the limit of reality is the real truth, and so beings are worldly truth", and hence there is the fault of 「但為度眾生故行般若，不度真諦故般若」 tr. "practising prajñā only for the sake of delivering beings, and not practising prajñā for the sake of delivering the real truth"; 「所以佛破之云二際不異。度眾生即如度實際，實際無所度，度眾生亦無所度也」 tr. "therefore the Buddha breaks this, saying the two limits are not different. Delivering beings is just like delivering the limit of reality; in the limit of reality there is nothing to deliver, and in delivering beings too there is nothing delivered". This breaks the same sickness as the treatise-author's passage 「異者，實際是畢竟空，眾生際是決定有」 tr. "different means: the limit of reality is ultimate emptiness, the limit of beings is definitely existent". On Subhūti's objection of 「以實際著實際」 tr. "setting the limit of reality upon the limit of reality", the simile Jizang cites is the same as the treatise text: 「一際云何還建立一際？如指端不自觸」 tr. "How can one limit in turn establish one limit? As the tip of a finger does not touch itself"

On the passage on the eighteen emptinesses, Jizang's explanation can be read alongside the treatise-author's 「若性不空，是為壞空體」 tr. "if their nature were not empty, this would be destroying the substance of emptiness": 「以十八空入諸法空，此十八空亦空，乃名性空」 tr. "by the eighteen emptinesses one enters the emptiness of all dharmas; these eighteen emptinesses too are empty, and only this is named the emptiness of nature", and he also says 「故知有性不可得、空性不可得」 tr. "so it is known that the nature of existence is unfindable and the nature of emptiness is unfindable". This is precisely the meaning of 「性空名空性亦無」 tr. "the emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist" in the thirtieth section of this unit, while Jizang, speaking of both 「有性」 tr. "the nature of existence" and 「空性」 tr. "the nature of emptiness" as unfindable, puts it more directly.

On the passage at the end of the fascicle about whether the arhat sleeps or does not sleep, the two kinds Jizang judges are wholly the same as the treatise-author's: 「眠有二：一者、眠而夢，羅漢無此眠也；二者、消息眠，羅漢有此眠也。」 tr. "There are two kinds of sleep: first, sleeping with dreams—the arhat has no such sleep; second, the sleep of resting—the arhat has this sleep." On the differing account recorded in this treatise, he also plainly fastens it to its source, saying 「論更出一解云」 tr. "the treatise further puts forward an explanation, saying", and states its meaning, saying 「慧解脫羅漢不得色界定，故無色界四大事入身有眠也」 tr. "the arhat liberated by wisdom does not obtain the concentrations of the form realm, and so there is no entering of the four elements of the form realm into his body, and he sleeps". So Jizang regards the passage of this treatise beginning 「有人言」 tr. "someone says" as one explanation recorded separately by the treatise-author, and not as an account set up by the treatise-author himself—this can be a help in reading the forty-ninth section of this unit.

On the items of path and fruit, under 「果謂七果，道謂八正」 tr. "the fruit means the seven fruits; the path means the eight right ones" Jizang further puts forward his own account: 「七果應是四果，緣覺佛菩薩也。」 tr. "The seven fruits should be the four fruits, plus the pratyekabuddha, the Buddha, and the bodhisattva." This treatise says here only 「果者，七種果」 tr. "the fruit is the seven kinds of fruit" and does not list their items; Jizang's count is his own judgement, and it is recorded alongside without deciding it on the treatise-author's behalf. On the simile of the conjured person, Jizang marks its class of simile, saying 「舉化人喻，菩提無處行是處喻也」 tr. "the simile of the conjured person is raised; it is a simile of place, that awakening has no place in which it practises"; on Subhūti's question at the end of the fascicle, 「云何菩薩從一地至十地」 tr. "how does the bodhisattva go from the first ground to the tenth ground", Jizang judges it 「第二段、菩提雖寂滅要具萬行方乃得之」 tr. "the second section: although awakening is quiescent, one must be complete with the myriad practices and only then obtains it"—which agrees with this unit's fifty-first section's reading, ‘having no place to practise is the principle; making the myriad practices complete is the matter’.

