大智度論 義疏通講 · 冊4Dazhidulun — Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa · Exposition Throughout · Vol. 4

Overview

At the opening of “The Ten Non-existents,” the venerable Subhūti addresses the Buddha and, in a single breath, sets down ten sentences of 「無」 tr. "non-existence": the prior limit, the later limit, and the middle limit of the bodhisattva are unfindable; because form is boundless, know that the bodhisattva too is boundless; form is the bodhisattva, and this too is unfindable; sought in all kinds and in all places the bodhisattva is unfindable, so what bodhisattva should be taught prajñāpāramitā; the bodhisattva has only a name; as with the name ‘I’, the I is ultimately non-arising; the ultimately non-arising is not called form; if it is the ultimately non-arising dharma, who is to be taught that this is prajñāpāramitā; apart from the ultimately non-arising there is also no bodhisattva practising toward anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening; when the bodhisattva hears this, his mind does not sink, does not regret, is not startled, is not frightened, is not afraid—this is being able to practise prajñā. Śāriputra at once questions him on these ten meanings item by item, and the whole chapter unfolds from this one round of question and answer. The chapter is named 「十無」 tr. "the Ten Non-existents", and its eye lies just here: these ten sentences are not ten negations of annihilation but ten gates of thorough search, which—from the limits of time and the limits of extent, through being the aggregates and being apart from the aggregates, in all kinds and in all places, name and reality, self and dharmas—seek 「菩薩」 tr. "the bodhisattva" gate by gate to the point where he is unfindable.

This question had in fact already been asked long before, so at the opening the treatise-author first raises the objection on the reader’s behalf: 「上已說『菩薩、菩薩字不可得，為誰說般若波羅蜜』，今何以更說？」 tr. "Above it has already been said, ‘the bodhisattva and the word bodhisattva are unfindable; for whom is prajñāpāramitā spoken?’—why is it spoken again now?" The answer has two layers: Subhūti is foremost in the practice of emptiness and always delights in speaking of emptiness, and whenever he speaks, he always benefits beings through the gate of emptiness; further, 「上略說，是中十種廣分別菩薩不可得」 tr. "above it was spoken in brief; here the unfindability of the bodhisattva is distinguished at large in ten ways". Why the extended exposition is necessary the treatise-author shows by a simile: just as a great tree with deep roots cannot be felled with a single stroke but needs the force of the axe applied many times—the emptiness of the bodhisattva is also like this; it cannot be attained with a single telling. When practitioners first hear of no-self, they often grow anxious and sorrowful: 「若無我者，為誰修善？」 tr. "If there is no self, for whom does one cultivate good?"—supposing that there was first a self and that now it is lost. Therefore Subhūti says again 「我，從本已來無，非先有今無」 tr. "the self from the very beginning has been non-existent; it is not that it first existed and now does not"—being from the beginning non-existent of itself, now nothing is lost, and so there is nothing to grieve over. The measure of the whole chapter lies right here: the non-existence is the non-existence that clears away grasping, not a non-existence that takes away the place of practice. So when the ten gates have been searched through, the knot is tied not in an emptiness where not one thing exists, but in 「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "the ultimately non-arising is precisely prajñāpāramitā", and in form and so on up to omniscience of all kinds all 「入無二法數」 tr. "entering the count of non-dual dharmas". This is the single map of the chapter’s vein of meaning: the ten meanings set the question, thorough search finds nothing, there is only designation by name, the ultimately non-arising is precisely prajñā, the five kinds of right contemplation, entry into non-duality.

The sūtra text and the treatise’s explanation of the whole chapter each come in four rounds, advancing in alternation; within the same fascicle, the chapter is divided at the end of the second round of the treatise’s explanation into two arcs, the First Part and the Last Part. The First Part gathers the first two rounds. In the first round of sūtra text, after the general heading of the ten meanings, Śāriputra questions item by item, and Subhūti answers starting from beings and the five aggregates, passing through the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, the samādhi gates and the dhāraṇī gates, dharma-nature, suchness, the limit of reality, and the nature of the inconceivable, the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, the Buddha, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds—eight sections advancing step by step, each section affirming it again and again as because there is nothing there, because it is empty, because it is apart, because its nature is non-existent, and all returning together to 「空、菩薩、前際，是諸法無二無別」 tr. "emptiness, the bodhisattva, and the prior limit—these dharmas are without duality and without difference". The first round of the treatise’s explanation then answers why it is spoken again and how the simile is taken: emptiness cannot be attained with a single telling, hence the extended distinction in ten ways; first it breaks the self in the midst of evil and offence, afterward it breaks all dharmas, and taking no-self as the simile it infers that there is no bodhisattva, 「以小喻大，如石蜜喻甘露」 tr. "illustrating the great by the small, as rock sugar is used to illustrate ambrosia"; it further makes clear that Śāriputra is not ignorant of emptiness, but questions on every matter in order to cut off the doubts of newcomers to learning and to let Subhūti distinguish the deep meaning well. The second round of sūtra text restates the first four questions and answers them one by one: as for boundlessness, form is like space, its edge is unfindable and its middle is unfindable; as for being the aggregates, form is empty of the mark of form, and so on up to the Buddha empty of the mark of Buddha; as for thorough search, form sought in turn within form and within feeling is in every case unfindable, and so on up to prajñā within the bodhisattva and teaching within teaching, which are likewise unfindable; as for only a name, a name is empty of the mark of name—in the name there is no dharma, in the dharma there is no name; and it reaches the name ‘I’ being ultimately non-arising—the I is ultimately unfindable, so how could it have arising? The second round of the treatise’s explanation follows by explaining the boundlessness of form through four meanings, distinguishes the names 「一切處」 tr. "all places" and 「一切種智」 tr. "omniscience of all kinds", and at the end returns to having only a name: the five aggregates break apart, scatter, and perish like empty space; the bodhisattva has only a name, like a conjured person, and all enter into the highest meaning. The First Part closes on one sentence: 「法體先無，云何有生」 tr. "the substance of dharmas is from the first non-existent—how could there be arising?"

The Last Part gathers the last two rounds, drawing the question and answer toward finer places. The third round of sūtra text restates and answers the questions from 「如我，諸法亦如是無自性」 tr. "like the I, all dharmas too are thus without self-nature" onward: all dharmas are without self-nature because they arise from coming together; all dharmas are impermanent and yet not lost—「若法無常，即是動相、即是空相」 tr. "if a dharma is impermanent, that is the mark of movement, that is the mark of emptiness"; all dharmas are neither permanent nor extinguished—because their nature is so of itself; form is ultimately non-arising—because a maker is unfindable; the ultimately non-arising is not called form—「色性空，是空無生、無滅、無住異」 tr. "the nature of form is empty, and this emptiness is without arising, without ceasing, without abiding and changing"; the ultimately non-arising is precisely prajñāpāramitā, without duality and without difference; apart from the ultimately non-arising there is no bodhisattva practising the path—because the ultimately non-arising and the bodhisattva, and form and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, are without duality and without difference; hearing this, he does not sink and does not regret—because he does not see dharmas as having a mark of awareness and knowing, and sees all dharmas as like a dream, like an illusion, like a mirage, like a shadow, like a transformation. The third round of the treatise’s explanation takes eye-consciousness as its illustration: eye-consciousness arises from the coming together of many conditions—the eye, form, light, space, the mind wishing to see, and the like—in each one of which there is no seer, and in their coming together there should also be no seeing; the dharma of seeing is ultimately empty; it further points out that impermanent and yet not lost breaks both the inversion of permanence and the inversion of annihilation, and this is precisely entering the gate of the real mark; the ultimately non-arising is precisely the real mark of all dharmas, and the real mark is precisely prajñā—how then would prajñāpāramitā be taught to prajñāpāramitā? At the end it makes clear, by the two similes of dreaming and waking and of conjured things, why there is no fear—in a dream one sees fearful things, but once awake there is no dread; when conjured things appear before one, the wise, though they see them, have no delusion in the mind. The fourth round of sūtra text turns to Subhūti addressing the Buddha: when the bodhisattva practises prajñā, toward form and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, one by one he 「不受、不示、不住、不著，亦不言是」 tr. "does not receive, does not display, does not abide in, does not cling to, nor does he say ‘it is this’"; the non-arising of form is not form, the mark of the non-cessation of form is not form, and this dharma of non-arising and dharma of non-cessation are not one, not two, not three, not different; therefore form enters the count of non-dual dharmas, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds entering the count of non-dual dharmas. The fourth round of the treatise’s explanation names this the practice of five kinds of right contemplation: not receiving—because within the five aggregates there is the fire of impermanence that can burn the mind; not viewing—not grasping marks, and also contemplating the five aggregates as empty; not abiding—not relying on the five aggregates, just as an empty village occupied by bandits is a place where the wise should not stay long; not clinging—body and mind have measureless faults and offences, so how could one cling to them; not saying ‘it is form’—not speaking of the five aggregates as having fixed marks out of wrong view. The final question and answer points out the twofold breaking of clinging: before form is broken, craving and the other fetters arise, clinging to form and the like; once form is broken, wrong view arises, clinging to the emptiness of form and the like; 「離是二，名不二」 tr. "to be apart from these two is called non-duality"—here the whole chapter draws to its close.

The teaching of this chapter has two layers, sūtra and treatise. The sūtra text lays things out by restated questions and restated answers, and the same list of dharmas—the five aggregates, the six sense-fields, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, the samādhi gates and the dhāraṇī gates, omniscience of all kinds—is searched through again and again under the gates of nothing there, empty of mark, unfindable in self and other, only a name, without self-nature because of coming together, and the five ‘nots’; the treatise’s explanation, for its part, keeps guard at each place where one easily loses one’s footing and sets a question there: if there is no self, for whom does one cultivate good; is emptiness then the bodhisattva; since the five aggregates come together, should there not be a bodhisattva; form has shape and can be seen, so how is it boundless; why at the very end is it said that they enter the count of non-dual dharmas. If one reads only the sūtra’s lists, the ten non-existents easily become a string of repetitions in the same words; if one reads only the treatise’s answers, one again easily loses the gate that each answer faces. The steadier way to read is first to recognise which of the ten meanings’ gates this passage is searching, then to see by what kind of unfindability the sūtra text searches it, and finally to see by which objection the treatise’s explanation holds both sides.

Therefore, in reading each round of question and answer, one can ask at least three layers. First, by which gate is this 「無」 tr. "non-existence" found in the search—the limits of time and of extent, being the aggregates and being apart from them, the thorough search of self and other, or name and reality, arising and ceasing? Second, which layer of grasping is the sūtra text’s unfindability clearing away just here—the bodhisattva who is sought, the prajñā that teaches and is taught, or the substance of dharmas that produces and is produced? Third, by which objection does the treatise’s explanation guard against reading ‘no bodhisattva’ as annihilation, and against reading ‘there is a bodhisattva’ back into a real self? The questions and answers of this chapter always let the difficulty stand firm first—there was first a self and now it is not, so how could one not grieve?—and then answer it with ‘from the beginning non-existent of itself’; it is precisely this way of answering, which does not smooth away either side, that lets the ten non-existents search out grasping completely and yet not lose the place of practice. Reading on along the ten gates, one will in the end land in the same place: the ultimately non-arising is precisely prajñā, without duality and without difference; one who hears this and is not startled, not frightened, not afraid is the person able to practise prajñāpāramitā.

Reading On in the Order of the Treatise

The Ten Non-existents, First Part: Searching Out through Ten Gates That the Bodhisattva Is Unfindable, and For Whom Emptiness Is Spoken

What Is Being Asked

This chapter opens with a general statement made by Subhūti to the Buddha: 「菩薩摩訶薩前際不可得，後際不可得，中際不可得」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva is unfindable at the prior limit, unfindable at the later limit, unfindable at the middle limit"—the prior limit is the boundary of the past, the later limit is the boundary of the future, the middle limit is the boundary in between, and within the three limits no bodhisattva can be found anywhere. From there the statement runs straight on: form, and so on up to consciousness, is boundless, and so the bodhisattva too is boundless; to say that the five aggregates (that is, the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness) are the bodhisattva is also unfindable; searching everywhere for the bodhisattva, in all kinds and in all places, he is unfindable; 「菩薩摩訶薩但有名字」 tr. "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva has only a name"; 「如說我名字，我畢竟不生」 tr. "just as the name ‘self’ is spoken, yet the self is ultimately non-arising", and all dharmas are likewise without self-nature; what is ultimately non-arising is not called form, nor is it called feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; this being so, 「當教誰是般若波羅蜜耶」 tr. "to whom should this prajñāpāramitā be taught?"; apart from the ultimately non-arising there is also no bodhisattva who practises unsurpassed awakening; and the bodhisattva who hears all this and whose 「心不沒、不悔、不驚、不怖、不畏」 tr. "mind does not sink, does not regret, is not alarmed, is not frightened, is not afraid"—only he is one who can practise prajñā. The chapter's name, 「十無」 tr. "the ten non-existents", has its eye right here: in a single breath ten layers of 「無」 tr. "non-existence" are set up, and the bodhisattva is ushered out, layer by layer, from the three times, the five aggregates, the name, and the mark of arising. Śāriputra thereupon takes up these ten meanings one by one and asks: for what reason is it said so? And so the question of the whole part is fixed—if emptiness is spoken of to this degree, where is the bodhisattva? To whom is prajñā to be taught? If nothing at all is findable, will 「無」 tr. "non-existence" not cancel practice itself along with everything else? What the First Part must answer is precisely this doubt, which seems to destroy its own foundation: the tenfold search does not cancel the bodhisattva’s practice; on the contrary, it is the very place where the bodhisattva’s practice is established.

Passage by Passage

First, see how the ten meanings are set up. Subhūti’s general statement has ten items: one, the three limits are unfindable; two, because the five aggregates are boundless, the bodhisattva too is boundless; three, that the five aggregates are the bodhisattva is also unfindable; four, seeking the bodhisattva in all kinds and in all places, he is unfindable; five, the bodhisattva has only a name; six, just as the name ‘self’ is spoken, the self is ultimately non-arising; seven, what is ultimately non-arising is not called the five aggregates; eight, with the dharma that is ultimately non-arising, to whom should prajñā be taught; nine, apart from the ultimately non-arising there is also no bodhisattva who practises awakening; ten, one who hears this and does not sink, does not regret, is not alarmed, is not frightened, and is not afraid is able to practise prajñā. Śāriputra, question upon question, lifts the ten meanings back up to Subhūti exactly as they were; this way of questioning is not a challenge—below, the treatise-author will himself explain its purpose.

Next, see how Subhūti answers the first meaning. He does not merely assert ‘there is no bodhisattva at the prior limit’; rather he opens a series of gates and searches through them gate by gate. First he begins from the gate of living beings—「眾生無所有故」 tr. "because living beings are non-existent", 「眾生空故」 tr. "because living beings are empty", 「眾生離故」 tr. "because living beings are apart"—the bodhisattva is unfindable at the prior limit. Then he enters the gate of the five aggregates—form, and so on up to consciousness, each searched through from the four angles of 「無有故」 tr. "because it does not exist", 「空故」 tr. "because it is empty", 「離故」 tr. "because it is apart", and 「性無故」 tr. "because its nature is non-existent". Then he enters the gate of the six perfections—dān (giving), śīla (morality), kṣānti (patience), vīrya (vigour), dhyān (meditation), and prajñā (wisdom), the six perfections searched through from the same four angles. Further up still come the eighteen emptinesses; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; the samādhi gates and the dhāraṇī gates; dharma-nature, suchness, the limit of reality, and the nature of the inconceivable; the śrāvakas, the pratyekabuddhas, the buddhas, and unsurpassed awakening; and at the last, all the way to omniscience of all kinds. Each gate is searched to the bottom, and the conclusion always comes to rest on the same sentence: 「空不異菩薩，菩薩不異前際」 tr. "emptiness is not different from the bodhisattva, and the bodhisattva is not different from the prior limit"; 「空、菩薩、前際，是諸法無二無別」 tr. "emptiness, the bodhisattva, and the prior limit—these dharmas are without duality and without difference". This conclusion is worth pausing over: the result of the search is not ‘emptiness has devoured the bodhisattva’, but that emptiness, the bodhisattva, and the three limits are from the first without duality and without difference. Unfindability is not the annihilation of something; it is that there never was a line dividing the bodhisattva from emptiness. As with the prior limit, so with the later limit and the middle limit.

The treatise’s explanation then takes over, and first settles ‘why it is said and said again’. It has already been said above that the bodhisattva is unfindable and asked for whom prajñā is spoken; why is it said again here? The treatise-author gives two layers. The first layer is the speaker’s disposition: 「須菩提空行第一，常樂說空」 tr. "Subhūti is foremost in the practice of emptiness and always delights in speaking of emptiness"; whatever he says, he always benefits living beings through the gate of emptiness—the saying again is not repetition; it is his own practice of benefiting others. The second layer is the listener’s difficulty: 「上略說，是中十種廣分別菩薩不可得」 tr. "above it was spoken briefly; here the unfindability of the bodhisattva is distinguished at length in ten ways"—spoken briefly just once, it does not get through to people. Where does the difficulty lie? The treatise-author enters into it very deeply: the practitioner has always dwelt in a mind that holds a self, discriminating good and evil, gathering the good and discarding the evil; now that he is told there is no self, and that he should simply practise good without discriminating dharmas, there arises in his mind that famous sorrow—「若無我者，為誰修善？」 tr. "if there is no self, for whom does one cultivate good?" Subhūti’s reply pulls the firewood out from under the cauldron: 「我，從本已來無，非先有今無。」 tr. "the self has been non-existent from the very beginning; it is not that it existed before and is non-existent now." Being non-existent from the first, it now has nothing to lose; having nothing to lose, there is nothing to sorrow over. The sorrow is not consoled away; it is seen through—it is built on the illusion ‘first there was a self, and now it has been taken away’, and that 「先有」 tr. "existed before" was never established. The treatise-author then adds this section’s own simile: 「譬如深根大樹，不可以一斫能辦」 tr. "it is like a great tree with deep roots, which cannot be felled with a single chop"; only with much force of the axe is it cut through. The bodhisattva’s emptiness, likewise, cannot be attained with a single saying, and so there are the ten ways of distinguishing at length. The 「十」 tr. "ten" of the ten non-existents is the number of times the axe falls.