Huiying's Commentary lacks an explanation of this chapter: its extant text stops within Chapter 69, The Great Skilful Means, and this chapter lies wholly outside the range of his commentary—it is not that there is commentary on it that fails to explain it. Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises is by its form a topical discussion of profound meaning and not a chapter-by-chapter commentary, and has nothing fastened to this chapter. In the literature of the Tiantai line too, no explicit citation of this chapter's title or word-for-word citation of the text of this unit has been seen. All of these are marked as lacking according to the facts, and are not filled with text from elsewhere.

At the place where the end of the fascicle closes, the various editions' headings differ, and they are recorded side by side below without forcing a judgement. The base text at the end of the fascicle reads 「大智度論卷第九十」 tr. "Fascicle Ninety of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa"; the Ishiyama-dera manuscript adds 「釋第七十九品竟」 tr. "the explanation of the seventy-ninth chapter ends" under the character before this, for the character 「論」 tr. "treatise" reads 「論經」 tr. "treatise-sūtra", and for the fascicle number further reads 「九十一」 tr. "ninety-one"; the Shōgozō manuscript for the character 「論」 tr. "treatise" reads 「經論」 tr. "sūtra-treatise", and further adds 「釋第七十九品」 tr. "explanation of the seventy-ninth chapter" under the fascicle number. So the Shōgozō and Ishiyama manuscripts both call this chapter 「第七十九品」 tr. "the seventy-ninth chapter", always one less than the base text's 「第八十」 tr. "eightieth"; this pattern of one less is also the same at the heading at the start of this chapter's fascicle—consistent from head to tail and not a single isolated difference. Why the chapter numbering of the two lines differs belongs to the differences handed down from of old; it is recorded as it is, and choosing between them belongs to the translator.

Further Resonances

What "The Limit of Reality" inherits is written out plainly in the very first sentence of this chapter's treatise text. What the preceding chapter, "Thorough Penetration," speaks of is the nature of dharmas: 「一切法實相名為法性，是故一切法皆入法性中」 tr. "The real mark of all dharmas is named the nature of dharmas; therefore all dharmas enter into the nature of dharmas," and so the nature of form is precisely the nature of dharmas—「云何色性能壞法性」 tr. "how could the nature of form destroy the nature of dharmas?"; and one who trains in the nature of dharmas has nothing separate to train in, so Subhūti on this account says, 「若菩薩學法性，是為無所學」 tr. "If the bodhisattva trains in the nature of dharmas, this is training in nothing," the Buddha answers him, 「法性無性者，若菩薩學法性，為學一切法」 tr. "The nature of dharmas being without nature, if the bodhisattva trains in the nature of dharmas, he trains in all dharmas," and settles it with 「但諸法實相是法性，是故得實相則正遍學一切法」 tr. "It is only that the real mark of all dharmas is the nature of dharmas; therefore, having obtained the real mark, one rightly trains in all dharmas throughout." The last section of the preceding chapter pushes emptiness further, to its very limit: 「以諸法性先空，中、後亦爾，非智慧力故令空」 tr. "Because the nature of dharmas is empty at first, and so in the middle and after, it is not made empty by the power of wisdom"; beings and dharmas 「非以入無餘涅槃時乃空，從本已來常空」 tr. "are not empty only when they enter nirvāṇa without remainder; from the very beginning they have always been empty"; and yet its closing stroke still rests on benefiting others—「如是行般若波羅蜜菩薩，則能祐利眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva who practises prajñāpāramitā in this way can assist and benefit beings." Since all dharmas have entered wholly into the nature of dharmas, and the nature of dharmas in turn has no nature to be trained in, then where are the people to be delivered? This chapter comes in through exactly this gap. At the opening of the chapter the treatise-author cites the difficulty of the preceding chapter and points out the turn between the two difficulties: the former difficulty is 「若諸法空，云何有五道生死、善不善法？」 tr. "If all dharmas are empty, how can there be the births and deaths of the five destinies, and wholesome and unwholesome dharmas?"; the present difficulty is that, beings being ultimately unfindable, for whom then does the bodhisattva practise prajñā; and he judges it in one sentence: 「先難法為眾生，今難眾生為法故」 tr. "Before, he objected to dharmas for the sake of beings; now he objects to beings for the sake of dharmas." The preceding chapter returned dharmas to the nature of dharmas; this chapter then returns the person to the limit of reality; and the name ‘limit of reality’ is precisely another heading for the nature of dharmas—a sentence the treatise-author sets up when explaining the substance of ignorance joins the two chapters fast: 「復次，菩薩求無明體，即時是明，所謂諸法實相，名為實際。」 tr. "Further, when the bodhisattva seeks the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination, namely what is called the real mark of all dharmas, which is named the limit of reality."