Next comes the arrangement of simile and example. Someone asks: since the self and the bodhisattva are one matter, how can the self be used as a simile for the bodhisattva? The treatise-author’s answer discloses the teaching sequence of prajñā: to beginners one may not speak of emptiness straight away. First one distinguishes offence and merit, abandoning offence and cultivating merit; then one sees that the reward of merit is impermanent, grows weary of the world, and seeks the path; and then one contemplates that the 「我」 tr. "self", sought within the six consciousnesses, is unfindable—non-self is easy to understand and easy to be taught. If at the very start one speaks of 「色空」 tr. "form is empty", then 「雖耳聞說空，眼常見實」 tr. "although the ears hear emptiness spoken of, the eyes always see things as real", and faith is hard to arouse. Therefore 「先破惡罪中我，後破一切諸法」 tr. "first one breaks the self within evil offences, and afterwards one breaks all dharmas". Those who have attained the path realise non-self for themselves, but 「未得道者信餘法空，不能如信無我」 tr. "those who have not yet attained the path cannot believe in the emptiness of the other dharmas as they believe in non-self"; and so non-self, which everyone can believe, is used as a simile for the emptiness of dharmas, which is hard to believe—「以小喻大，如石蜜喻甘露」 tr. "using the small as a simile for the great, as rock sugar is used as a simile for ambrosia". The measure here must be seen clearly: non-self is small and the emptiness of dharmas is great—not that the doctrine falls into a higher and a lower half, but that entry into faith has an easier and a harder, an earlier and a later; rock sugar and ambrosia are both sweet in taste, only one is shallow and the other deep.

Next, see Śāriputra’s role. He knows emptiness and non-self deeply; why then does he raise a question at every point? The treatise-author again gives two layers. First, Subhūti, in the person of a śrāvaka, speaks the deep prajñā before the Buddha, and newly-learning bodhisattvas might suspect that the Buddha is merely humouring him; Śāriputra raises his questions precisely to cut off this doubt. Second, the Buddha wishes to have Subhūti speak prajñā right through to its very end, and Śāriputra questions him at every point, so that the deep meaning may be well distinguished and the assembly may revere and believe. And so this string of pressing questions shows its true face: it is not a challenge but a fulfilment—the tighter the questions, the clearer the answers. Within Subhūti’s answers there then also emerges a passage that distinguishes names and marks: self, living being, and person are at root one matter; one who has not yet attained the path is called an ordinary person; from first entering the path up to arhatship one is called a śrāvaka; one who contemplates the dharma of causes and conditions is called a pratyekabuddha; one who enters deeply into the dharma of emptiness, practises the six perfections, and has great kindness and great compassion is called a bodhisattva—「功德別異故，名字亦異」 tr. "because their merits differ, their names also differ". Names are set up according to merits; because the merits are empty, the names too are empty; and so, because living beings do not exist, there is no bodhisattva in the three times.

The final passage of the treatise’s explanation sweeps away two remaining attachments together. One is 「五眾和合有菩薩」 tr. "there is a bodhisattva in the coming together of the five aggregates". The treatise-author answers that it is precisely to break this that there is said to be no living being and no self—「無我故則五眾無所屬，無所屬故空，空故無菩薩」 tr. "because there is no self, the five aggregates belong to nothing; because they belong to nothing, they are empty; because they are empty, there is no bodhisattva". The account by coming together presupposes an owner to whom they belong; once there is no owner, the coming together disperses of itself. The other is subtler: 「若五眾空者，空即是菩薩？」 tr. "if the five aggregates are empty, is emptiness then the bodhisattva?"—turning emptiness over and setting it up as a thing. The treatise-author flatly refuses this: the emptiness of the five aggregates is not the bodhisattva either, 「空、無所有、無分別故」 tr. "because it is empty, without anything, and without discrimination". Emptiness is not something that can be pointed out, and so naturally it cannot serve as the bodhisattva. On what, then, is the bodhisattva finally established? The treatise-author gives this section’s own proper statement: contemplating worldly dharmas such as the five aggregates and dharmas of the path such as the six perfections, 「是名菩薩」 tr. "this is called a bodhisattva"; practising the six perfections and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, 「行是諸法故，名為菩薩」 tr. "because he practises these dharmas, he is called a bodhisattva"—and yet 「是法空故，菩薩亦空」 tr. "because these dharmas are empty, the bodhisattva too is empty". The bodhisattva is a name for the practice of dharmas; because the dharmas are empty, the name too is empty. Between this one establishing and this one breaking, the bodhisattva is neither outside the dharmas nor outside emptiness.

The sūtra text then resumes and answers point by point by citing back—citing back means taking up the words of the original question exactly as they were and then answering them phrase by phrase. The answer to 「色無邊」 tr. "form is boundless" uses the simile of space: space, 「無邊無中故，但說名虛空」 tr. "because it has no boundary and no middle, is merely spoken of by the name of space"—it is precisely because both boundary and middle are unfindable in space that it is only a name; so too with the emptiness of form: in emptiness there is no boundary and no middle, and so it is said that form is boundless and the bodhisattva too is boundless. The answer to 「色是菩薩，是亦不可得」 tr. "that form is the bodhisattva—this too is unfindable" uses the emptiness of marks: form is empty of the mark of form, and so on up to dānapāramitā, the eighteen emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness, the samādhi gates and the dhāraṇī gates, the three knowledges, the three vehicles, and the persons of the three vehicles—each and every one 「自相空」 tr. "is empty of its specific mark"; in emptiness form is unfindable, how much less the bodhisattva. The answer to the question of the exhaustive search uses the gate of self and other: 「色，色中不可得；色，受中不可得」 tr. "form is unfindable in form; form is unfindable in feeling"—a dharma cannot be found within itself, nor can it be found within other dharmas; so with the five aggregates, and so with the six faculties, the six sense-fields, the six consciousnesses, and the six contacts, on up to the bodhisattva and prajñā sought in each other, and teaching sought in the one who teaches and those who are taught and they in it—all are without anything and unfindable. The answer to 「但有假名」 tr. "there is only a provisional name": form is a provisional name, the five aggregates are provisional names, and 「名，名相空」 tr. "a name is empty of the mark of a name"—even the mark of the name is empty; in the name there is no dharma, in the dharma there is no name, neither lies within the other, and so the bodhisattva has only a provisional name. The answer to 「我畢竟不生」 tr. "the self is ultimately non-arising": the self, and so on up to the knower and the seer, is ultimately unfindable—how could there be arising? The five aggregates, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the limbs of the path, samādhi and dhāraṇī, the śrāvakas and so on up to the buddhas are ultimately unfindable—how could there be arising?

The treatise’s explanation takes over once more, and first resolves ‘how form, which has shape, can be boundless’, in four successive layers. First, there is no place where form is not, and its distance and nearness, lightness and heaviness cannot be measured, just as the four great elements are called great because there is no place where they are not. Second, the first beginning in the past is unfindable and the future has no end-limit; since there are no boundaries of beginning and end, there is no middle either. Third, 「邊」 tr. "boundary" is a name for the mark of form; once form is discriminated and broken apart, the boundary is unfindable. Fourth, when form is contemplated with the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas, it is all empty, of the same mark as space and the unconditioned, and so it is numberless, measureless, and boundless. The four layers move from the coarse into the fine: first boundlessness is spoken of in terms of place, then in terms of time, then in terms of analysis, and last in terms of the contemplation of emptiness. After this the names and marks are distinguished: 「一切處」 tr. "all places" is the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the eighteen elements, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds; 「一切種智」 tr. "omniscience of all kinds" is the eighteen emptinesses and the three gates of liberation, contemplating dharmas and entering by one gate, by two gates, and so on up to countless gates. Once names and marks are clearly distinguished, 「求索菩薩不可得」 tr. "seeking for the bodhisattva, he is unfindable" can be pushed through to the end. 「但有名字」 tr. "having only a name" then comes down to this section’s most vivid simile: the five aggregates, broken up, scattered, and extinguished, are no different from space; the bodhisattva has only a name, 「如幻化人，假名字中更為立名」 tr. "like a conjured person: within a provisional name, a further name is set up"—the conjured person is itself a provisional name, and to place the name of bodhisattva upon the conjured person is to set up a further provisional name on top of a provisional name. And Subhūti at once levels this statement out: not only is the bodhisattva a provisional name, the five aggregates are all provisional names, 「假名字中，假名字相不可得，皆入第一義中」 tr. "within provisional names, the mark of the provisional name is unfindable; all enter into the highest meaning". Dharmas 「強為作名，因緣和合故有，亦無其實」 tr. "are given names by force; they exist because causes and conditions come together, and they have no reality". The First Part closes cleanly and decisively: 「若法先有，然後可問生；法體先無，云何有生？」 tr. "if a dharma existed beforehand, then one could ask about its arising; since the substance of the dharma is non-existent beforehand, how could there be arising?"—the question of arising cannot be asked, not because the answer is hard to find, but because the question itself has lost the ground it would stand on.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「菩薩不可得」 tr. "the bodhisattva is unfindable" as meaning that no one cultivates the bodhisattva path. The tenth meaning of the general statement itself stands surety against this: the one who hears this teaching and whose 「心不沒、不悔、不驚、不怖、不畏」 tr. "mind does not sink, does not regret, is not alarmed, is not frightened, is not afraid" is precisely the one who 「能行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "is able to practise prajñāpāramitā"—the place of unfindability is exactly the place of practice; from the very start the sūtra text never set 「無」 tr. "non-existence" and 「行」 tr. "practice" against each other.

Do not read 「但有名字」 tr. "having only a name" as meaning that another real entity lies hidden behind the name. The sūtra text says 「名，名相空」 tr. "a name is empty of the mark of a name": even the name’s own mark is empty; it further says that the mark of the provisional name is unfindable and that all enter into the highest meaning—the provisional name is provisional through and through, not the outer garment of a real entity.

Do not take 「空即是菩薩」 tr. "emptiness is the bodhisattva" as the end point of the reasoning. The treatise-author plainly breaks this step: the emptiness of the five aggregates is not the bodhisattva either, because it is empty, without anything, and without discrimination. To set emptiness up as a thing is for the search to walk up to the gate and then turn back to where it started.

Do not read first speaking of non-self and afterwards speaking of the emptiness of dharmas as two kinds of truth. That is the sequence of ease and difficulty in being taught—「雖耳聞說空，眼常見實」 tr. "although the ears hear emptiness spoken of, the eyes always see things as real", and so the self is broken first and dharmas afterwards; the simile of rock sugar and ambrosia speaks of shallow and deep, not of different tastes.

Do not take the layer-upon-layer repetition of 「餘如上說」 tr. "the rest is as said above" as a burden on the sūtra text. The treatise-author’s simile of the great tree with deep roots is set up precisely for this: it cannot be felled with a single chop, and only with much force of the axe can it be cut through—the repetition is itself the dharma-gate; leave out the repetition, and the axe stops.

Bearing on Practice

The First Part gives the practitioner a search he can carry with him. Whenever he meets some 「有」 tr. "existence" that he cannot let go of—an identity, an accomplishment, a state attained—he can ask in order: is it findable in the past, in the future, in between? In which of the five aggregates is it? Can it be found within its own dharma, or within other dharmas? Apart from the name, what remains? Search through the four angles—non-existence, emptiness, apartness, and non-existence of nature—one by one, and rest the hand when the search reaches 「無二無別」 tr. "without duality and without difference".

When hearing of emptiness, look back at the marks of one’s own mind. The sūtra text gives five checkpoints: sinking, regret, alarm, fright, and fear. When on hearing 「畢竟不可得」 tr. "ultimately unfindable" the mind drops downward, that is sinking; when one thinks privately, ‘had I known it was like this, why did I ever cultivate?’, that is regret; the rest can be inferred likewise. If one of the five marks is present, one knows that one still takes emptiness as a loss; only when all five marks are absent is one the 「能行」 tr. "able to practise" that the sūtra text approves.

When the sorrow of 「為誰修善」 tr. "for whom does one cultivate good" arises, treat it with Subhūti’s sentence: the self has been non-existent from the very beginning; it is not that it existed before and is non-existent now. Non-existent of itself from the first, there is nothing now to lose. The sorrow rests on the illusion of ‘being robbed’; see through it, and good deeds can be practised all the same, without depending on a 「我」 tr. "self".

Whether being taught oneself or teaching others, remember the sequence: first distinguish offence and merit, then contemplate non-self, then enter the emptiness of dharmas. One may not speak of emptiness right at the start—this is not timidity; it is the compassionate method that the treatise-author himself laid down; the force of the axe must be added one stroke at a time.

Use 「假名字中更為立名」 tr. "within a provisional name, a further name is set up" to look upon every title. Use names freely, as the name of a conjured person is used—using them and knowing them to be provisional; the moment one feels that beneath the name there truly is something that is growing, or being offended, one has forgotten 「名，名相空」 tr. "a name is empty of the mark of a name".

Further Resonances

The skeleton of the First Part is ten rounds of question and answer, interlocked: Subhūti sets up ten meanings; Śāriputra lifts them back up in ten questions; Subhūti searches them out one by one through the gates of living beings, the five aggregates, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, and on up to omniscience of all kinds; and at the last he gathers it all in by answering through citation along four routes—the emptiness of marks, the gate of self and other, the provisional name, and non-arising. The engine running through the whole is a single statement—「空不異菩薩，菩薩不異前際」 tr. "emptiness is not different from the bodhisattva, and the bodhisattva is not different from the prior limit"; 「空、菩薩、前際，是諸法無二無別」 tr. "emptiness, the bodhisattva, and the prior limit—these dharmas are without duality and without difference": of the ten layers of 「無」 tr. "non-existence", not one layer is a demolition; each layer erases the dotted line drawn between emptiness and the bodhisattva. And the closing sentence of the whole part, 「法體先無，云何有生」 tr. "the substance of the dharma is non-existent beforehand; how could there be arising", pushes the last of the ten meanings down to its root—if arising cannot even be asked about, how much less attaining and not attaining. Having finished reading the First Part, what one can carry away is a reversal in practice: at first one takes 「菩薩不可得」 tr. "the bodhisattva is unfindable" to be a hard problem that prajñā sets the practitioner; only at the end does one see that it is prajñā’s protection of the practitioner—precisely because no bodhisattva can be set up in the three limits, the five aggregates, or the name, the practitioner need not keep watch over a shadow of ‘I am practising’; hearing this, he is not alarmed and not frightened, and practises straight away.

The Ten Non-existents, Last Part: Being Ultimately Non-arising Is Itself Prajñā; the Five Kinds of Right Contemplation Enter into Non-duality

What Is Being Asked

「如我，諸法亦如是無自性」 tr. "as with the self, so all dharmas too are thus without self-nature"—this Last Part begins by taking up this sentence of Śāriputra. The First Part went all the way establishing 「無」 tr. "non-existence": the bodhisattva is unfindable in the three times, unfindable as boundless, unfindable as identical with the aggregates, having only a name; here the several questions left hanging earlier are gathered in one by one—why are all dharmas without self-nature? How is impermanence also not lost? Why is form ultimately non-arising? Since it is ultimately non-arising, can prajñā still be taught? Apart from the ultimately non-arising, does the bodhisattva still practise the path? And on what does one rely in hearing all this without being alarmed or afraid? The way this unit gathers them in is unexpected: it does not, upon 「無」 tr. "non-existence", heap a few more 「無」 tr. "non-existents", but turns over a layer—「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "being ultimately non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā". The first half of the chapter asked again and again about the bodhisattva's unfindability and 「畢竟不生，當教誰般若」 tr. "if it is ultimately non-arising, to whom shall prajñā be taught?"; the answer shows its face here: unfindability is not the lack of something; being ultimately non-arising is itself prajñā, and the one who teaches and what is taught are without duality and without difference. And so the whole unit turns naturally from speaking to contemplating: Subhūti says to the Buddha that when the bodhisattva contemplates all dharmas in this way, 「不受色，不示色，不住色，不著色，不言是色」 tr. "he does not receive form, does not display form, does not abide in form, does not cling to form, and does not say 'this is form'", and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, all alike; the treatise-author calls these the five kinds of right contemplation; at the end, with 「色乃至一切種智入無二法數」 tr. "form, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, enters the count of non-dual dharmas", the whole chapter is gathered to a close. So what this unit truly has to answer is a practitioner's question: once 「無」 tr. "non-existence" has been spoken to the very end, where does a person stand to cultivate? Its answer is—one cultivates standing in non-duality, and the five kinds of right contemplation are the way of standing.

Passage by Passage

First, look at the reply that takes up 「如我，諸法亦如是無自性」 tr. "as with the self, so all dharmas too are thus without self-nature". Subhūti does not answer from some abstruse place; he only points out a fact that can be seen: 「諸法和合生故無自性」 tr. "because all dharmas arise through coming together, they are without self-nature". Form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; the eye and so on up to the mind; the six sense-objects, the eighteen elements, the six elements; the six contacts and the feelings born of contact; the six perfections; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas—counting through them category by category, there is not a single dharma that does not appear through many conditions gathering together; and what appears through gathering together has no nature established by itself. The treatise-author uses eye-consciousness as a simile: 「有眼、有色、有明、有空、有欲見心」 tr. "there is the eye, there is form, there is light, there is space, there is the mind wishing to see", and only when these many conditions come together does eye-consciousness arise; taken apart, the eye is not the seer, consciousness is not the seer, form is not the seer, and light is not the seer either—none of them can see; gathered together, on what ground would a seer be added? Therefore 「和合中亦不應有見」 tr. "in the coming together, too, there should be no seeing", and therefore 「見法畢竟空，如幻、如夢」 tr. "the dharma of seeing is ultimately empty, like an illusion, like a dream". This simile is the foundation of the whole unit: being without self-nature does not deny that there is seeing and hearing before one's eyes; it sees through to this, that within seeing and hearing there is no seer standing independently and complete in itself.

Next, look at the two newly established statements. 「一切法無常亦不失」 tr. "all dharmas are impermanent and yet not lost"—at first hearing it contradicts itself: since they are impermanent, how are they also not lost? The treatise-author takes it apart in a single sentence: impermanence breaks 「常倒」 tr. "the inversion of permanence", and not-lost breaks 「斷滅倒」 tr. "the inversion of annihilation". To say impermanent is to forbid grasping dharmas as permanently abiding and unmoving; to say not lost is to forbid hearing impermanence as annihilation and cutting off. With both sides broken completely, what appears in between is the sūtra's own words: 「即是動相、即是空相」 tr. "this is the mark of movement, this is the mark of emptiness", and this dharma of impermanence-yet-not-lost 「即是入實相門」 tr. "is itself the gate of entering the real mark". Immediately following comes 「非常非滅」 tr. "neither permanent nor extinguished"; asked why, Subhūti answers in just three characters: 「性自爾」 tr. "its nature is so of itself"—dharma-nature is originally thus; it is not something anyone arranged. This nature is not the setting up once again of a really existing self-nature; the text below makes this clear by itself: 「色性空，是空無生、無滅、無住異」 tr. "the nature of form is empty; this emptiness is without arising, without ceasing, without abiding-and-changing"—the nature in "its nature is so of itself" is precisely the nature in "the nature is empty."