What it opens is joined still more closely. After awakening's having no place in which it practises, this chapter's sūtra text adds a sentence that does not abandon the myriad practices—「不具足是諸法，終不得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "not making complete these dharmas, he never obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"; the first question at the opening of the next chapter, "Illumination," takes this very sentence directly and asks for its method: 「不具足菩薩道，不能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。世尊！菩薩摩訶薩當云何具足菩薩道，能得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？」 tr. "Not making complete the bodhisattva path, one cannot obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. World-Honored One! How should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva make complete the bodhisattva path, so as to be able to obtain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi?" The Buddha's answer still rests on the two Chinese characters for skilful means—practising dānapāramitā and 「不得施、不得施者、不得受者，亦不遠離是法行檀波羅蜜，是則照明菩薩道」 tr. "not finding the giving, not finding the giver, not finding the recipient, and also not being far from this dharma as he practises dānapāramitā: this is the illumination of the bodhisattva path." Here the treatise-author of the next chapter sets up a question and answer of his own, and states the point of joining as clearly as could be: 「須菩提不疑「云何得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」，今但問「云何具足菩薩道，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」。」 tr. "Subhūti is not in doubt about ‘how one obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi’; what he now asks is only ‘how one makes complete the bodhisattva path and so obtains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi’." What this chapter sets up is the principle of having no place in which to practise and yet not abandoning the myriad practices; what the next chapter opens is precisely the method by which the myriad practices can be made complete; this chapter's teaching and transforming through the five gates says all there is to say of their emptiness and yet does not abandon their practice, and the next chapter then says straight out 「照明、具足是一義」 tr. "illumination and completeness are one meaning." One chapter asks why it can be practised, the other asks why it can be fulfilled; they follow on in sequence and do not cover each other over.

Of what the later ancient masters preserved in reading this chapter, the matter of the chapter title is most worth recording. The base text of this treatise heads it 「大智度論釋實際品第八十」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa, Explanation of ‘The Limit of Reality’, Chapter Eighty," while the editions are not uniform: the Palace edition, for the chapter number, reads 「第八十品」 tr. "the eightieth chapter," and for the character for ‘fascicle’ reads 「卷第」 tr. "fascicle number"; the Shōgozō manuscript gives the fascicle title in full as 「大智度經論卷第九十釋第七十九品」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra-Treatise, Fascicle Ninety: Explanation of the Seventy-ninth Chapter"; the Ishiyama-dera manuscript reads 「摩訶般若波羅蜜品第七十九實際品卷九十一」 tr. "Mahāprajñāpāramitā, Chapter Seventy-nine, ‘The Limit of Reality’, Fascicle Ninety-one." So the Shōgozō and Ishiyama-dera manuscripts both call this chapter the seventy-ninth, always one step less than the base text, consistent with the preceding several chapters. The place where the fascicle closes at its end is the same: the base text reads 「大智度論卷第九十」 tr. "Fascicle Ninety of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa"; the Ishiyama-dera manuscript adds before it 「釋第七十九品竟」 tr. "the explanation of the seventy-ninth chapter ends," for the character for ‘treatise’ reads 「論經」 tr. "treatise-sūtra," and for the fascicle number reads 「九十一」 tr. "ninety-one"; the Shōgozō manuscript for the character for ‘treatise’ reads 「經論」 tr. "sūtra-treatise," and further adds 「釋第七十九品」 tr. "explanation of the seventy-ninth chapter" beneath the fascicle number—beginning and end alike lean the same way, one less; this is not a slip of the brush at a single point; both are kept and recorded together without judgement. As for the transmitted text of the Larger Sūtra being explained, the chapter number that its table of contents attaches to this chapter accords with this treatise, without the shift seen in the preceding several chapters, and this chapter's title has no variant name either; this is recorded as it is. Only the title of the next chapter differs between the two parties: this treatise has "Illumination", Chapter 81, while the table of contents of the Larger Sūtra being explained and Jizang's commentary both have "Completeness", Chapter 81. This is not a combined explanation; it is two parties to the chapter name; and what the two names point to does not differ—the treatise-author's own explanation in the next chapter has already reconciled them: 「照明、具足是一義。」 tr. "Illumination and completeness are one meaning."

Among the commentaries of the ancient masters, for this chapter there is only the one school of Jizang. Jizang's Commentary on the Larger Sūtra, at its opening, at once judges its position and general meaning: 「此下第三、明為化之意。菩薩所以為化萬端者，正欲置眾生於實際中，是故此品明為化之意。」 tr. "From here down, third, the intent of transforming is made clear. The reason the bodhisattva transforms in myriad ways is precisely that he wishes to place beings within the limit of reality; therefore this chapter makes clear the intent of transforming." And on the one name ‘limit of reality’ he makes a discrimination of the general and the particular, not allowing anyone to regard it as a heading peculiar to this sūtra: 「然實際是無之異名、正法之別目耳，何但是此經為化之意？十方三世佛菩薩為化之意，亦令悟實道也。」 tr. "Yet the limit of reality is only another name for non-existence and a separate title for the true Dharma; how could it be the intent of transforming of this sūtra alone? The intent of transforming of the buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and the three times is also to cause the awakening to the real path." His structural division divides the whole chapter in two: 「品為二：第一、正明為化之意，建立眾生於際；第二、廣明菩薩建立之法。」 