Third, look at the twofold reply that takes up 「畢竟不生」 tr. "ultimately non-arising". Why is form ultimately non-arising? Because form is 「非作法」 tr. "not a made dharma", 「作者不可得故」 tr. "because a maker is unfindable"; extended further, 「一切諸法皆非起非作」 tr. "all dharmas are neither arisen nor made". Why is the ultimately non-arising not named form? Because the nature of form is empty, and this emptiness is 「無生、無滅、無住異」 tr. "without arising, without ceasing, without abiding-and-changing"; of the four marks of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, not one can be set up in emptiness; since no mark of arising can be found, with what would one name it form? The treatise-author adds a sentence of the greatest weight: the dharma of the mark of non-arising 「即是無為，非有為相」 tr. "is itself the unconditioned, not the mark of the conditioned"—non-arising is not one more thing newly added to the crowd of conditioned dharmas; to speak of non-arising is already to have gone beyond the mark of the conditioned.

Fourth, look at the pivot of the whole unit. Śāriputra had asked: should the dharma that is ultimately non-arising still be taught prajñā? Subhūti's answer is so direct as to seem almost perilous: 「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "being ultimately non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā"; prajñā is itself the ultimately non-arising, without duality and without difference. The treatise-author supplies the reason behind this sentence: being ultimately non-arising is the real mark of all dharmas, and the real mark of all dharmas is prajñā—「云何以般若波羅蜜教般若波羅蜜」 tr. "how would one teach prajñāpāramitā by means of prajñāpāramitā?"—if, apart from the ultimately non-arising, there were another bodhisattva standing there, then teaching would be needed; but the bodhisattva, prajñā, and the ultimately non-arising are without duality and without difference, and the gap between the one who teaches and what is taught never existed in the first place. The same key opens the next question as well: apart from the ultimately non-arising, there is no bodhisattva practising the path—not that the bodhisattva has been cancelled, but that the bodhisattva and non-arising have never been apart, and so on to form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and omniscience of all kinds, each one without duality and without difference from non-arising.

Fifth, look at the reason for not being alarmed and not being afraid. When the bodhisattva hears all this, 「心不沒、不悔，不驚、不怖、不畏」 tr. "his mind does not sink and does not regret, is not alarmed, is not afraid, is not terrified"—on what does he rely? The sūtra answers: the bodhisattva 「不見諸法有覺知相」 tr. "does not see that dharmas have a mark of awareness and knowing", and sees all dharmas as 「如夢、如幻、如炎、如影、如化」 tr. "like a dream, like an illusion, like a mirage, like a shadow, like a magical transformation". The treatise-author unfolds this into two pictures. In the first, the bodhisattva sees in all dharmas no self, no sentient being, no knower, no seer; there is no speaker and no listener; he 「知一切法虛誑、無實無定」 tr. "knows all dharmas to be false and deceptive, without reality and without fixity", so that 「若死急時，若墮阿鼻泥犁，心猶不動」 tr. "whether at the urgent moment of death or falling into the Avīci hell, his mind still does not stir"—how much less at hearing a single empty sound. In the second, 「如人夢中見怖畏事，覺已則無恐心」 tr. "as a person who sees fearful things in a dream has no fearful mind once awake"—a dream can deceive the mind, and once awake one is not afraid; 「入世間心夢中見有恐畏，得諸法實相覺時則無所畏」 tr. "in the dream of the mind that has entered the world one sees things to fear; on waking to the real mark of all dharmas there is nothing to fear". Then the simile of the conjurer is added: 「譬如幻事，智者雖見，心無所惑」 tr. "just as with a conjured thing: though the wise one sees it, his mind is not deluded"—the wise one does not fail to see the illusory appearance; he sees it and is not deceived. The resolution of fear lies not in moving the objects away, but in seeing through the deception of the objects.

Sixth, look at contemplative practice. Subhūti turns to address the Buddha: when the bodhisattva contemplates all dharmas in this way, 「不受色，不示色，不住色，不著色，不言是色」 tr. "he does not receive form, does not display form, does not abide in form, does not cling to form, and does not say 'this is form'", these five matters running straight through to omniscience of all kinds. The treatise-author explains the five matters as 「五種正觀行」 tr. "five kinds of right contemplative practice". Not receiving, because within the five aggregates 「有無常火能燒心」 tr. "there is the fire of impermanence that can burn the mind"—take them in, and one will be burnt. Not viewing, that is, not taking marks: not only does one contemplate faults such as impermanence, but not even the emptiness of the five aggregates is taken up as a mark. Not abiding: 「不依止五眾」 tr. "not relying on the five aggregates", which are like 「空聚落，賊所止處」 tr. "an empty village, a place where thieves stay"—the haunt of the thieves of affliction, where the wise dare not linger. Not clinging: 「五眾若有一罪，猶不應著」 tr. "if the five aggregates had even one fault, one still should not cling to them"—how much less when the body has hunger, thirst, cold, heat, old age, sickness, and death, the mind has sorrow, fear, jealousy, and anger, and later lives have in addition the three evil destinies—with faults immeasurable and boundless, how could one lay hold of them to cling? Not saying 'this is form': 「不言五眾如是定相」 tr. "not saying that the five aggregates have such-and-such a fixed mark", not using wrong view to fix upon form a fixed mark, whether of permanence or of impermanence. Where the five matters are practised, the five aggregates 「皆無生相，皆一相，一相則無相」 tr. "are all without the mark of arising, all of one mark, and one mark is no mark"; 「得是無生心，即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "to attain this mind of non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā"—contemplated to the utmost, the dharma of contemplation and prajñā become one matter, joining exactly back to the earlier pivot of non-arising being itself prajñā.

The last question gathers the whole chapter to a close: why must it be said that 「色乃至一切種智入無二法數」 tr. "form, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, enters the count of non-dual dharmas"? The treatise-author's answer is a practitioner's self-portrait: 「菩薩若未破色，則生愛等結使」 tr. "if the bodhisattva has not yet broken form, fetters such as craving arise"—before form is broken, craving ties a person to form; 「破色已，則生邪見，著是色空等」 tr. "once form has been broken, wrong view arises, clinging to this emptiness of form and the like"—having broken form, one then holds fast to the emptiness of form and will not let go. The first layer is the illness of ordinary people; the second layer is the illness of those who study emptiness. Contemplated with the wisdom of emptiness, form and the rest are all marks of non-duality; because all dharmas are included in the inner and outer sense-fields, they are called two; 「離是二，名不二」 tr. "to depart from these two is called non-duality". And the last sentence of the whole chapter points out the heart behind the teaching: it was 「憐愍眾生、利益諸菩薩」 tr. "out of compassion for sentient beings and to benefit all bodhisattvas" that Subhūti spoke of this non-duality of all dharmas, their entering the count of non-dual dharmas. When the ten 「無」 tr. "non-existents" have been spoken to their very end, where they land is not nothingness, but a non-duality within the compassionate mind.

Do Not Misread

Do not hear 「不失」 tr. "not lost" as meaning that behind impermanence there still hides something indestructible. The treatise-author plainly breaks each side: impermanence breaks 「常倒」 tr. "the inversion of permanence", and not-lost breaks 「斷滅倒」 tr. "the inversion of annihilation"—not-lost forbids annihilation; it does not set up another permanence. If one reads not-lost as some dharma existing permanently, one falls right back into the very inversion of permanence that impermanence was meant to break.

Do not read 「畢竟不生即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "being ultimately non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā" as meaning that from now on there is no need to hear, no need to teach, no need to practise. This sentence takes apart the gap between the one who teaches and what is taught, not the road of learning prajñā; the sūtra text goes straight on to say 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜時」 tr. "when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā"—the single word "practises" has never been cancelled.

Do not read the five kinds of right contemplation as five kinds of coldness. Not receiving is not numbness; it is not taking the fire of impermanence of the five aggregates onto the mind to be burnt by it. Not viewing is not closing one's eyes and not looking; it is 「不取相」 tr. "not taking marks". Not abiding is not abandoning the world and running away; it is seeing clearly that they are 「空聚落，賊所止處」 tr. "an empty village, a place where thieves stay", and not mistaking the thieves' den for one's home. Right contemplation is the contemplation of wisdom, not an endurance of suppression.

Do not take the emptiness that follows the breaking of form as a new place to settle. 「破色已，則生邪見，著是色空等」 tr. "once form has been broken, wrong view arises, clinging to this emptiness of form and the like"—this is an illness pointed out specifically for those who study emptiness. Emptiness is medicine; hold the medicine fast as one's household goods, and the medicine too becomes an illness.

Do not read 「性自爾」 tr. "its nature is so of itself" as meaning that each dharma has a real self-nature. This nature, as the sūtra text itself notes, is the nature of 「色性空」 tr. "the nature of form is empty"—being empty of nature is naturally so, and therefore neither permanent nor extinguished; if it is read as a really existing self-nature, it collides head-on with 「諸法和合生故無自性」 tr. "because all dharmas arise through coming together, they are without self-nature".

Bearing on Practice

Take the simile of eye-consciousness as a contemplation. At the very moment of seeing form, ask: who is the seer? The eye? Consciousness? Form? Light? Pushed through one by one, none of them can see, and within their coming together too no seer can be found—to be able to ask like this even once is to carry being without self-nature out of names and phrases into daily use.

Take 「無常亦不失」 tr. "impermanent and yet not lost" as the medicine for both sides. When, meeting change and decay, the mind gives rise to the thought of annihilation, remember not-lost; when, in secure and favourable circumstances, the mind gives rise to the thought of permanence, remember impermanence. 「即是動相、即是空相」 tr. "this is the mark of movement, this is the mark of emptiness"—neither side gives the mind a place to stand, and the place where one cannot stand is exactly the gate of the real mark.

Take the simile of dreaming and waking to cure fear. When fear arises, there is no need to hurry to move the objects away; first ask whether this object deceives or not—「如人夢中見怖畏事，覺已則無恐心」 tr. "as a person who sees fearful things in a dream has no fearful mind once awake". If in the midst of fear one can recognise its dream-nature, fear loses its ground.

Take the five kinds of right contemplation as the daily lesson for meeting objects. Meeting an object, ask five questions: have I received it? Have I taken its mark? Have I relied on it and abided in it? Have I clung to it? Have I fixed a fixed mark upon it? Once these five questions have been asked, that is where 「色中行五種正行」 tr. "practising the five kinds of right practice within form" is carried out.

Take the last question to examine oneself. After studying emptiness, look back and see whether one has held emptiness fast as a new attainment—before breaking form one clings to form, after breaking form one clings to emptiness; both illnesses must be passed through, and only when both are passed is it 「離是二，名不二」 tr. "to depart from these two is called non-duality".

Further Resonances

This unit itself demonstrates what it is to carry on and what it is to extend. What it carries on is the ten questions set up at the chapter's start—taking each up in turn with 「如舍利弗所言」 tr. "as Śāriputra said", one question and one answer, not one left hanging. What it extends is the pushing of the answers into practice—being without self-nature is extended into the contemplation of eye-consciousness as a coming together; being ultimately non-arising is extended into the pivot 「即是般若」 tr. "is itself prajñā"; being itself prajñā is extended further into the five kinds of right contemplation; and the five kinds of right contemplation end in 「入無二法數」 tr. "entering the count of non-dual dharmas", closing the whole chapter. Those who later take up this unit walk in this same order: first hear 「無」 tr. "non-existence" as the contemplation, true to how things are, of coming together and being without self-nature, and do not hear it as annihilation; then set non-arising-is-prajñā upon one's own mind that seeks the Dharma, and see how far the gap between the one who teaches and what is taught loosens; then carry the five kinds of right contemplation back into the daily use of the five aggregates, testing them object by object; and finally keep in mind that last breath of the whole chapter—the one who spoke the ten non-existents to their end opened his mouth only 「憐愍眾生、利益諸菩薩」 tr. "out of compassion for sentient beings and to benefit all bodhisattvas". Non-existence spoken to its utmost, and the compassionate mind not lost; non-duality spoken to its utmost, and contemplative practice not abandoned—what the Last Part of the Chapter of the Ten Non-existents hands on to those who come after is just this going-together without conflict: in view, ultimately non-arising; in contemplative practice, the five contemplations ever clear; in opening the mouth, only to benefit others.

Further Resonances

The vein of meaning in the chapter on the Ten Non-existents has something it inherits before it and something it opens after it. What it inherits is the preceding chapter, Converging on the Tenet: that chapter brings the Mahāyāna and prajñā together as one, saying that to speak of the Mahāyāna is to speak of prajñā, and that all wholesome dharmas and all dharmas that aid the path are gathered into prajñā. Once the names have converged and returned to one, what arises in their wake is the pursuit of 「誰」 tr. "who"—who is the speaker, who is the teacher, who is the practitioner. At the opening of this chapter, the treatise-author himself raises the difficulty: 「上已說『菩薩、菩薩字不可得，為誰說般若波羅蜜』，今何以更說？」 tr. "Above it has already been said, ‘The bodhisattva and the word bodhisattva are unfindable; for whom is prajñāpāramitā spoken?’—why is it spoken again now?" He also records the occasion of Śāriputra’s questioning: although above the Buddha had said 「汝說摩訶衍隨順般若」 tr. "Your speaking of the Mahāyāna accords with prajñā," doubt might still arise in the minds of newly-training bodhisattvas, who would still take it that the Buddha was going along with Subhūti; Śāriputra, wishing to cut off this doubt, therefore questions him matter by matter. From this it can be seen that this chapter is not a repetition of what was said before, but carries the one into which Converging on the Tenet converged forward to the very scene where persons and dharmas alike are searched out everywhere: searching through ten gates, the bodhisattva is unfindable, and the ultimately non-arising is itself prajñā, without duality and without difference. What it opens already shows its first signs at the end of the chapter: after the five kinds of right contemplation, 「得是無生心，即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "attaining this mind of non-arising is itself prajñāpāramitā," and the whole chapter closes with form, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, entering the count of non-dual dharmas—the meaning of non-arising having been called forth, the very next chapter takes non-arising as its name and advances along this course.

When later ancient masters read this chapter, the one whose approach is most complete composed a commentary on the great sūtra that this treatise explains, and left an explanation of this chapter passage by passage. Its structural division joins this chapter with the following chapter into the gate of non-arising, opening it as two non-arisings—this chapter makes clear compliant non-arising: by ten kinds of contemplation it seeks the person and finds him unfindable, therefore the person is non-arising, and it also makes clear the benefit of practising these ten contemplations; the following chapter makes clear true non-arising. It itself lists the headings of the 「十無」 tr. "ten non-existents," beginning from 「明無三世故無菩薩」 tr. "making clear that because there are no three times there is no bodhisattva," passing through such headings as 「遍撿無菩薩」 tr. "searching everywhere, there is no bodhisattva," 「但有名字故無菩薩」 tr. "because there is only a name, there is no bodhisattva," and 「舉我無例無法」 tr. "raising the non-existence of self as the example for the non-existence of dharmas," and closing with 「悟解無生故無菩薩」 tr. "because of awakened understanding of non-arising, there is no bodhisattva"—ten in all, corresponding one by one with the ten meanings at the start of the sūtra in this chapter. At the end of the chapter it further divides out five contemplations, corresponding item by item with the treatise’s explanation of the practice of the five kinds of right contemplation, and in explaining not receiving it likewise takes up the meaning that, among the five aggregates, the fire of impermanence is able to burn the mind. This master also has a contrasting view of its own choosing, saying that the broad gate above does not open out the ten non-existents, which is 「廣門略觀」 tr. "a broad gate with a brief contemplation," while in this chapter the single gate of non-arising is opened out into ten contemplations, which is 「略門廣觀」 tr. "a brief gate with a broad contemplation"—these words are not in the treatise; they are a path its way of reading chose for itself. Its path is merely recorded; it is not judged higher or lower.

There is another ancient master who composed a commentary on this treatise itself; his book survives today only in damaged fascicles and has no passage-by-passage explanation of this chapter; yet in its surviving fascicles it twice looks back over the structure of the whole treatise, and both times names the chapter on the Ten Non-existents together with the chapter on Non-arising, saying of these two chapters 「初明除生，後明遣法」 tr. "the first makes clear the removal of beings; the latter makes clear the dispelling of dharmas"—different in wording from the former master’s judgement of compliant non-arising and true non-arising, yet connected in direction: both see these two chapters as belonging together to the one gate of non-arising. Both are recorded side by side, without judgement. Within the same stretch of text, the name 「集散品」 tr. "the chapter on Gathering and Dispersal" is also seen placed among them; what it refers to cannot be established with certainty today—the clue is merely recorded, not extended; only this can be recorded as a structural fact: the writing of both masters takes that chapter as the reference point for the start of a large section that follows, and this chapter lies within that section.

Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, what is most precious is not the addition of a few more structural divisions, but the one and the same thing to which the two masters, without prior agreement, both point: the ten non-existents are a gate into non-arising, not a gate into annihilation. The ten gates search everywhere, and what they search away is grasping at the limits of time, the limits of extent, identity and separation, self and other, name and reality; searched to the very end, the ultimately non-arising is not empty nothingness, but is itself the real mark of all dharmas, is itself prajñā. Therefore one who hears of the ten non-existents and is startled and frightened has read non-existence as loss; one who hears of the ten non-existents and does not sink and does not regret has seen that it is originally of itself non-existent, and that now nothing is lost. The five kinds of right contemplation and the twofold breaking of attachment gather this one meaning into the place of practice: while form has not yet been broken, craving and the other fetters arise, and one clings to form and the rest; once form has been broken, wrong view arises, and one clings to the emptiness of form and the rest; 「離是二，名不二」 tr. "departing from these two is called non-duality"—the non-existence of the ten non-existents requires precisely that the practitioner abide in neither extreme.

Therefore, what the chapter on the Ten Non-existents finally leaves behind is a way of questioning that can be used again and again: the bodhisattva I acknowledge at this moment, the prajñā I teach—after being searched through the ten gates, what is still held in my hand? When I hear it said that there is no bodhisattva and no prajñā, is what arises in my mind the worry of losing something, or the ease of its being originally of itself non-existent? Am I still clinging to existence, or have I turned to clinging to emptiness? Answer these few questions well in each exchange of question and answer, and one is the person who, at the gate of the ten non-existents, has a mind that does not sink, does not regret, is not startled, is not frightened, is not afraid, and is able to practise prajñāpāramitā.

Overview

At the opening of “Non-arising,” the venerable Śāriputra says to Subhūti: when the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā and contemplates all dharmas, 「何等是菩薩？何等是般若波羅蜜？何等是觀？」 tr. "what is the bodhisattva? What is prajñāpāramitā? What is contemplation?" Subhūti answers them one by one: one who, for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening, arouses the great mind, and who knows all dharmas and all their kinds and marks and yet does not cling within them—this is called a bodhisattva; 「遠離故名般若波羅蜜」 tr. "it is because of far removal that it is called prajñāpāramitā"—far removed from the aggregates, the elements, and the sense-fields, far removed from dānapāramitā and so on to dhyānapāramitā, from inner emptiness and so on to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, from the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and from omniscience; to contemplate form as neither permanent nor impermanent, neither pleasurable nor painful, neither self nor non-self, neither empty nor not empty, neither a mark nor signless, neither action nor non-action, neither quiescent cessation nor not quiescent cessation, neither separated nor not separated—and feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on to omniscience of all kinds, likewise—this is called contemplation. The three answers once set firm, Śāriputra at once raises a question on 「不生」 tr. "non-arising"—for what causes and conditions is the non-arising of form not form, and so on to the non-arising of omniscience of all kinds is not omniscience of all kinds—and the whole chapter then unfolds, round after round, from this joint discussion between two arhats in the presence of the Buddha. The chapter is named 「無生」 tr. "non-arising," and its eye lies just here: non-arising is not empty talk that declares all dharmas annihilated, but the gate of the real mark, in which the nature of form is by its own nature constantly non-arising and ultimately pure; once the attachment to arising has been swept clean away, the place of practice and the place of attainment are not lost—「有知有得，不以二法」 tr. "there is knowing and there is attaining, not by way of two dharmas".