tr. "The chapter is in two: first, it makes clear directly the intent of transforming, establishing beings in the limit; second, it makes clear broadly the bodhisattva's dharma of establishing." And beneath the second division he further divides two roads, cause and fruit: 「就建立中有二：就因行以建立令住六度；第二、就果德以建立令住種智。」 tr. "Within establishing there are two: establishing by way of the causal practices, causing them to abide in the six perfections; second, establishing by way of the virtues of the fruit, causing them to abide in the knowledge of all kinds." On the road of the causal practices, Jizang judges that each and every perfection is complete with five matters—「因中建立令住六度，一一度中具五事」 tr. "Within the cause, establishing them so that they abide in the six perfections: within each and every perfection five matters are complete"—while for the one gate of prajñā he admits himself that its text is incomplete: 「般若中見五領不具，可相兼也」 tr. "Within prajñā one sees that the five headings are not complete; they may be combined with one another"; and for the one gate of vigour he judges two intents, earlier and later: 「精進中初為除惡，後次為生善也。」 tr. "Within vigour, the first is for removing evil, and the later is for giving rise to good." The road of the virtues of the fruit also divides into two sections; its first section has four meanings, and the first meaning is precisely 「由性空故得成菩提」 tr. "because of the emptiness of nature one obtains the accomplishment of awakening"; its second section also has four meanings: 「一者、由悟性空能化眾生除顛倒；第二、歎性空為修行之本；三、歎性空能成遍度之義；四、歎性空法得果。」 tr. "First, through awakening to the emptiness of nature one can transform beings and remove inversion; second, praising the emptiness of nature as the root of cultivating practice; third, praising the emptiness of nature as able to accomplish the meaning of delivering all; fourth, praising the dharma of the emptiness of nature as obtaining the fruit." The fineness of his structural division shows its care especially in the passage of Subhūti's understanding—「次須菩提領解秤歎及佛述，皆成第四得果句，故不取為別段也」 tr. "Next, Subhūti's understanding and praise and the Buddha's declaring all complete the fourth phrase, on obtaining the fruit; therefore they are not taken as a separate section." He sets up no separate section precisely because the understanding and the declaring and confirming still belong to the one meaning of obtaining the fruit. As for the latter half of this chapter, Jizang judges it as 「第二、建立眾生於菩提平等正道」 tr. "Second, establishing beings in the equal, right path of awakening," and beneath it he further divides two: 「第一、先歎菩提寂滅離分別取捨；第二、明菩提雖寂滅，要須具於萬行方得之。」 tr. "First, praising first that awakening is of quiescent extinction, apart from discrimination, taking, and giving up; second, making clear that though awakening is of quiescent extinction, one must be complete with the myriad practices before one obtains it." Of the Buddha's answer, Jizang sums it up in one phrase: 「良由不見如此相即得菩薩也，見如此事即不得也。」 tr. "It is indeed by not seeing such marks that one obtains the bodhisattva; by seeing such matters one does not obtain it." And his closing sentence corresponds exactly to what this chapter opens—he judges the latter half of the last section as 「第二、入後品初明具萬行之方便。今是初，如文」 tr. "Second, entering the beginning of the next chapter, making clear the skilful means of being complete with the myriad practices. Now this is the first, as in the text": so Jizang too assigns the skilful means of being complete with the myriad practices to the next chapter. Further, his words citing the sūtra to mark off a section read 「白佛：若一切行無分別下」 tr. "from ‘addressed the Buddha: if all practices are without discrimination’ onward," while the sūtra text recorded in this treatise reads 「若一切法空無分別」 tr. "if all dharmas are empty and without discrimination"; the wording differs slightly; both are kept and recorded, without forcing them to be the same.