This question has its own lineage, and so the treatise-author first raises the objection on the reader’s behalf: 「上品竟，便應問『不生』，何以此中方問？」 tr. "when the preceding chapter was finished, one should at once have asked about ‘non-arising’; why is it asked only here?" Answer: the three great dharmas are easy to understand and benefit many beings, so they are asked first—though the three meanings of the bodhisattva, prajñā, and contemplation have already been asked above, prajñā has immeasurable meanings, 「如大海水無量，如須彌山種種嚴飾」 tr. "like the water of the great ocean, immeasurable; like Mount Sumeru, with its many kinds of adornment", and again like a great, cool, and lovely pool from which immeasurable beings, one after another, come to drink, and each goes away satisfied; so there is no harm in asking again. The measure of the whole chapter, however, lies in another place: Śāriputra all along presses non-arising toward practice and attainment—if all dharmas have the mark of non-arising, why does the srota-āpanna cultivate the path in order to cut off the three fetters, and so on to why does the Buddha attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and turn the dharma wheel? Subhūti’s way of answering from beginning to end falls to neither side: 「我不欲令無生法有所得」 tr. "I do not wish the non-arising dharma to have anything attained", nor does he wish the path to be attained by an arising dharma or by a non-arising dharma; and yet he says plainly 「有知有得，不以二法」 tr. "there is knowing and there is attaining, not by way of two dharmas"—because of worldly names there is knowing and there is attaining, and there are srota-āpanna and so on to all the buddhas; in the first and real meaning there is no karma and no recompense, no arising and no ceasing, without purity and without stain. This, then, is a single map of the whole chapter’s vein of meaning: three questions establish the meaning; three layers of non-arising spread it out; ultimate purity draws out the objections; the two kinds of contemplation of non-arising and the five kinds of awakening set out the stages of practice; the challenge of arising and non-arising sweeps speech clean away; having nothing to rely on opens out the worldly and world-transcending six perfections; the far path and the near path decide the gate of practice; the power of prajñāpāramitā gathers all goods together and the Buddha himself confirms what has been said; and the shaking of the earth brings the whole chapter to its close.

The sūtra text and the treatise’s commentary of the whole chapter each run in six rounds, advancing in alternation; lying within a single fascicle, they are divided at the end of the fourth round of commentary into a two-part arc, the First Part and the Last Part. The First Part gathers the first four rounds. The first round of sūtra text is just the three questions and three answers; the first round of commentary first answers why the question is asked again—as in the simile of the great tree, which is not felled by a single stroke, the buddhas cut off love of dharma and do not set up scriptures, but speak only as befits those to be liberated—and then explains the names: awakening is of three kinds, the awakening of the arhat, the awakening of the pratyekabuddha, and the awakening of the Buddha, and here only the awakening of the Buddha is taken; sattva in the language of Qin means ‘living being,’ and is also called ‘the great mind’: one who arouses the great mind and seeks unsurpassed awakening but has not yet attained it is therefore called bodhisattva; 「阿羅蜜」 tr. "aluomi" in the language of Qin means ‘far removal,’ and 「波羅蜜」 tr. "pāramitā" in the language of Qin means ‘crossing to the other shore’; the two sounds are close to each other and their meanings meet, and therefore prajñā is explained by far removal—「遠離」 tr. "far removal" is another name for 「空」 tr. "emptiness". The second round of sūtra text has three questions and three answers: the non-arising of form is not form—form, the mark of form, is empty, and within the emptiness of form there is no form and no arising; the non-duality of form is not form—all dharmas are neither combined nor dispersed, without form, without shape, without resistance, of a single mark, namely the signless; form enters the count of non-dual dharmas—form is not different from non-arising, non-arising is not different from form; form is precisely non-arising, non-arising is precisely form. The second round of commentary holds to the boundaries of the three meanings: the nature of form is by its own nature constantly non-arising; it is not that the power of wisdom now makes it non-arising—just as when a privy is cleared away and a house built there, though there is now no privy, there is still the perception of impurity, but if one knows that the privy fundamentally did not exist and was made by illusory transformation, then there is no perception of a privy; non-arising and non-duality are one in meaning, yet the gates of contemplation by which they are entered differ—because it breaks the arising of form it is said to be non-arising, because it breaks the duality of form it is said to be non-dual; the breaking and scattering of form is precisely non-arising, and there cannot be a further non-arising besides, and therefore it enters the count of non-dual dharmas. In the third round of sūtra text, Subhūti says to the Buddha: one who practises prajñāpāramitā contemplates all dharmas in this way because he sees that form is non-arising and ultimately pure, and so on to seeing that ordinary people and the dharmas of ordinary people, the srota-āpanna and so on to the Buddha and the dharmas of the Buddha, are non-arising and ultimately pure; Śāriputra raises an objection on this: if so, one should not attain the fruit of srota-āpanna and so on to omniscience of all kinds, nor should there be any distinction among the six paths; why then do the noble ones each cultivate the path in order to cut off the fetters, why does the bodhisattva perform hard practices, why does the Buddha attain awakening and turn the dharma wheel? Subhūti answers: I do not wish the non-arising dharma to have anything attained—the bodhisattva has pity on beings, and toward beings holds the thought of father and mother, elder and younger brothers, the thought of his own children and of his own body, and is able to benefit immeasurable asaṃkhyeya of beings; this is because he uses nothing to be attained. The third round of commentary points out the stages of practice under the chapter’s title: the contemplation of non-arising is of two kinds—the contemplation of compliant acceptance is not ultimately pure; gradually practising compliant contemplation, when one attains the acceptance of non-arising it is ultimately pure; it further opens five kinds of awakening—the awakening of arousing the mind, of subduing the mind, of illumination, of going forth and arriving, and the unsurpassed—from the first arousing of the mind, in which the fruit is spoken of within the cause, to the unsurpassed, in which, sitting at the seat of awakening, one cuts off the afflictions and their residual habits; at the end it makes clear that great compassion forms the causes and conditions—father and mother, children, one’s own body, are loved spontaneously, not loved by reasoning—and therefore one does not give rise to the thought of hard practice or the thought of painful practice; and all dharmas turn back and do not turn, but because it is only for breaking false inversion, it is called turning the dharma wheel. The fourth round of sūtra text turns into the challenge of arising and non-arising: that the path be attained by an arising dharma, that the path be attained by a non-arising dharma—he wishes neither; is there then no knowing and no attaining?—there is knowing and there is attaining, not by way of two dharmas; that a non-arising dharma arise, that an arising dharma arise—he wishes neither to arise; does the arisen arise, does the unarisen arise?—it is neither that the arisen arises nor that the unarisen arises; he delights in speaking of the non-arising dharma and the mark of non-arising, and yet delight in speaking and speech also do not arise. The fourth round of commentary gathers these up in four statements: if the arisen arises, the arising dharma has already arisen and should not arise again; if the unarisen arises, since the arising dharma does not yet exist, it should not arise; half arisen and half unarisen—this too does not arise; this arising is like an illusion, like a dream, arising from false and deceptive dharmas, and should be left behind, and its marks should not be taken. The First Part closes on Subhūti’s answer on receiving praise: not only are delight in speaking and speech non-arising; form and so on to omniscience of all kinds are also without anything that arises.

The Last Part gathers the last two rounds, bringing the questions and answers toward the gate of practice and toward confirmation and faith. In the fifth round of sūtra text, Śāriputra praises Subhūti as one who ought to be highest among those who expound the dharma; Subhūti does not accept the eminence and answers with only one sentence: 「諸法無所依故。」 tr. "Because all dharmas have nothing to rely on." The nature of form is constantly empty; it relies not on the inner, relies not on the outer, relies not on the middle between the two, and so on to omniscience of all kinds likewise; all dharmas have nothing to rely on, because their nature is constantly empty. Asked next how, when practising the six perfections, one purifies the bodhisattva path, he answers that each of the six perfections has a worldly and a world-transcending form: to act as a donor and think ‘I give, he takes, I am the donor’—this giving has three obstructions, the mark of self, the mark of the other, and the mark of giving—and it does not move and does not go out within the world; this is called worldly dānapāramitā; pure in its three parts—the self is unfindable, no receiver is seen, the thing given is unfindable, and no recompense is hoped for—it is able to move and able to go out within the world; this is called world-transcending dānapāramitā; for śīla and so on to prajñā, to have something relied on is called worldly, to have nothing relied on is called world-transcending. At the end he is asked about the path of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and answers with the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to the eight limbs of the noble path, the three gates of liberation, inner emptiness and so on to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, all the samādhi gates, all the dhāraṇī gates, the Buddha’s ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and great kindness and great compassion. The fifth round of commentary first explains the praise 「最在上」 tr. "highest": of the five hundred arhats, the Buddha recorded each as foremost in something—Śāriputra foremost in wisdom, Maudgalyāyana foremost in the supernormal power of travel, Mahākāśyapa foremost among those who practise dhūta, Subhūti foremost in attaining the samādhi of non-contention, Mahākātyāyana foremost in analysing the sūtras, Pūrṇa foremost among those who expound the dharma—though Pūrṇa had many abilities, he was not equal to Subhūti, who, because he constantly delights in practising emptiness, is able to speak skilfully of emptiness; Subhūti is neither self-deprecating nor accepting, but sets things out plainly and truly, because he has the mark of a good person—he neither praises himself nor disparages himself, and toward others too neither praises nor disparages; it further decides the positions of moving and going out—moving is compliant acceptance, going out is the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas—and opens out the far path and the near path: among the six perfections, giving, morality, and the rest are mixed, and so they are far; the thirty-seven limbs of the path have only meditation and wisdom, and so they are near. The sixth round of sūtra text asks back to the source: the power of which perfection is this? Subhūti answers: it is the power of prajñāpāramitā—prajñā is able to give rise to all wholesome dharmas and able to receive all wholesome dharmas; the buddhas of the three times all practised prajñāpāramitā and attained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; the bodhisattva who practises this path is constantly not apart from the thought of great compassion. Śāriputra objects: if one is constantly not apart from the thought of great compassion, and all beings too are not apart from their various thoughts, should they not all become bodhisattvas? Subhūti says: 「汝欲難我而成我義。」 tr. "You wish to refute me, and yet you establish my meaning." Because beings are non-existent, thought too is non-existent; because the nature of beings is non-existent, the nature of thought too is non-existent; because beings are separated, thought too is separated; because beings are empty, thought too is empty—form and so on to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi likewise. Only when the whole chapter has come to this point does the Buddha himself open his mouth: first he praises Subhūti—the prajñāpāramitā that you have spoken all comes by receiving the Buddha’s intent; the bodhisattva-mahāsattva who trains in prajñāpāramitā ought to train as you have spoken; when this chapter was spoken, the three-thousand great-thousand world shook in six ways—the east rose and the west sank, the west rose and the east sank, the south rose and the north sank, the north rose and the south sank, the middle rose and the edges sank, the edges rose and the middle sank; the Buddha further smiled and told Subhūti: just as I speak prajñāpāramitā in this world, so the buddhas of the east and so on to immeasurable asaṃkhyeya worlds of the ten directions also speak this prajñāpāramitā for the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, and twelve nayuta of gods and humans attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. The sixth round of commentary follows and brings things to a close: prajñā leaves the two extremes of annihilation and permanence, existence and non-existence, and therefore is able to give rise to all wholesome dharmas; it is immeasurable and boundless, and therefore is able to receive all wholesome dharmas, as the great ocean is able to receive the many rivers and ten thousand streams; just as in compounding a purgative, croton seed is the most powerful, so prajñā, combined with the other perfections, breaks the afflictions, uproots wrong views, and abandons idle discourse, and its power is the most excellent. It further resolves the difficulty of ultimate emptiness and great compassion going together: because all dharmas are ultimately empty, beings too are empty; because beings are empty, the thought of ultimate emptiness too is empty; the emptiness of nothing to be attained and ultimate emptiness differ in name but are one in meaning; because ultimate emptiness is great, the compassion it gives rise to is also great; it cites the sūtra saying that compassion is of three kinds—with beings as its object, with dharmas as its object, and without object—and compassion without object is born precisely from ultimate emptiness. At the end it counts over the causes and conditions of the earth’s shaking, from the bodhisattvas in the assembly arousing the mind and the earth-spirits rejoicing, to gods and humans attaining the ground of avaivartika and entering the position of dharma, and beings of the ten directions arousing the intent on the unsurpassed path, and so brings the whole chapter to its close.

The teaching of this chapter has two layers, sūtra and treatise. The sūtra text sets things out through the dialogue of the two arhats, and one and the same list of dharmas—the five aggregates, the eye and so on to the mind, dānapāramitā and so on to prajñāpāramitā, inner emptiness and so on to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to the eighteen unshared dharmas, all the samādhi gates and all the dhāraṇī gates, omniscience of all kinds—is swept through again and again under the gates of non-arising, non-duality, the count of non-dual dharmas, ultimate purity, the emptiness of own-nature, having nothing to rely on, and the nature being constantly empty; the treatise’s commentary, for its part, stands guard at each place where one easily loses one’s footing and raises a question: the three meanings have been asked above—why ask again; if all dharmas are non-arising, who cultivates the path, who cuts off the fetters, who turns the dharma wheel; can a non-arising dharma arise; since one is not apart from the thought of ultimate emptiness, why speak further of the thought of great compassion. If one reads only the sūtra’s lists, non-arising easily becomes one repeated assertion; if one reads only the treatise’s answers, one again easily loses the particular difficulty that each answer faces. The steadiest way to read is first to recognise to which gate this passage carries non-arising—is it the emptiness of marks, the emptiness of own-nature, is it neither combining nor dispersing, or is it having nothing to rely on, the nature being constantly empty—then to see by what unfindability the sūtra text sweeps it clean, and finally to see by which objection the treatise’s commentary guards both sides.

Therefore, in reading each round of dialogue, one can ask at least three layers of question. First, by which gate is this 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" spoken—is it the emptiness of the mark of form, the emptiness of own-nature, is it neither combining nor dispersing, a single mark that is the signless, or is it the nature being constantly empty, having nothing to rely on? Second, the non-arising of the sūtra text—which layer of grasping is it clearing away precisely here: the path cultivated and the fruit attained, the marks of giver and given, or the speech of speaker and spoken? Third, by which objection does the treatise’s commentary guard against reading non-arising as the annihilation of no cultivation and no attainment, and also against reading ‘there is knowing and there is attaining’ back into a real self and real dharmas? The questions and answers of this chapter always first let the difficulty stand firm—if all dharmas have the mark of non-arising, why cultivate the path, why turn the dharma wheel—and then answer it by nothing to be attained and by worldly names; it is precisely this way of answering, which does not smooth away either side, that lets non-arising sweep the attachment to arising clean away and yet not lose the place of practice. Read on along the six rounds of dialogue, and one will come at last to the same place: the power of prajñāpāramitā is able to give rise to and able to receive all wholesome dharmas, and when this chapter was spoken the great earth shook for it—「取要言之，地動皆由說諸法實相，所謂般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "To put it in essentials, the shaking of the earth all comes from the speaking of the real mark of all dharmas, namely prajñāpāramitā."

Reading On in the Order of the Treatise

Non-arising, First Part: The Threefold Non-arising Is Ultimately Pure; How the Path Is Cultivated within Non-arising

What Is Being Asked

This unit opens with Śāriputra’s three questions: 「菩薩摩訶薩行般若波羅蜜觀諸法，何等是菩薩？何等是般若波羅蜜？何等是觀？」 tr. "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practises prajñāpāramitā and contemplates all dharmas, what is the bodhisattva? What is prajñāpāramitā? What is contemplation?"—the one who cultivates prajñā, the prajñā that is cultivated, and the method of contemplation by which one cultivates: in a single breath all three pivots of the bodhisattva path are raised. After Subhūti has answered them one by one, the question-and-answer turns to the proper theme of this chapter: the non-arising of form is not form, the non-duality of form is not form, form enters the count of non-dual dharmas—a threefold 「不生」 tr. "non-arising" advancing layer upon layer; then Subhūti speaks to the Buddha in summary: the bodhisattva who practises prajñā 「見色無生，畢竟淨故」 tr. "sees form as non-arising, because it is ultimately pure", and from form all the way to the Buddha and the dharmas of the Buddha there is nothing that is not non-arising and ultimately pure. At this point Śāriputra brings out the weightiest objection of the First Part: 「若一切法不生相，何以故須陀洹為斷三結故修道」 tr. "if all dharmas have the mark of non-arising, why does the srota-āpanna cultivate the path in order to cut off the three fetters", and so on to 「何以故佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？何以故佛轉法輪？」 tr. "Why does the Buddha attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening? Why does the Buddha turn the dharma wheel?"—if nothing arises at all, what is there left to do in cutting off fetters and cultivating the path? What fruit is there left to attain? Would not the Buddha’s attaining of the path and his turning of the dharma wheel all fall into nothing? What the First Part must answer is precisely this question: does the teaching of non-arising cancel path and fruit together? The answer is set in place beforehand in two sentences of Subhūti’s—「是用無所得故」 tr. "this is because he uses nothing to be attained" and 「有知有得，不以二法」 tr. "there is knowing and there is attaining, not by way of two dharmas": non-arising not only does not destroy the path; on the contrary, it is the very place where the path can be travelled through.

Passage by Passage

First, see how the three questions and three answers are set up. The answer to 「何等是菩薩」 tr. "what is the bodhisattva?" has two wings: one wing is the arousing of the mind—「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是人發大心」 tr. "for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, this person arouses the great mind"; the other wing is wisdom—「知一切法、一切種相，是中亦不著」 tr. "he knows all dharmas and all their kinds and marks, and within this too he does not cling". Arousing the great mind yet not clinging, knowing everything yet not abiding: the bodhisattva’s identity is not tied to some fruit-stage but to the joint working of this one mind and this one wisdom. The answer to 「何等是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "what is prajñāpāramitā?" uses only one word: 「遠離故名般若波羅蜜」 tr. "it is because of far removal that it is called prajñāpāramitā"—far removed from the aggregates, the elements, and the sense-fields, from the six perfections, from the eighteen emptinesses, from the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and from omniscience: whatever dharma can be set up, prajñā is removed from them all without exception. The answer to 「何等是觀」 tr. "what is contemplation?" is an eightfold double negation: 「觀色非常非無常、非樂非苦、非我非無我、非空非不空、非相非無相、非作非無作、非寂滅非不寂滅、非離非不離」 tr. "to contemplate form as neither permanent nor impermanent, neither pleasurable nor painful, neither self nor non-self, neither empty nor not empty, neither a mark nor signless, neither action nor non-action, neither quiescent cessation nor not quiescent cessation, neither separated nor not separated"—even 「空」 tr. "emptiness" and 「寂滅」 tr. "quiescent cessation" fall within the double negation; contemplation is not switching to some higher standpoint from which to look, but falling to neither side.

The treatise-author takes over, and first settles ‘why ask again what has already been asked.’ He gives several layers: the matter is difficult—「先已答大樹喻，非一斫可斷」 tr. "the simile of the great tree has already been given in answer before: it cannot be felled by a single stroke"—a great tree needs much force of the axe; prajñā 「有無量義」 tr. "has immeasurable meanings", like 「大海水無量，如須彌山種種嚴飾」 tr. "the water of the great ocean, immeasurable; like Mount Sumeru, with its many kinds of adornment"; though the questions are the same, the meanings of the answers differ in many ways; and a deeper layer is the manner in which the Dharma is taught—the buddhas cut off love of dharma and do not set up scriptures, 「如大清涼美池，無量眾生前後來飲，各飽而去」 tr. "like a great, cool, and lovely pool: immeasurable beings, one after another, come to drink, and each goes away satisfied"; those who came first understood and went away, those who came later had not heard, and so the question is asked again. Asking again is not repetition: the water of the pool is always there, and those who drink are always new. Next come the explanations of the names: 「菩提」 tr. "bodhi, awakening" is of three kinds—the awakening of the arhat, the awakening of the pratyekabuddha, and the awakening of the Buddha—「此中但說一種，所謂佛菩提也」 tr. "here only one kind is spoken of, namely the awakening of the Buddha"; 「薩埵」 tr. "sattva" means a living being, and is also called the great mind—one who arouses the great mind and seeks unsurpassed awakening but has not yet attained it is therefore called bodhisattva; the Buddha’s great mind is already fulfilled, and so, on the contrary, he is not called a bodhisattva: the name itself marks one as 「在路上」 tr. "on the road". Further, through 「阿羅蜜」 tr. "aluomi" (far removal) and 「波羅蜜」 tr. "pāramitā" (crossing to the other shore), whose sounds are close and whose meanings meet, the eye of the whole unit is pointed out: 「『遠離』者，是『空』之別名」 tr. "‘far removal’ is another name for ‘emptiness’"—the removal of prajñā is not dodging dharmas but seeing that dharmas are empty of specific marks; first one knows that dharmas each have their own marks, 「如地堅相」 tr. "as earth has the mark of hardness", and afterwards one knows the mark of ultimate emptiness, 「於是二種智慧中亦不著，但欲度眾生故」 tr. "and within these two kinds of wisdom too one does not cling, only because one wishes to liberate beings".

Next, look at the threefold non-arising. The first layer, 「不生」 tr. "non-arising": 「色，色相空，色空中無色、無生」 tr. "form—the mark of form is empty; within the emptiness of form there is no form and no arising"—established from the emptiness of specific marks. The second layer, 「不二」 tr. "non-duality": 「是一切法皆不合、不散，無色、無形、無對，一相，所謂無相」 tr. "all these dharmas are neither combined nor dispersed, without form, without shape, without resistance, of a single mark, namely the signless"—established from breaking duality. The third layer, 「入無二法數」 tr. "entering the count of non-dual dharmas": 「色不異無生，無生不異色，色即是無生，無生即是色」 tr. "form is not different from non-arising, non-arising is not different from form; form is precisely non-arising, non-arising is precisely form"—the first two layers still seem to be saying 「如何」 tr. "how" form is; this layer says directly that form 「即是」 tr. "is precisely". The treatise-author distinguishes the boundaries of the three: 「義雖一，所入觀門異」 tr. "though the meaning is one, the gates of contemplation by which one enters differ"—above, breaking the marks of arising, such as cause and effect being one or different, it is called non-arising; now, breaking all the dualities, such as eye and form, existence and non-existence, it is called non-duality; above is the emptiness of specific marks, here is the emptiness of dispersal; the practitioner may enter first by this gate or first by that gate, and arrives at the same one emptiness. Most important is the simile of the privy: 「色性常自無生，非今智慧力故使無生」 tr. "the nature of form is by itself constantly non-arising; it is not that the power of wisdom now makes it non-arising"—it is like tearing down a privy and making a house of it: although there is no longer a privy in the house, the perception of impurity is still there; only when one knows that the privy fundamentally did not exist and was made by illusory transformation does the perception truly cease. The contemplation of non-arising is not using wisdom to beat form into emptiness, but seeing that form has never arisen from the first; if the mind thinks 「今即得色實相」 tr. "now I have attained the real mark of form", that is still holding on to a perception of form. The last sentence draws the third layer tight: 「色破散即是無生」 tr. "the breaking and scattering of form is precisely non-arising", and moreover 「不得更有無生」 tr. "there cannot be a further non-arising"—having broken arising, one is not permitted to set up another 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" to hold in one’s hand.

Then come ultimate purity and the objection. Subhūti says to the Buddha—from form, the five aggregates, the self, and so on to the knower and the seer; the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to the eighteen unshared dharmas, samādhi and dhāraṇī, omniscience of all kinds; and further to ordinary people and the dharmas of ordinary people, the srota-āpanna and so on to the Buddha and the dharmas of the Buddha—every sentence closing with 「畢竟淨故」 tr. "because it is ultimately pure": non-arising is not a deficiency; it is thoroughgoing purity. The treatise-author divides Śāriputra’s objection into two layers: 「聖人無大無小，聖法亦無優劣，亦無六道別異，此略難；後問斷三結修道者，為廣難」 tr. "the noble ones are neither great nor small, the noble dharmas are neither superior nor inferior, and there is no distinction among the six paths—this is the brief objection; the later question about cutting off the three fetters and cultivating the path is the extended objection"—the first half levels out the stages, the second half presses straight upon the cultivation of the path: the srota-āpanna cuts off the three fetters, the sakṛdāgāmin thins lust, anger, and delusion, the anāgāmin cuts off the five lower fetters, the arhat cuts off the five higher fetters, the pratyekabuddha cultivates the path, the bodhisattva undergoes suffering in hard practices, the Buddha attains awakening and turns the dharma wheel—layer upon layer, 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" is driven into a corner. Subhūti’s answer, however, is no retreat; it carries non-arising through to the end: 「我不欲令無生法有所得」 tr. "I do not wish the non-arising dharma to have anything attained"—within the non-arising dharma no fruit is set up, no hard practice is set up, no attaining of buddhahood and turning of the wheel is set up; yet this is not cancelling the cultivation of the path; it is cancelling the mind of attainment within the cultivation of the path. He then at once gives the positive reason: 「生難心、苦心，不能利益無量阿僧祇眾生」 tr. "one who gives rise to a mind of difficulty and a mind of suffering cannot benefit immeasurable asaṃkhyeya of beings"; the bodhisattva has pity on beings, 「於眾生如父母兄弟想、如兒子及己身想」 tr. "and toward beings holds the thought of them as father and mother, elder and younger brothers, and the thought of them as his own children and his own body"—「是用無所得故」 tr. "this is because he uses nothing to be attained".

The treatise-author then opens this answer further. First he sets up two kinds of contemplation of non-arising: 「一者、柔順忍觀，二者、無生忍觀。前說無生是柔順忍觀，不畢竟淨；漸習柔順觀，得無生忍，則畢竟淨」 tr. "first, the contemplation of compliant acceptance; second, the contemplation of the acceptance of non-arising. The non-arising spoken of before is the contemplation of compliant acceptance, and is not ultimately pure; gradually practising the compliant contemplation, one attains the acceptance of non-arising, and then it is ultimately pure"—ultimate purity is not a loose phrase but a concrete designation at the stage of acceptance; and its measure is stated with great clarity: the bodhisattva who has attained the acceptance of non-arising, 「雖有煩惱氣，坐道場時乃盡」 tr. "though he still has the residual vapour of the afflictions, exhausts it only when he sits at the seat of awakening", and moreover this purity is 「於柔順道畢竟清淨，非為佛道」 tr. "ultimately pure with respect to the compliant path, not with respect to the path of the Buddha"—the purity has its stage and its limit. Next he opens five kinds of awakening: first, in general terms, compliant acceptance and the acceptance of non-arising together with the three kinds of awakening make five; again there are five kinds—the awakening of arousing the mind, in which the fruit is spoken of within the cause; the awakening of subduing the mind, 「折諸煩惱，降伏其心，行諸波羅蜜」 tr. "breaking down the afflictions, subduing one’s mind, practising the perfections"; the awakening of illumination, contemplating the root and branch, the general marks and the specific marks of the dharmas of the three times, and attaining the real mark of all dharmas, ultimately pure; the awakening of going forth and arriving, attaining the power of skilful means and not clinging even to prajñā, attaining the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, 「出三界，到薩婆若」 tr. "going out of the three realms and arriving at sarvajñā, omniscience"; and the unsurpassed awakening, 「坐道場，斷煩惱習」 tr. "sitting at the seat of awakening and cutting off the residual habits of the afflictions". The five levels run through as one, and the acceptance of non-arising lies right in their midst—from which one can see that non-arising is not the terminus of the path but a station on the path, with the arousing of the mind before it and the unsurpassed after it: how can it be said that non-arising destroys the cultivation of the path? As for hard practices and painful practices, the treatise-author peels away their bitter taste layer by layer: hard practice is a 「希有事」 tr. "rare matter" that can move beings, and that is why it is singled out for mention; but one who truly practises the path does not practise with a mind of difficulty—「如世間小事，心難以為苦，猶尚不成，何況成佛道」 tr. "even small worldly affairs, if the mind finds them hard and takes them as suffering, are still not accomplished—how much less the path of the Buddha"; the causes and conditions that can bring it to accomplishment are great loving-kindness and great compassion—toward beings as toward father and mother, one’s children, one’s own body, 「自然生愛，非推而愛也」 tr. "love arises of itself; it is not love by reasoning"; just as a person, for his own sake and for his father and mother, wife and children, 「勤身修業，不以為苦」 tr. "exerts his body and pursues his work, and does not take it as suffering". When the two causes and conditions—the mind of great compassion and the emptiness of all dharmas—come together, the mind of difficulty and the mind of suffering naturally do not arise. A single sentence on the turning of the dharma wheel closes it: 「一切法還而不轉故，不名為轉；但為破虛妄顛倒故，名為『轉法輪』」 tr. "because all dharmas turn back and do not turn, it is not called turning; it is only because it breaks false inversion that it is called ‘turning the dharma wheel’"—what the dharma wheel turns is not dharmas; it is inversion.

The final passage is the debate over arising and non-arising. Śāriputra poses the question from both sides: is the path attained by an arising dharma? Is the path attained by a non-arising dharma? Subhūti accepts neither—and the treatise-author spells out both barriers on his behalf: the arising dharma is false and deceptive and has already been broken by all kinds of causes and conditions, 「不可以生法得脫生法」 tr. "one cannot, by means of an arising dharma, gain release from arising dharmas"; non-arising 「未有法相，不可以證」 tr. "does not yet have the mark of a dharma, and cannot be realised". Śāriputra presses again: then is there 「無知無得」 tr. "no knowing and no attaining"? Subhūti answers with the pivotal sentence of the whole unit: 「有知有得，不以二法。今以世間名字故有知有得」 tr. "there is knowing and there is attaining, not by way of two dharmas. Now, because of worldly names, there is knowing and there is attaining", whereas 「第一實義中，無知無得」 tr. "in the first and real meaning there is no knowing and no attaining". Worldly names and the first and real meaning are kept apart as two levels: at the level of names there are the srota-āpanna and so on to all the buddhas, and there is distinction among the six paths; at the level of the real meaning 「無業無報、無生無滅、無淨無垢」 tr. "there is no karma and no recompense, no arising and no ceasing, without purity and without stain". The treatise-author takes care to record Subhūti’s standpoint: he is a great arhat, foremost in practising the samādhi of non-contention, and speaks of non-arising only for the sake of bodhisattvas—「汝云何當作邪見，說無得道者？」 tr. "how could you hold a wrong view and say that there is no attaining of the path?" To deny the attaining of the path is wrong view; the non-arising dharma certainly does not bear that charge. Further on comes the fourfold refutation of 「生生？不生生？」 tr. "Does the arisen arise? Does the unarisen arise?": 「若『生』生，生法已生，不應更生！若『不生』生，生法未有故，不應生」 tr. "if the ‘arisen’ arises, the arisen dharma has already arisen and should not arise again! If the ‘unarisen’ arises, since the arisen dharma does not yet exist, it should not arise"; the half-arisen and half-unarisen does not arise either—the arisen portion has already finished arising, and the unarisen portion has no arising. The arising seen by the fleshly eye is, under the eye of wisdom, blocked on all four roads; what remains is only this: 「是生如幻、如夢，從虛誑法生，應離、應不取相」 tr. "this arising is like an illusion, like a dream; it arises from false and deceptive dharmas; one should remove oneself from it, one should not take its marks". The final question on delight in speaking shows the sharpest edge: you delight in speaking of non-arising—do the delight in speaking and the speech themselves arise or not? Subhūti answers 「如是」 tr. "Just so"—bodily action, verbal action, and mental action do not arise, dānapāramitā and so on to omniscience of all kinds do not arise; the words that speak and the dharmas spoken of are together non-arising; and Śāriputra praises him: 「是實清淨」 tr. "this is truly pure"—if one said only that outer things are non-arising while leaving one’s own speech outside non-arising, that is what would be impure. The treatise-author draws the conclusion on Subhūti’s behalf: the reason this discussion cannot be broken is that 「空相尚不受，何況餘相」 tr. "even the mark of emptiness he does not receive—how much less other marks"—one who does not hold even emptiness in his hand has no foothold that could be attacked and broken.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「不欲令無生法中得須陀洹、須陀洹果」 tr. "not wishing that within the non-arising dharma one attain the srota-āpanna or the fruit of srota-āpanna" as denying the cultivation of the path and the attaining of its fruit. Subhūti himself says 「有知有得，不以二法」 tr. "there is knowing and there is attaining, not by way of two dharmas", and the treatise-author further points out that to say there is no attaining of the path is wrong view. What non-arising dismantles is the grasping of ‘having something attained within the non-arising dharma,’ not path and fruit themselves; at the level of names, the srota-āpanna and so on to the Buddha are each plainly present.

Do not read 「畢竟淨」 tr. "ultimate purity" as the purity of buddhahood. The treatise-author draws two lines: one who has attained the acceptance of non-arising still 「有煩惱氣，坐道場時乃盡」 tr. "has the residual vapour of the afflictions, which is exhausted only when he sits at the seat of awakening"; this purity is 「於柔順道畢竟清淨，非為佛道」 tr. "ultimately pure with respect to the compliant path, not with respect to the path of the Buddha". Ultimate purity is ultimate at the stage of acceptance, not the full perfection at the stage of the fruit.

Do not read non-arising, non-duality, and the count of non-dual dharmas as three different principles. The treatise-author says it flatly: 「義雖一，所入觀門異」 tr. "though the meaning is one, the gates of contemplation by which one enters differ"—one enters by breaking the marks of arising, the other by breaking the marks of duality, and both arrive at the same one emptiness; which gate the practitioner enters first simply follows each one’s own discrimination.

Do not read hard practices and painful practices as meaning that the bodhisattva ought to practise carrying a mind of difficulty and a mind of suffering. Sūtra and treatise, with one voice, turn that direction the other way round: 「生難心、苦心，不能利益無量阿僧祇眾生」 tr. "one who gives rise to a mind of difficulty and a mind of suffering cannot benefit immeasurable asaṃkhyeya of beings"; toward beings as toward father and mother, one’s children, one’s own body, 「自然生愛，非推而愛也」 tr. "love arises of itself; it is not love by reasoning"—if the love is natural, the practice is not forced.

Do not read 「樂說無生」 tr. "delighting in speaking of non-arising" as Subhūti clinging to a dharma of non-arising. The treatise-author explains: he 「為因緣故說，而心不著無生法」 tr. "speaks for the sake of causes and conditions, and yet his mind does not cling to the non-arising dharma"; once arising has been broken, 「不得更有無生」 tr. "there cannot be a further non-arising"—if one grips non-arising as a thing, one falls right back onto the side that was broken.

Bearing on Practice

The three questions can be carried about and asked of oneself: is the mind I aroused still there—was it aroused 「為阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 tr. "for the sake of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"? When I know dharmas, do I cling or not—how far can I carry out 「是中亦不著」 tr. "within this too he does not cling"? When I contemplate dharmas, do I fall to either side or not? Only when all three questions are in place does it count as practising prajñā.

Use the simile of the privy to examine one’s own contemplation of emptiness. If, after contemplating emptiness, one feels ‘I have contemplated it into emptiness,’ and the thought 「今即得色實相」 tr. "now I have attained the real mark of form" surfaces in the mind, that is exactly tearing down the privy while still keeping the perception of impurity—emptiness is not a merit produced by contemplation; it is the original mark of dharmas; on noticing this thought, return to 「色性常自無生」 tr. "the nature of form is by itself constantly non-arising".

When doing things that are hard to do, first look at the state of the mind. Once the mind of difficulty and the mind of suffering arise, the work of the path and the benefiting of others are harmed together; exchange that mind by means of 「於眾生如父母兄弟想、如兒子及己身想」 tr. "toward beings holding the thought of them as father and mother, elder and younger brothers, and the thought of them as one’s own children and one’s own body", and if the love is natural, the difficulty subsides of itself. And remember the treatise-author’s twofold causes and conditions: the mind of great compassion and the emptiness of all dharmas—lacking either one, the mind of difficulty arises again.

In speaking, by all means use names, but in the mind keep to the real meaning. Everyday talk of gain and loss, of stages, of the six paths, is all 「世間名字故有知有得」 tr. "because of worldly names there is knowing and there is attaining"; only keep one line within the mind—「第一實義中，無知無得」 tr. "in the first and real meaning there is no knowing and no attaining". Names may be used; they may not be clung to.

In the midst of delighting in speaking, test one’s own speech. When speaking of emptiness and of non-arising, is this whole body of speech that does the speaking itself empty or not? If speech is left outside non-arising, then the more one speaks, the more firmly one sets things up; 「樂說、語言亦不生」 tr. "delight in speaking and speech, too, do not arise"—only this is speaking without fault.