As for the commentary on this treatise itself, for this chapter there is nothing to be attained from it. The extant text of Huiying's Commentary stops at the explanation of "The Great Skilful Means," Chapter 69 (incomplete); the commentary's fascicle twenty-four ends here, and what it explains stops at fascicle eighty-two of the treatise; this chapter lies wholly outside the scope of his commentary—this is an explanation lacking, not a commentary that exists and does not explain. Junzheng's Profound Meaning of the Four Mahāyāna Treatises is in the form of thematic profound meanings, not a chapter-by-chapter commentary; this chapter has nothing in it to which it is attached, and searched throughout for the heading "The Limit of Reality," it is 〔not found〕. The books of the Tiantai line—the works on profound meaning, the annotations, and the commentaries and records on calming and contemplation—searched throughout for this chapter's title and for the doctrinal words peculiar to it, are likewise all 〔not found〕; no forced connection is drawn. All of these mark the lack according to the facts, and do not fill it with text from elsewhere.

Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, the reason the chapter name is set up on the two Chinese characters for ‘limit of reality’ precisely illumines two faces of the whole chapter's meaning. The name ‘limit of reality’ picks out what it rests on—what it rests on has never moved, so the sūtra text says that it 「無住處，亦無所從來、亦無所從去」 tr. "has no abiding-place, nor does it come from anywhere, nor does it go anywhere," says that it is 「無聚無散、無增無減、無生無滅、無垢無淨」 tr. "neither gathering nor scattering, without increase and without decrease, non-arising and non-ceasing, without stain and without purity," and names it 「是名法住相」 tr. "this is named the mark of the abiding of dharmas"; the treatise-author further points to it directly as another name for the emptiness of nature: 「常住法相是性空之異名，亦名諸法實相。」 tr. "The constantly abiding marks of dharmas are another name for the emptiness of nature, and are also named the real mark of all dharmas." The phrase ‘establishing beings in the limit of reality’ picks out what it does—what it does lies with deluded people, so in the teaching and transforming through the five gates every gate is a matter of fact, and the treatise-author's explanation of them too speaks wholly from the side of fact: beings hear of emptiness and turn to clinging to giving, and the bodhisattva says to himself, 「我從慳中拔出，今復著布施」 tr. "I pulled him out of stinginess, and now he again clings to giving," and so speaks once more of the real mark of giving; beings undergo suffering and only resent other people, and the bodhisattva teaches them to trace back against the current to the root of suffering, asking all the way down to 「求無明體，即時是明」 tr. "seeking the substance of ignorance, at that very moment it is illumination." One unmoving, one wholly moving: they look opposite, but in fact they come from one place: precisely because 「實際、眾生際無二無別」 tr. "the limit of reality and the limit of beings are without duality and without difference," abiding in the limit of reality is not parting from beings, and delivering beings is not parting from the limit of reality. The sūtra text itself joins these two faces under one name—「是名實際性空法」 tr. "this is named the dharma of the limit of reality and the emptiness of nature"; and the treatise-author's judgement that it is without fault is also only one sentence: 「是故住實際無咎。」 tr. "Therefore there is no fault in abiding in the limit of reality."

So what "The Limit of Reality" leaves us in the end is a set of ways of asking that can be carried into daily use. When I read the meaning of emptiness and feel that delivering beings is pointless, I remember that what the sūtra text pulls out is only inversion—the bodhisattva is 「於眾生相顛倒中拔出眾生」 tr. "pulling beings out from within the inversion of the mark of beings," and the treatise-author says it more plainly still: 「菩薩住此中，但破眾生妄想，不破眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva abides within this and only breaks beings' false imaginings; he does not break beings." When I take emptiness as something attained and settle myself in it, I remember the treatise-author's one sentence that blocks it off completely: 「性空名空性亦無，汝何以取是空性相作難？」 tr. "The emptiness of nature means that even the nature of emptiness does not exist; why do you take hold of this mark of the nature of emptiness to raise an objection?" When I meet with suffering and only resent people and circumstances, I remember the treatise-author saying that the sickness of ordinary people lies precisely in 「但怨恨人，自不將適，初不怨生」 tr. "only resenting other people and their own failure to take proper care, and never at all blaming birth," and that the root of suffering is only one sentence—「生定是苦本」 tr. "birth is definitely the root of suffering." When I feel that bondage comes from outside, I remember that one simile—「譬如蠶出絲自裹縛，入沸湯火炙。」 tr. "It is like a silkworm that puts out silk to wrap and bind itself, and goes into boiling water and is scorched by fire." When I cultivate wholesome dharmas and fear that in the end they will return to arising and ceasing, I remember that for those apart from the emptiness of nature 「生天果盡，還墮惡道，如本不異」 tr. "when the fruit of being born in heaven is exhausted, they still fall into the evil destinies, no different from before," while 「行性空法，亦不著性空，即是涅槃」 tr. "practising the dharma of the emptiness of nature, and also not clinging to the emptiness of nature—this is precisely nirvāṇa." When I ask myself when ignorance can be broken, I remember this chapter's most essential sentence: seek the substance of ignorance, and the moment one seeks, it is illumination. And after the whole chapter has said all there is to say of nothing obtained and no place, its last sentence still does not come down on emptiness; it comes down on use—「菩薩行是諸法性，得佛時，能大利益眾生。」 tr. "The bodhisattva practising this nature of dharmas, when he becomes a Buddha, can greatly benefit beings."