Further Resonances

The skeleton of the First Part is one complete arc of question and answer: the three questions establish the headings—the bodhisattva, prajñā, contemplation; the threefold non-arising establishes the meaning—non-arising, non-duality, entering the count of non-dual dharmas; ultimate purity establishes the stages—the two kinds of contemplation of non-arising and the five kinds of awakening; arising and non-arising establish the debate—the fourfold refutation of arising, and the two levels of names and the real meaning. The engine running through all of it is two sentences: 「色性常自無生，非今智慧力故使無生」 tr. "the nature of form is by itself constantly non-arising; it is not that the power of wisdom now makes it non-arising" and 「有知有得，不以二法」 tr. "there is knowing and there is attaining, not by way of two dharmas". The first sentence safeguards the 「無」 tr. "non" of non-arising—non-arising is not an outcome produced by cultivation; it is the original mark of dharmas; the second safeguards the 「有」 tr. "there is" of cultivating the path—knowing and attaining at the level of names remain plainly present and are not discarded. Śāriputra’s objections, round after round, seem aimed at driving non-arising into a dead end, but in fact they ask out to the full, on behalf of every later reader, the most painful doubts. What can be carried away after reading the First Part is a reversal of direction: one had taken 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" to be a threat to the cultivation of the path, and only on reading to the end does one see that it is the ground of the cultivation of the path—precisely because within the non-arising dharma there is nothing to be attained, the mind of difficulty and the mind of suffering have nowhere to take root, great compassion gives rise to love naturally, and delight in speaking becomes pure together with speech itself. Non-arising does not destroy the path; nothing-to-be-attained is precisely why the path is accomplished.

Non-arising, Last Part: Because There Is Nothing to Rely On, One Is Able to Answer Whatever Is Asked; Through the Power of Prajñā the Great Earth Shakes in Six Ways

What Is Being Asked

This unit begins with a word of praise. Śāriputra says to Subhūti: 「須菩提於說法人中，應最在上！何以故？須菩提隨所問皆能答。」 tr. "Among those who expound the dharma, Subhūti ought to be highest! Why? Whatever Subhūti is asked, he is able to answer." When a person expounds the dharma to the point of being able to answer whatever is asked, on what does he rely? The common guess amounts to nothing more than broad learning, quick eloquence, and a great store held in memory. Subhūti’s answer, however, turns the direction entirely around—「諸法無所依故」 tr. "because all dharmas have nothing to rely on". It is not that he has something to lean on; it is precisely that he leans on nothing at all among all dharmas; wherever the question reaches, there the nature is constantly empty and has nothing to rely on, and so wherever his answer goes it is not held up. This sentence is at once his own account of himself and the guiding thread of the whole unit: from 「無所依」 tr. "having nothing to rely on" it draws out 「云何淨菩薩道」 tr. "how does one purify the bodhisattva path"; from purifying the path it divides the worldly and world-transcending six perfections; from the six perfections it asks further about the path of awakening; from the path of awakening it presses out 「是何波羅蜜力」 tr. "the power of which perfection is this"; from the power of prajñā it brings on the Buddha’s own confirmation from his own mouth; and last the great earth shakes in six ways, and the buddhas of the ten directions speak the same. So what this unit is truly asking is two things: where does the power to expound the dharma come from? And how is the road of cultivating the path to be walked? Its answer runs through as one—the power is the power of prajñāpāramitā, not anyone’s power; the road runs from having something to rely on toward having nothing to rely on. And the back-and-forth of question and answer all along the way before this receives here its weightiest seal: the Buddha himself opens his mouth and twice says “Excellent.”

Passage by Passage

First, see “each foremost in something” and the simile of the skilled craftsman. Of the five hundred arhats, the Buddha recorded each as foremost in something: Śāriputra foremost in wisdom, Maudgalyāyana foremost in the supernormal power of travel, Mahākāśyapa foremost in dhūta, Subhūti foremost in the samādhi of non-contention, Mahākātyāyana foremost in analysing the sūtras, Pūrṇa foremost in expounding the dharma—since the one foremost in expounding the dharma is Pūrṇa, why does Śāriputra single out Subhūti for praise as the one who ought to be foremost among those who expound the dharma? The treatise-author answers: the Buddha, with the buddha-eye, observes the sharp and dull faculties of beings and weighs the general marks and specific marks of dharmas, and records each as foremost according to what each has attained, without error. Pūrṇa expounds the dharma with the twelve divisions of the scriptures and with all kinds of dharma-gates, causes and conditions, and similes, and is foremost in benefiting beings; Subhūti constantly practises the samādhi of non-contention and constantly delights in practising emptiness, and is refined in one single dharma-gate, that of the mark of emptiness. It is like a skilled craftsman who has many abilities: because his abilities are many, he is not thoroughly refined in all of them; one who is skilled in a single thing alone will surely bring it to its full beauty. So in this one matter of speaking skilfully on the meaning of emptiness, Subhūti surpasses Pūrṇa—it was precisely on hearing him speak skilfully on the meaning of emptiness that Śāriputra praised him as the one who ought to be foremost among those who expound the dharma, and moreover saw that whatever he was asked he was able to answer, like the wind moving in the sky, without obstruction.

Next, see having nothing to rely on. Śāriputra’s praise is true praise, yet Subhūti neither deprecates himself nor accepts it, and answers only with the one sentence 「諸法無所依故」 tr. "because all dharmas have nothing to rely on", and then counts through category by category: form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; the eye and so on to the mind; form and so on to dharmas; dānapāramitā and so on to prajñāpāramitā; inner emptiness and so on to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to omniscience of all kinds—each category is 「性常空，不依內、不依外、不依兩中間」 tr. "by nature constantly empty; it does not rely on the inner, does not rely on the outer, does not rely on the middle between the two". In none of the three places—inner, outer, or the middle—is there anything to rely on; it is not that dharmas hide and will not permit reliance, but that the nature of dharmas is constantly empty and from the first has no place of reliance. For 「不謙不受」 tr. "neither deprecating himself nor accepting", the treatise-author supplies a portrait of a person: the mark of a good person is 「不自讚、不自毀，於他亦不讚、不毀」 tr. "he does not praise himself, does not disparage himself, and toward others too neither praises nor disparages"—to praise oneself is not the mark of a great person; to disparage oneself is to be a person of artful self-abasement; to disparage others is to be a slanderer; to praise others is to be a flatterer; he sets things out plainly and truly, receiving true praise without being moved. It further points out why he is able to be so: because he has cut off love of dharma, his mind is not lofty and is not attached. Śāriputra describes him as 「如風行空中，無所罣礙」 tr. "like the wind moving in the sky, without obstruction"—the wind sets no foot down in the sky, and precisely because there is no place to set a foot, there is no place it does not move; having nothing to rely on is not the loss of a support, it is seeing through to the fact that a support is fundamentally unfindable, and so there is no hindrance and no obstruction.

Third, see worldly and world-transcending dāna. Śāriputra carries the talk over to the place of practice: 「云何行六波羅蜜時淨菩薩道？」 tr. "How, when practising the six perfections, does one purify the bodhisattva path?" Subhūti splits each perfection into two kinds. Worldly dānapāramitā: the donor is able to give everything—to one who needs food he gives food, to one who needs drink he gives drink, and so on to wife and children, country and land, head, eyes, hands, and feet, all given away; and he still dedicates it toward awakening, wishing that beings be happy in this life and later enter nirvāṇa—not one of the outward features of giving is lacking; only, at the time of giving he sees himself thought after thought: 「我與、彼取，我不慳貪，我為施主，我能捨一切，我隨佛教施，我行檀波羅蜜。」 tr. "I give, he takes; I am not stingy; I am the donor; I am able to give up everything; I give following the Buddha’s teaching; I practise dānapāramitā." In a single act of giving, the 「我」 tr. "I" is present at every point. The sūtra text names these the three obstructions: the mark of self, the mark of the other, and the mark of giving; because he is attached to these three marks, 「於世間中不動不出」 tr. "within the world he does not move and does not go out". World-transcending dāna is pure in its three parts: the self is unfindable, no receiver is seen, the thing given is unfindable, and no recompense is hoped for—the very same act of giving, with the mind changed, then 「於世間中能動能出」 tr. "within the world is able to move and able to go out". The treatise-author further fixes the positions of the two words “moving” and “going out”: moving is compliant acceptance, going out is the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; within the dharma of the śrāvakas, moving is the one still in training, going out is the one beyond training. And he gives a simile: to have something to rely on when giving is 「譬如老病人依恃他力，能行、能立」 tr. "like an old or sick person who, leaning on another’s strength, is able to walk and able to stand"—relying is not a fault, it is the sign that the mind’s strength is slight; the world-transcending is not doing some other thing in exchange, it is that the strength of wisdom has grown robust and no longer needs to be held up.

Fourth, see purifying the path, and far and near. 「淨」 tr. "Purifying" means opening, 「如去道中荊棘，名為開道」 tr. "as removing the thorns from a road is called opening the road"—purifying the bodhisattva path is not decking the path out in splendour, it is pulling out the thorns on the path so that people can walk through. The six perfections are the first opening of the bodhisattva path; to be able to practise the thirty-seven limbs of the path with the emptiness of nothing to be attained is opening the buddha path. Here the far path and the near path are also spoken of: the far path is the bodhisattva path of the six perfections; the near path is the path of awakening of the thirty-seven limbs—in the six perfections giving, morality, and the rest are mixed, the worldly and the world-transcending are mixed, and so they are far; the thirty-seven limbs have only meditation and wisdom and are ultimately pure, and so they are near. Far and near are words of sequence spoken in terms of mixed and pure, not words of choosing and discarding; and so a summing-up sentence follows at once: from the first arousing of intent and so on to the vajra samādhi, whatever is practised in between for the sake of awakening is all the path of awakening—the far path and the near path are the earlier and later stretches of one and the same path of awakening.

Fifth, see the power of prajñā. Śāriputra praises again, 「善哉！善哉！」 tr. "Excellent! Excellent!", and asks: the power of which perfection is this? The treatise-author writes out Subhūti’s reflection before answering: among all the mental-factor dharmas, apart from wisdom none is able in this way to discriminate, cut off doubt, and open the path; among the perfections, apart from prajñā not even their own substance can be accomplished, let alone discriminate and open the path. So he answers: 「是般若波羅蜜力。」 tr. "It is the power of prajñāpāramitā." The sūtra text gives this power two verbs: it is able to give rise to all wholesome dharmas, and able to receive all wholesome dharmas—the dharmas of the śrāvakas, the dharmas of the pratyekabuddhas, the dharmas of the bodhisattvas, the dharmas of the buddhas; the buddhas of the three times all practised prajñā and attained awakening. The treatise-author further lays one layer bare: among all dharmas there is no self, no knower, no seer, and therefore this power is 「非佛力，非須菩提力」 tr. "not the Buddha’s power, not Subhūti’s power"—even the Buddha does not lay claim to this power. The two similes each carry one meaning: like the great ocean that is able to receive the many rivers and ten thousand streams—this is being able to receive; like croton seed, the most powerful in a compounded purgative—this is that when the perfections are practised together the power of prajñā is the most excellent: breaking the afflictions, uprooting wrong views, abandoning idle discourse—all are the working of its power.

Sixth, see the difficulty of great compassion. The sūtra text says that the bodhisattva who practises the path of awakening 「常應不離是念，所謂大悲念」 tr. "ought constantly not to be apart from this thought, namely the thought of great compassion". Śāriputra at once takes this up as an objection: beings too are not apart from their various thoughts—should not all beings then become bodhisattvas? Subhūti says “Excellent” twice in a row: 「汝欲難我而成我義。」 tr. "You wish to refute me, and yet you establish my meaning."—because beings are non-existent, thought too is non-existent; because the nature of beings is non-existent, the nature of thought too is non-existent; because beings as dharmas are non-existent, thought as a dharma too is non-existent; because beings are separated, thought too is separated; because beings are empty, thought too is empty; because beings cannot be known, thought too cannot be known; form and so on to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, with these same six phrases. The difficulty lies in hearing 「不離大悲念」 tr. "not being apart from the thought of great compassion" as there really being one thought constantly present in the mind; the answer lies in thought and beings being one and the same ultimate emptiness—only when the emptiness is thoroughgoing can the thought stand upright. The treatise-author speaks of this layer as the bodhisattva’s holding of two thoughts together: constantly not apart from great compassion and from the thought of ultimate emptiness—「畢竟空破世間諸煩惱，示涅槃；而大悲引之令還入善法中」 tr. "ultimate emptiness breaks all the afflictions of the world and shows nirvāṇa; and great compassion draws one back, causing one to re-enter wholesome dharmas". It further cites the three kinds of compassion spoken of in the sūtras to conclude: with beings as its object, with dharmas as its object, and without object; compassion without object is born from ultimate emptiness—the more thoroughgoing the emptiness, the less the compassion picks and chooses, and the greater it is. The emptiness of the unfindable at the start and ultimate emptiness at the end differ in name but are one in meaning.

Seventh, see the Buddha’s opening his mouth twice and the response of the great earth. Before this it was all Śāriputra and Subhūti answering each other; now the Buddha himself enters the scene, and first praises: 「善哉！善哉！……如汝所說般若波羅蜜，皆是承佛意故。菩薩摩訶薩學般若波羅蜜，應當如汝所說學！」 tr. "Excellent! Excellent! … The prajñāpāramitā as you have spoken it all comes by receiving the Buddha’s intent. The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who trains in prajñāpāramitā ought to train as you have spoken!" The gods, humans, and bodhisattvas in the assembly give rise to a doubt: Subhūti is a person of the Small Vehicle—why does the Buddha confirm him in this way? The answer lies in the three words 「承佛意」 tr. "receiving the Buddha’s intent"—even Maitreya and the other bodhisattvas, the Brahmā king and others, could not so much as ask a question without receiving the Buddha’s intent, let alone speak freely at their own pleasure before the Buddha. The speaker does not speak well by his own power; he speaks by receiving the Buddha’s intent—and this comes back again to the start of the unit: one who has nothing to rely on does not rely even on 「我能說」 tr. "I am able to speak". Then the great earth shakes in six ways: the east rises and the west sinks, the west rises and the east sinks, the south rises and the north sinks, the north rises and the south sinks, the middle rises and the edges sink, the edges rise and the middle sinks; the Buddha smiles and tells Subhūti: just as I speak prajñāpāramitā in this world, so the buddhas of immeasurable asaṃkhyeya worlds of the ten directions also speak this prajñāpāramitā; twelve nayuta of gods and humans attain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, and immeasurable asaṃkhyeya of beings arouse the mind of awakening. The treatise-author counts out six layers of causes and conditions for the shaking of the earth: first, many bodhisattvas in the assembly arouse the mind and all are to become buddhas, and the earth-spirits rejoice, 「我主今生」 tr. "our lord is now born", and so cause the earth to shake greatly; second, human minds that believe in the profound prajñā are hard to come by and rare, and the causes and conditions of their merit stir a great wind that moves the water, and because the water moves the earth moves; third, the great nāga kings beneath the earth wish to come and hear the dharma, and because they come out of the water the water moves, and because the water moves the earth moves; fourth, the Buddha’s spiritual power makes the earth shake, wishing to guide the assembly so that they increase in faith and delight; fifth, twelve nayuta of gods and humans attain the ground of avaivartika and enter the position of dharma, and therefore the earth shakes; sixth, beings of the worlds of the ten directions arouse the intent on the unsurpassed path, and therefore the earth shakes. Six layers of causes and conditions, from the joy of the earth-spirits to the arousing of the mind by beings, not one of them unconnected with the speaking of prajñā; and so at the end it sums up: 「取要言之，地動皆由說諸法實相，所謂般若波羅蜜。」 tr. "To put it in essentials, the shaking of the earth all comes from the speaking of the real mark of all dharmas, namely prajñāpāramitā."

Do Not Misread

Do not hear 「諸法無所依」 tr. "all dharmas have nothing to rely on" as a drifting with nowhere to stand. Having nothing to rely on is exactly the reason one is able to answer whatever is asked: it is not the loss of a support, it is seeing through to the fact that a support is fundamentally unfindable, and so there is no hindrance and no obstruction. If one reads having nothing to rely on as anxious drifting without bearings, it is the very opposite of the freedom of 「如風行空中」 tr. "like the wind moving in the sky".

Do not read worldly dānapāramitā as false giving. The worldly dāna in the sūtra text has the things given all complete and the dedication sincere, and does not lack even 「隨佛教施」 tr. "giving following the Buddha’s teaching"; its sickness lies only in the three obstructions—the mark of self, the mark of the other, and the mark of giving. It is giving that is real and solid, only it does not move and does not go out. If, because the worldly and the world-transcending have been distinguished, one then slights giving that has marks, one shuts oneself out precisely from the first opening of the bodhisattva path.

Do not read the far path and the near path as meaning that the six perfections may be discarded. Far and near are spoken in terms of mixed and pure: giving, morality, and the rest are mixed and so far; meditation and wisdom are pure and so near—they are the earlier and later, the shallower and deeper, of one and the same path, not the taking of one of two paths and the discarding of the other. The sūtra text itself sums it up plainly: from the first arousing of intent and so on to the vajra samādhi, all is the path of awakening.

Do not read 「眾生無故念亦無」 tr. "because beings are non-existent, thought too is non-existent" as great compassion being cancelled. What Subhūti says is 「汝欲難我而成我義」 tr. "you wish to refute me, and yet you establish my meaning": thought and beings are one and the same ultimate emptiness, and precisely because the emptiness is thoroughgoing, compassion is born from ultimate emptiness as compassion without object. At both ends, before and after, the sūtra text keeps nailed down 「常應不離是念，所謂大悲念」 tr. "ought constantly not to be apart from this thought, namely the thought of great compassion", and not one word of it is loosened.

Do not read the six kinds of shaking as a miraculous ornament. The six layers of causes and conditions that the treatise-author counts out one by one are each connected with the speaking of prajñā; the final sentence names the point itself—the shaking of the earth all comes from the speaking of the real mark of all dharmas. The great earth does not shake for the sake of a miracle; it shakes because the real mark has been spoken.

Bearing on Practice

Take 「不謙不受」 tr. "neither deprecating himself nor accepting" to examine the mind that receives praise and receives blame. When praised, take a look: beneath the posture of modesty, is there another kind of self-admiration? When blamed, take a look: beneath the urgency to explain oneself, is there an 「我」 tr. "I" that cannot be let go of and is in pain? Not praising oneself, not disparaging oneself, not praising others, not disparaging others—setting things out plainly and truly is the form that having nothing to rely on takes in human affairs.

Take the three questions of the three obstructions to check every act of giving. After giving, ask three times: did I see the mark of self? Did I see the mark of the other? Did I see the mark of giving? When the three marks appear, one knows that one is still within worldly dāna; this is not to stop giving, but to move one step toward being pure in the three parts—the self is unfindable, no receiver is seen, the thing given is unfindable, and no recompense is hoped for.

Take the two words 「動、出」 tr. "moving, going out" to measure one’s own position. Toward the dharmas of the three realms, has the mind yet shaken them? Has it yet gone out from them? Moving is compliant acceptance, going out is the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas—measured honestly, one neither deceives oneself that one has gone out nor belittles oneself as bound.

Make the holding together of great compassion and ultimate emptiness a daily practice. When bearing in mind the suffering of beings, remember ultimate emptiness, and only then does compassion not turn into anxious distress; when contemplating ultimate emptiness, remember beings, and only then does emptiness not grow cold into good for oneself alone. Ultimate emptiness breaks the afflictions and shows nirvāṇa; great compassion draws one back into wholesome dharmas—lacking either one, practice leans to one side.

Take 「信深難得」 tr. "believing in the profound is hard to come by" to weigh one’s own hearing. Human minds that believe in the profound prajñā are hard to come by and rare, and the causes and conditions of their merit suffice to stir the wind and move the water, and the water moving moves the earth—the next time you hear prajñā, consider this weight, and do not treat it as an ordinary session.

Further Resonances

This unit itself runs through the whole course of taking up and unfolding. What it takes up is that word of praise at the start—「隨所問皆能答」 tr. "whatever he is asked, he is able to answer"; what it unfolds is the asking of this praise layer by layer to the bottom: he is able to answer because he has nothing to rely on; having nothing to rely on, he is therefore able to purify the bodhisattva path; the purified path has the division of worldly and world-transcending and the sequence of far and near, and at the end of the dividing there is one power—the power of prajñāpāramitā, not the Buddha’s power, not Subhūti’s power; the power spoken to its end, the Buddha confirms from his own mouth, 「皆是承佛意」 tr. "all comes by receiving the Buddha’s intent", and the great earth answers with six kinds of shaking. Those who come later and take up this unit walk in this same order too: first, where praise and blame are received, learn the plain truthfulness of 「不謙不受」 tr. "neither deprecating oneself nor accepting"; then split each perfection into the worldly and the world-transcending, and at the place of the three obstructions seek purity in the three parts; then recognise that the far path and the near path are one and the same path of awakening, and do not discard the far in seeking the near; and last, remember—the utmost in expounding the dharma lies not in eloquence but in the real mark of all dharmas being spoken through the speaker: the speaker has nothing to rely on, the power belongs to prajñā, the intent is received from the Buddha, and the great earth shakes in six ways for it. The talk of non-arising here is no talk of the abstruse; it is a real event at which even the great earth shook; what the Last Part hands into the hands of those who come later is just this sentence—to put it in essentials, the shaking of the earth all comes from the speaking of the real mark of all dharmas, namely prajñāpāramitā.

Further Resonances

The vein of meaning in the chapter on Non-arising has something it inherits before it and something it opens after it. What it inherits is the preceding chapter, The Ten Non-existents: that chapter seeks the bodhisattva through ten gates and finds him unfindable, and gathers this into two things—that what is ultimately non-arising is itself prajñā, and that form, up to omniscience of all kinds, enters the count of non-dual dharmas. The meaning of non-arising having already been called forth, this chapter takes non-arising as its name and lays it out head-on. Therefore the treatise-author, at the chapter's opening, himself raises the question: 「上品竟，便應問『不生』，何以此中方問？」 tr. "When the preceding chapter was finished, one ought then to have asked about ‘non-arising’; why is it only here that it is asked?" He answers that the three kinds of great dharma are easy to understand and benefit many beings, and so they are asked first—which shows that the three questions on the bodhisattva, on prajñā, and on contemplation only lead the way, and that the true intent of the whole chapter still lies in non-arising: the preceding chapter searched everywhere and found the person unfindable; this chapter asks directly of dharmas about non-arising, and with the threefold non-arising, ultimate purity, and the acceptance of non-arising, it carries non-arising forward from a language of negation and searching into a gate of right contemplation that can be cultivated and realised. As for what it opens, the chapter's end already shows the first signs of it: the Buddha himself praises Subhūti, saying that all he has spoken accords with the Buddha's intent; smiling, he declares that the buddhas of the ten directions alike speak prajñā; gods and humans attain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; and the great earth shakes in six ways—the field in which prajñā is spoken is here opened out in full, and the vein of meaning thereafter advances following on from this.

When later ancient masters read this chapter, the one whose approach is most complete composed a commentary on the great sūtra that this treatise explains, and left for this chapter a line-by-line explanation. In explaining the chapter's name, he states plainly that this chapter makes clear compliant non-arising and next makes clear the acceptance of non-arising—the preceding chapter too makes clear non-arising, but that is compliant acceptance; now it makes clear the acceptance of non-arising itself, and so the chapter is headed with non-arising—and this runs consistently, from first to last, with the two gates, compliant non-arising and true non-arising, that he distinguished in the preceding chapter. His structural division of the chapter's opening makes clear three great meanings, first the questions and then the answers, meeting one by one the three questions at the opening of the sūtra on the bodhisattva, on prajñā, and on contemplation; on why they are asked again, he too sets out three explanations of his own—that the meaning includes everything, that the three meanings contain limitless meanings, and that the earlier assembly had already awakened and it is now for the later assembly—and his approach connects with the treatise-author's answers that a great tree cannot be felled with a single stroke, and that from a cool, lovely pool those who come earlier and those who come later all drink. On the treatise's explanation he further divides out five layers, from the treatise's discussion of vows through to non-arising, up to the treatise's praise of non-arising, broadly meeting the stepwise progression of the treatise's explanation while choosing his own grain; on the section in which Śāriputra raises difficulties he combines and opens them as six difficulties, from the difficulty that with non-arising there should be no three vehicles, through no six destinies, no five awakenings, no severing of fetters by the two vehicles, and no practice of the Great Vehicle, up to the difficulty that with non-arising there should be no fruit of buddhahood to be attained—at one in doctrine with the difficulties in the sūtra text, while opening and combining them in his own way. The list of five awakenings he gives corresponds one by one with the five headings in the treatise's explanation—arousing the mind, subduing the mind, illumination, going forth and arriving, and the unsurpassed—and attaches each to the depth of a stage of practice: from arousing the mind at the outer ordinary stage, to attaining non-arising and going out of the three realms from the seventh ground upward, ending in the unsurpassed at the buddha-ground; two of the headings differ slightly in wording from the text of the treatise; both are kept side by side, and neither is altered. All this records his approach only, without judging higher or lower.

There is another ancient master, who composed a commentary on this treatise itself; his work survives today only in incomplete fascicles, and for this chapter too it has no line-by-line explanation. Yet in its surviving fascicles, where he judges the structure of the whole treatise as a whole, he first announces that what is spoken below 「至無生品，亦明無數人得無生忍」 tr. "reaches the chapter on Non-arising, which also makes clear that countless people attain the acceptance of non-arising," and further states plainly that within this 「集散品已去至無生品有七品經」 tr. "from the chapter on Gathering and Dispersal onward, up to the chapter on Non-arising, there are seven chapters of sūtra," which belong to the one section of 「將明善吉正說」 tr. "about to make clear the proper exposition of Good Auspice (Subhūti)." The further resonances of the preceding chapter once recorded that in the flow of his words the name 「集散品」 tr. "the chapter on Gathering and Dispersal" stands among them, and what it pointed to could not at that time be firmly established; now, reading his surviving fascicles together, this name is the name of a chapter in the earlier portion of the great sūtra, and his words are a broad retrospect spanning chapters—taking that chapter as the point of departure of this one great section, and this chapter as its terminus, not meaning one and the same small passage. The doubt recorded before can be resolved here. The attaining of acceptance that he announces meets exactly the record at this chapter's end that gods and humans numbering twelve nayuta attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas—which shows that when he wrote his commentary he had before his eyes the whole treatise from beginning to end; it is only that the surviving fascicles of his commentary do not reach this chapter. He further takes up the preceding chapter and this chapter together, saying that these two chapters 「初明除生，後明遣法」 tr. "first make clear the removal of beings, and afterwards make clear the dispelling of dharmas"—which differs in wording from the former master's judgement of compliant acceptance and the acceptance of non-arising, but runs in the same direction: both take this chapter as the proper place of the one gate of non-arising. Both are recorded side by side, without judgement.

Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, what the two masters, without having agreed on it, both point to is one and the same thing: the non-arising of this chapter is the proper stage of acceptance, not the emptiness of annihilation. The preceding chapter removes the person; this chapter dispels dharmas; compliant acceptance is gradually practised, and when the acceptance of non-arising is attained there is ultimate purity—what the ancient masters judged stands exactly as outer to inner with the two kinds of contemplation of non-arising that the treatise-author himself speaks of. And this chapter itself had long since gathered this meaning into the place of practice: within the dharma of non-arising one does not wish there to be anything attained, and yet there is knowing and there is attaining, only not by way of two dharmas; the thought of ultimate emptiness and the thought of great compassion go together without contradiction, and compassion without an object is born precisely from ultimate emptiness; the six perfections, when they have something to rely on, are worldly, and when they rely on nothing are world-transcending; what moves is compliant acceptance, and what goes out is the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. The acceptance of non-arising does not lie outside practice; it lies right within giving that is pure in its three parts, and within contemplative practice that relies on neither inner nor outer.

Therefore what the chapter on Non-arising finally leaves behind is a way of asking that can be used again and again: the path I am now cultivating and the fruit I hope for—am I holding them within dharmas that arise, or within the dharma of non-arising—or receiving neither of the two, and yet, by the names of the world, having knowing and having attaining? When I hear that all dharmas are non-arising, is what arises in my mind a mind of difficulty and a mind of suffering, with nowhere to set its hands, or the great compassion that thinks of beings as parents, as sons, as its own self? Is the giving I practise bound by the three obstructions of the mark of self, the mark of the other, and the mark of giving, so that it neither moves nor goes out, or is it pure in its three parts and able to move and to go out? Answer these few questions well in every exchange, and non-arising is not a verdict that takes away the place of practice, but the right contemplation of ultimate purity—the earth shakes wholly because of the speaking of the real mark of all dharmas, which is what is called prajñāpāramitā.

Overview

"The Lord of the Gods" does not open with a single sentence but with a great assembly. From the three-thousand great-thousand world, the heavens of the Four Heavenly Kings, the Trāyastriṃśa heaven, the Yāma heaven, the Tuṣita heaven, and so on to the Brahmā heavens of the form realm and the Pure Abode heavens of Śuddhāvāsa, each with countless hundreds of thousands of koṭi of gods, all come to the assembly. These gods, with bodies born of the karmic result of giving, keeping the precepts, and meditation, each originally have their own light—the gods of the desire realm gain their light by giving lamps, candles, bright pearls, and the like; the gods of the form realm cultivate the fire samādhi and their bodies emit a wondrous light; yet once they come before the Buddha, 「諸天業報光明在佛常光邊不照不現」 tr. "the light of the gods' karmic result, beside the Buddha's constant light, does not shine and does not appear". The treatise-author gives this scene two similes: as when the sun rises, the stars, the moon, lamps, and candles have no light left; and again as a charred wick with a single glimmer set beside jambūnada gold. The lord of the gods, Śakra Devānām Indra—in the language of Qin, 「釋迦」 tr. "Śakra" means able and 「提婆」 tr. "deva" means god; he is the lord of the Trāyastriṃśa heaven, and in the sūtra he is also called Kauśika—seeing that the light of the Buddha's supernormal power can eclipse the light of the gods, has this thought: the light of the Buddha's wisdom must likewise be able to eclipse the wisdom of the gods; and so the gods gather in great numbers, wishing to hear Subhūti speak of prajñā. The chapter is named 「天主」 tr. "the lord of the gods", and its eye lies just here: the questions and answers of the whole chapter are the lord of the gods making the request and Subhūti answering in accord with the Buddha's intent, while the Buddha, in the middle section, gives one word of praise and, at the chapter's end, one disclosure; what is asked is 「云何應住般若」 tr. "how should one abide in prajñā", yet what is answered is 「不應住」 tr. "one should not abide"—the place of abiding falls exactly upon abiding nowhere.

As soon as the lord of the gods opens his mouth, there are three questions: how should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva abide in prajñāpāramitā? What is the bodhisattva's prajñā? How does one practise it? The treatise-author distinguishes these three questions very clearly—「云何是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "what is prajñāpāramitā" asks about the substance of prajñā; 「云何行」 tr. "how does one practise" asks about the practice of skilful means for first entry; 「云何住」 tr. "how does one abide" asks about the ultimate abiding of deep entry. Subhūti accepts his words and first begins his answer with the repaying of kindness: as a person hungry and thirsty, given food and drink in full, feels deep gratitude, so I, practising this real mark of all dharmas, have been freed from the suffering of old age, sickness, and death; this is the Buddha's kindness, and so I should repay the kindness and should not fail to repay it. In answering on the substance of prajñā, he sets out the various contemplations of the five aggregates—impermanent, suffering, empty, non-self; like a sickness, like an abscess, like an arrowhead lodged in the body; and so on to pain, affliction, decline, decay, sorrow, fear, and unease—those of sharp faculties, hearing the four things, at once enter the truth of suffering, while those of middling and dull faculties need eight things, fifteen things set out at length before the mind of disgust arises; when the contemplation is accomplished, one then contemplates the five aggregates as quiescent cessation, as separation, as neither arising nor ceasing, neither stained nor pure, all by way of nothing to be attained. In between there is also a difficulty: all dharmas each have their own doing, yet beings, being inverted, say ‘I do it’ or ‘a person does it’; the treatise-author, with the similes of skin and bone coming together so that there is the sound of speech, of fire burning dry bamboo so that it gives out a great sound, and of a wooden man, an illusory person, and a conjured person who, though they move and act, have no doer, makes clear that all dharmas have no doer. The First Part closes on the Buddha's praise of Subhūti, 「善哉！善哉！」 tr. "Excellent! Excellent!", and on Subhūti's answer of repaying kindness—the buddhas of the past and their disciples spoke the six perfections for bodhisattvas, showing, teaching, benefiting, and gladdening; I too now should speak in this way, adorning the teaching of the Dharma with these four things.

The Last Part turns to the meaning of 「住」 tr. "abiding" head-on. Subhūti says to the lord of the gods: form, form is empty; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, consciousness is empty; the bodhisattva, the bodhisattva is empty—「是色空，菩薩空，不二不別」 tr. "this emptiness of form and the emptiness of the bodhisattva are not two and not different". This sentence pattern runs through the eye and so on to the mind, the six sense-objects, the six elements of earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness, ignorance and so on to old age and death together with their cessation, the six perfections, inner emptiness and so on to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas, the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to the eighteen unshared dharmas, and omniscience of all kinds; for every numbered list of dharmas it restates 「空，菩薩空，不二不別」 tr. "empty, the bodhisattva empty, not two and not different", picking through them one pass after another, and not a single dharma is folded away. The lord of the gods asks further how one should not abide, and Subhūti then answers at length on the meaning of not abiding: one should not abide in the five aggregates; one should not abide in permanence and impermanence, pleasure and pain, self and non-self, empty and not empty, quiescent cessation and not quiescent cessation; one should not abide in the unconditioned mark of the four fruits and the three vehicles, nor in the field of merit; one should not abide in the first ground and so on to the tenth ground; one should not abide in the various vows and practices of the bodhisattva at the first arousing of the mind—right up to 「諸佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提時，一切諸法無所得故」 tr. "because, when the buddhas attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, all dharmas are nothing to be attained"; therefore the bodhisattva should not abide in prajñā, by way of nothing to be attained. Śāriputra thinks in his mind, 「今云何應住」 tr. "how, now, should one abide?", and Subhūti then takes the buddhas as the measuring line: the buddhas do not abide in form, do not abide in feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, do not abide in the conditioned nature, do not abide in the unconditioned nature—「如諸佛住於諸法中，非住非不住」 tr. "as the buddhas abide among all dharmas, neither abiding nor not abiding"; the bodhisattva too should learn in this way—「我當住不住法故」 tr. "I shall abide by way of the dharma of not abiding".

The final round of the Last Part is the bewilderment and the awakening of the gods. The gods in the assembly have this thought: the words and phrases of yakṣas can still be understood, but what Subhūti says cannot be understood at all. Subhūti, knowing their thought, answers with 「我無所論說，乃至不說一字，亦無聽者」 tr. "I have nothing to discourse on, and so on to not speaking a single syllable; and there is also no hearer", and makes this clear with four similes in succession—the Buddha conjures a conjured person, and the conjured person in turn conjures the fourfold assembly and speaks the Dharma; one sees the Buddha speaking the Dharma in a dream; two people stand each on one side of a deep ravine, and there are two echoes answering each other; a skilled conjurer, at a crossroads of four ways, conjures a buddha and the fourfold assembly—and for each simile he asks 「是中有說者、有聽者、有知者不」 tr. "is there within this a speaker, a hearer, a knower, or not?", and the gods all answer 「不也」 tr. "No". Names are all empty, deceptive and without reality; using names there is speech, without names there is no speech. The gods doubt more deeply at each turn, and Subhūti answers them at each turn, until the gods know deeply that though Subhūti's mouth speaks of form, his mind has nothing it speaks, and that when the Buddha attained awakening there was likewise no speaking and no hearing; srota-āpanna and so on to the Buddha path all exist because of the unconditioned dharma. The whole chapter closes on a chain of verdicts, each link locked into the next: 「諸觀滅故、語言斷故不可說，不可說故不可聽，不可聽故不可知，不可知故於一切法無受無著，則入涅槃。」 tr. "Because all contemplations cease and because speech is cut off, it cannot be spoken; because it cannot be spoken, it cannot be heard; because it cannot be heard, it cannot be known; because it cannot be known, toward all dharmas there is no receiving and no clinging, and then one enters nirvāṇa."

For the whole chapter the sūtra text and the treatise's explanation each come in three rounds, sūtra and treatise advancing in alternation; all within fascicle fifty-four, the chapter is divided at the end of the treatise's first round of explanation into two arcs, the First Part and the Last Part. The First Part takes in the first round—the great gathering of the gods, the Buddha's constant light surpassing the light of the gods' karmic result, the three questions of the lord of the gods, the various contemplations of the five aggregates, the repaying of kindness, and showing, teaching, benefiting, and gladdening; the Last Part takes in the latter two rounds—sūtra round ②, the emptiness of the five aggregates and the emptiness of the bodhisattva not two and not different, and the extended account of not abiding; sūtra round ③, the simile of the yakṣas' speech, the four similes, and no speaking and no hearing, ending at 「則入涅槃」 tr. "and then one enters nirvāṇa". What the First Part lays out is how the question of 「應住」 tr. "should abide" is answered as 「不應住」 tr. "should not abide"; what the Last Part lays out is how this 「不應住」 tr. "should not abide" picks its way all the way through to where the path of speech is cut off and there is no receiving and no clinging.

Therefore, in reading each round of question and answer, one can ask at least three layers of questions. First, on which gate does this round's 「住」 tr. "abiding" and 「不住」 tr. "not abiding" fall—is it the non-duality and non-difference of the emptiness of the five aggregates and the emptiness of the bodhisattva, is it the not abiding within gates such as permanence and impermanence, or is it the ultimate purity of the buddhas' abiding nowhere among all dharmas? Second, at which layer of grasping is the question of the lord of the gods and the gods caught—the mark of abiding, of where one should abide; the mark of attainment, of the four fruits and the field of merit; or the mark of speech, of speaker and spoken? Third, with what kind of nothing to be attained does Subhūti answer, neither letting abiding become a really existent ground to rely on, nor letting not abiding fall into an annihilation with no cultivation and no attainment? This chapter's way of answering always first lets the place of the question stand firm—how one should abide, how one should not abide, and, since there is no speaking and no hearing, for what purpose today's gathering is held—and then answers it layer by layer with 「以無所得故」 tr. "by way of nothing to be attained", 「以有所得故」 tr. "by way of having something to be attained", and 「不二不別」 tr. "not two and not different". Read on along the three rounds of dialogue, and one will come at last to the same place: abiding in prajñā by abiding nowhere, toward all dharmas there is no receiving and no clinging, and then one enters nirvāṇa.

Reading On in the Order of the Treatise

The Lord of the Gods, First Part: Śakra’s Three Questions; with the Mind in Accord with Sarvajñā, Abiding in Prajñā by Means of Nothing to Be Attained

What Is Being Asked

In this unit it is Śakra Devānām Indra (the lord of the gods, Kauśika) who comes forward to ask. Amid a scene in which the gods have gathered like clouds and the Buddha’s constant light alone surpasses all the light born of karmic result, he puts three questions to Subhūti: 「菩薩摩訶薩云何應住般若波羅蜜中？何等是菩薩摩訶薩般若波羅蜜？云何菩薩摩訶薩應行般若波羅蜜？」 tr. "How should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva abide in prajñāpāramitā? What is the prajñāpāramitā of the bodhisattva-mahāsattva? How should the bodhisattva-mahāsattva practise prajñāpāramitā?"—one question asks about 「住」 tr. "abiding", one about the 「體」 tr. "substance", one about 「行」 tr. "practice". These three questions look parallel, but in fact they press all the way toward one and the same matter: since prajñā is empty and is nothing to be attained, where is the one who cultivates prajñā to 「安」 tr. "settle" the mind? If there is nowhere to settle it, what talk can there be of abiding, or of practice? What the First Part has to answer is precisely this difficulty of 「住」 tr. "abiding". Subhūti answers in accordance with the Buddha’s intent and relying on the Buddha’s power, and the backbone of his answer is only one sentence that recurs again and again—「以無所得故」 tr. "because of nothing to be attained": to be mindful of form as impermanent is because of nothing to be attained; to cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness, and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, is because of nothing to be attained; to practise the six perfections is also because of nothing to be attained. Abiding in prajñā is not stopping the mind on some one dharma, but contemplating all dharmas throughout and finding that 「無法可得」 tr. "there is no dharma that can be attained". In the second half of the unit Śakra presses on to a finer juncture: the bodhisattva’s mind of dedication and the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, unsurpassed, right, and complete awakening, are ‘neither two nor one, and neither is present in the other’—how is this to be explained? Subhūti answers with ‘not the mark of mind’—even the mind that dedicates and the fruit-mind toward which it tends are not the mark of mind—carrying 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" all the way through to the root of arousing the mind and dedicating. At the end the Buddha comes forward to praise him, and Subhūti says 「我應報恩」 tr. "I ought to repay the kindness", closing with teaching the Dharma adorned by the four things of showing, teaching, benefiting, and gladdening—teaching the Dharma is itself the repaying of kindness, and is also prajñā made real.

Passage by Passage

First, look at the scene and the three questions. However great the light born of the gods’ karmic result, 「於佛常光，百分、千分、萬億分不能及一」 tr. "beside the Buddha’s constant light, it cannot reach one part in a hundred, one in a thousand, one in ten thousand koṭi", like a charred wick set beside jambūnada gold—this is no ornament, but sets the key for the whole unit: Śakra, seeing that the Buddha’s light can eclipse the light of the gods, gives rise to one thought, 「智慧之明亦當能破我等愚闇」 tr. "the brightness of his wisdom must also be able to break our darkness of folly", and so asks Subhūti to speak on prajñā. As soon as the three questions are out, the treatise-author takes them apart and places each: 「云何是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "what is prajñāpāramitā" asks about the substance of prajñā; 「云何行」 tr. "how to practise" asks about the practice of skilful means at first entry; 「云何住」 tr. "how to abide" asks about the ultimate abiding of deep entry. Substance, practice, and abiding, running down in one line, are exactly the framework of the First Part.

In explaining this passage the treatise-author first settles several points of research into names and narrative. First, the great assembly with its emitted light was already told in the first chapter; why is another gathering spoken of here? The treatise-author records the words of two views—「此是後會」 tr. "this is a later gathering", meaning a separate gathering opened afterwards; and 「即是前會」 tr. "it is the former gathering itself", meaning that it is the former gathering, and that because Subhūti spoke the deep prajñā well, the gods rejoiced and the Buddha smiled, his constant light grew still greater, and so the light of the gods’ karmic result no longer appeared. Second, the directions and charges of the Four Heavenly Kings are listed: Dhṛtarāṣṭra of the east governs the gandharvas and the piśācas; Virūḍhaka of the south governs the kumbhāṇḍas and the pretas; Virūpākṣa of the west governs the nāga kings and the pūtanas; Vaiśravaṇa of the north governs the yakṣas and the rākṣasas. Third, the names of the gods are glossed one by one in the language of Qin: 「釋迦」 tr. "Śakra" is glossed as able, 「提婆」 tr. "deva" as god, 「因提」 tr. "indra" as lord, together called Śakra Devānām Indra; Suyāma is Wondrous Good, Saṃtuṣita is Wondrous Foot, Sunirmita is Delight in Transformation, Vaśavartin is the gods Sovereign over Others’ Transformations, Śikhin is fire, and the Śuddhāvāsa gods are the Pure Abodes. Fourth, the reasons for the light born of karmic result are distinguished: the gods of the desire realm, because of the purity of giving, morality, meditation, and the like, have bodies always luminous and need neither sun nor moon; the gods of the form realm cultivate the fire samādhi, and so their bodies emit a wondrous light surpassing sun and moon; all of it comes back to one sentence, 「是諸天光明皆由心清淨故得」 tr. "the light of all these gods is attained entirely because of purity of mind". Fifth, the Buddha’s constant light extends 「面各一丈」 tr. "one zhang on every side", and though the light of the gods reaches as far as immeasurable yojanas, beside the Buddha’s light it too is eclipsed and does not appear—this piece of research is not an idle stroke of the brush; it lays the ground for Śakra’s one thought, ‘since the Buddha’s light can eclipse the light of the gods, the Buddha’s wisdom must also be able to break my darkness of folly.’

Next, see how Subhūti answers the question of 「住」 tr. "abiding". He first settles his hearers: those who have not yet aroused the mind should arouse it, while those who have already entered the fixed position of the śrāvaka are ‘not fit to receive it’—because their outflows are exhausted and they have no further birth, they are cut off from birth and death by a barrier. But he at once adds a sentence, 「是人若發心者，我亦隨喜」 tr. "if such a person arouses the mind, I too rejoice", and the treatise-author points out two causes for this sentence: 「一者、不障其福德心，二者、上人應更求上法。」 tr. "First, so as not to obstruct their mind of merit; second, a superior person ought to seek a still higher dharma." Subhūti is a man of the Small Vehicle, yet he constantly practises emptiness and does not cling to the śrāvaka path, and so he dares to rejoice for those who arouse the great mind. Then he answers directly 「何等是般若」 tr. "what prajñā is": with a mind in accord with sarvajñā, omniscience, one is mindful of form as impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self, and this unfolds further into like a sickness, like a boil, like an arrow entering the body, and so on to pain, vexation, decline, decay, sorrow, fear, and unease—fifteen things. The treatise-author makes clear that these fifteen things are spoken according to three kinds of faculties—for those of sharp faculties four are spoken and they at once enter the truth of suffering; for those of middling faculties eight things are spoken and only then does weariness arise; for those of dull faculties seven more things are spoken before they grow weary; moreover the first eight things are called 「聖行」 tr. "noble practices", while the remaining seven are practised in common by ordinary people and noble ones. What matters is the closing sentence: contemplating the five aggregates as ‘quiescent, apart, neither arising nor ceasing, neither stained nor pure’—only this is 「但為般若波羅蜜故」 tr. "solely for the sake of prajñāpāramitā", going beyond the fifteen things spoken in common to the three vehicles. The śrāvaka’s power of knowledge is thin; at first he cannot contemplate quiescent cessation and can only contemplate impermanence; 「菩薩利根故，初觀五眾，便得寂滅相」 tr. "because the bodhisattva has sharp faculties, when he first contemplates the five aggregates he at once attains the mark of quiescent cessation"—contemplating the same five aggregates, the depth nevertheless differs, and this is why prajñā is prajñā.

There are a few further explanations of the treatise here that should be made clear together. First, why is Subhūti willing to respond to Śakra and speak? The treatise-author sets up a simile of giving food to the hungry and thirsty—「若人飢渴，給足飲食，感恩則深」 tr. "if a person is hungry and thirsty and is given enough to eat and drink, his gratitude is deep"; those who have aroused the mind to seek the Buddha path gain great benefit on hearing prajñā and their gratitude too is deep, and so they are worth speaking to. Second, are the faults of the five aggregates exhausted by the fifteen things such as 「如病、如癰疽」 tr. "like a sickness, like a boil"? The treatise-author answers, 「略說則十五，廣說則無量無邊」 tr. "spoken in brief they are fifteen; spoken at length they are measureless and boundless", just as in the Miscellaneous Āgama the five aggregates are rebuked for a hundred kinds of fault—the fifteen things merely raise the essentials. Third, the sūtra text lists only the five aggregates; why does it not reach the twelve sense-fields and the eighteen elements? The treatise-author explains: the twelve sense-fields, on to the eighteen elements and the rest, should likewise be rebuked and spoken of in full; it is only 「此十八界等諸法皆是五眾別名故」 tr. "because these dharmas, the eighteen elements and the rest, are all other names for the five aggregates" that the reciters occasionally let them slip, and in meaning they never needed to be set out separately.

Prajñā’s contemplation of nothing to be attained is not applied only to the five aggregates. The sūtra text, with the same mind in accord with sarvajñā, contemplates the twelve causes and conditions—in forward order, 「觀無明緣諸行乃至老死因緣大苦聚集」 tr. "one contemplates that ignorance conditions constructions, and so on up to old age and death: through causes and conditions the great mass of suffering gathers"; in reverse order, because ignorance ceases constructions cease, and so on to the ceasing of old age and death; both gates, the flowing-on and its turning back to cessation, are contemplated by way of nothing to be attained. Here the treatise-author adds only one sentence, 「十二因緣亦如是」 tr. "the twelve causes and conditions are likewise", which shows plainly that the twelve causes and conditions stand alongside the five aggregates, the four foundations of mindfulness, and the six perfections as objects of the same single flavour of the contemplation of nothing to be attained: not one dharma is set up apart, outside nothing to be attained.

The treatise-author further lays bare the 「般若相」 tr. "mark of prajñā" head-on: 「不離五眾有涅槃，不離涅槃有五眾；五眾實相即是涅槃。」 tr. "Nirvāṇa is not apart from the five aggregates, and the five aggregates are not apart from nirvāṇa; the real mark of the five aggregates is precisely nirvāṇa." This sentence is the eye of the meaning of the First Part—prajñā is not leaving the five aggregates to seek an emptiness elsewhere, but seeing, in the five aggregates just as they are, that their real mark is precisely nirvāṇa. So, since what Śakra asked about was the mark of prajñā, Subhūti speaks only of the mark of prajñā and no longer entangles himself in the ills of the five aggregates and weariness with them. The four foundations of mindfulness up to the limbs of the eightfold noble path are 「共法」 tr. "shared dharmas", while the six perfections up to the eighteen unshared dharmas are 「獨是大乘法」 tr. "alone the dharmas of the Great Vehicle"; the boundary is drawn clearly here as well.

In the middle of the unit a passage is inserted, 「諸法諸法更相因緣潤益增長」 tr. "dharmas and dharmas are in turn causes and conditions for one another, moistening, benefiting, and making them grow", and the treatise-author sets up his own question and answer to explain why it appears: the hearers will raise a doubt—since it has been said that all dharmas are apart, quiescent, and empty, and yet the twelve causes and conditions are also spoken of, then 「無知者、見者，誰修行是諸法得佛」 tr. "if there is no knower and no seer, who cultivates these dharmas and attains buddhahood"? So Subhūti answers with ‘the ten dharmas each have their own power, yet there is no maker’: the four great elements and the six consciousnesses each have their own capacity—earth holds, water softens, fire digests, wind turns and moves, consciousness discriminates—and 「此中無有作者」 tr. "within this there is no maker"; as when skin and bone come together there is the sound of speech, as when fire burns a dry bamboo grove a great sound comes forth, as a wooden man, an illusory person, or a conjured person moves and acts and yet there is no maker. Emptiness and causes and conditions do not obstruct each other—there is no maker, and yet causes and conditions are plainly present, and karmic results grow just the same, as fruit trees planted in spring and watered in due season flourish in flower and fruit. This passage fends off, on behalf of 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained", the misreading of annihilation: no self and no maker is not the same as no cause and no effect.

As to the difficulty of dedication, the treatise-author first sets a fourfold reply in the way. Someone asks: if at the time of dedication, when the mind is first aroused, there is as yet no mind of awakening, then where is it to be dedicated? The treatise-author does not set up, head-on, some other place to which one dedicates; instead he takes apart, one by one, the four presuppositions on which the question leans. First, in the real mark of prajñā, 「諸法非常相、非無常相，非有相、非無相」 tr. "all dharmas have neither the mark of permanence nor the mark of impermanence, neither the mark of existence nor the mark of non-existence"; since they are neither permanent nor annihilated, neither existent nor non-existent, one should not object with 「迴向心已滅無所有，云何與菩提作因」 tr. "the mind of dedication has already ceased and is without anything existent; how can it act as a cause for awakening?"—the objector has first fixed the mind of dedication as a thing that ceases as soon as it arises, whereas in the real mark there is fundamentally no such fixed mark. Second, since all dharmas are 「不生不滅、非不生非不滅」 tr. "neither arising nor ceasing, and neither not arising nor not ceasing", how can one cling to a fixed non-arising and non-ceasing and object, 「無菩提心，何所迴向」 tr. "there is no mind of awakening; to what does one dedicate?" Third, the Buddha himself says that 「菩提相非過去、非未來、非現在」 tr. "the mark of awakening is neither past, nor future, nor present", so one should not object with 「未來無菩提故，何所迴向」 tr. "because in the future there is no awakening, to what does one dedicate?"—awakening does not fall into the three times; it is not a thing waiting in the future. Fourth, the chapter "The Great Suchness" is cited: 「過去世不離未來世，未來世不離過去世，過去世如、未來世如，一如無二」 tr. "the past is not apart from the future, the future is not apart from the past; the suchness of the past and the suchness of the future are one suchness without duality"; since before and after are one suchness without duality, one may not say 「菩提心不在迴向心中，迴向心不在菩提心中」 tr. "the mind of awakening is not in the mind of dedication, and the mind of dedication is not in the mind of awakening" and so object that the two minds are cut off from each other. Only when the four objections have been dispelled does one see that the doubt ‘there is no mind of awakening; to what does one dedicate?’ is rooted in treating both the mind of dedication and the mind of awakening as fixed marks that can be pointed to as real and cut off from each other; once the fixed marks are taken apart, the bodhisattva who 「從發心已來，乃至佛道，修是功德，不休不息」 tr. "from the arousing of the mind onward, all the way to the Buddha path, cultivates these merits without resting and without ceasing" is plainly present and not set aside—it is only that he uses them as an illusion, as a dream, with nothing to be attained. This fourfold reply is precisely the step before what follows, where Śakra objects again and Subhūti answers by the truth of the highest meaning that ‘both minds are empty’—first the fixed marks are dispelled within the real mark, and only then can it well be said, in the highest meaning, that the two minds are not mind.

The debate on dedication in the second half pushes 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained" to the root of arousing the mind. The dedication of the bodhisattva’s first arousing of intent and the Buddha-mind act as causes and conditions for each other, 「而初發意迴向時未有佛心，佛心中無初迴向心；雖無，而能作因緣」 tr. "and yet at the time of dedication with the first arousing of intent there is as yet no Buddha-mind, and in the Buddha-mind there is no mind of the first dedication; though they are absent, they are able to act as causes and conditions". Śakra does not understand: since neither is present in the other, and neither can be attained by the other, how can there be dedication? Subhūti 「不以世諦如幻、如夢說，但以第一義諦說」 tr. "does not speak by worldly truth, as an illusion, as a dream, but speaks only by the truth of the highest meaning"—「是二心皆空，非心相」 tr. "these two minds are both empty and are not the mark of mind", because 「諸法畢竟空中，無是心非心」 tr. "within the ultimate emptiness of all dharmas there is neither this mind nor not-mind". He draws it tight with the simile of riding a carriage westward: only when there is the difference of two places, the carriage and where it is heading, can one speak of turning toward; 「不得但有車而言迴向，無異故」 tr. "one cannot speak of turning toward when there is only the carriage, because there is no difference". And what is called 「非心相常非心相」 tr. "the mark of not-mind is constantly the mark of not-mind" means that this mark of mind seems to abide constantly, neither arising nor ceasing, neither stained nor pure—「以非心相故非心，亦無是非心，是故說不可思議」 tr. "because it is the mark of not-mind it is not mind, and there is also no ‘this is not-mind’; therefore it is called inconceivable". It is concluded further with refining iron into gold: the mind that is the cause resembles the fruit—「不似則不能生」 tr. "if it did not resemble it, it could not produce it"; 「若初心不淨，後不能發淨心」 tr. "if the first mind is not pure, later one cannot arouse a pure mind"—though the first mind and the fruit-mind are alike empty and alike unfindable, this does not obstruct cause and effect from resembling each other so that the one can produce the other.

In the last section the Buddha comes forward. The treatise-author first points out the reason for the Buddha’s praise and how ‘prajñā’ gets its name: it is precisely because Subhūti has 「深入因緣般若波羅蜜中」 tr. "deeply entered the prajñāpāramitā of causes and conditions", 「能深得諸法因緣故，即以為名」 tr. "because he is able to attain deeply the causes and conditions of all dharmas, it is taken as the name"—the name prajñā was originally taken from its ability to penetrate deeply the causes and conditions of all dharmas; what Subhūti said had no deviation or error, and so the Buddha extolled him before the great assembly. The Buddha praises, 「善哉！善哉！」 tr. "Excellent! Excellent!", and the treatise-author specially records the sentence in the words of praise, 「汝是小乘人，而能善說深般若波羅蜜」 tr. "you are a man of the Small Vehicle, and yet you are able to speak the deep prajñāpāramitā well"—what is praised is exactly that a man of the Small Vehicle can speak the deep dharma of the Great Vehicle. The meaning of 「安慰諸菩薩心」 tr. "consoling the minds of the bodhisattvas" is to teach bodhisattvas not to grow slack and give up because their afflictions are not yet exhausted and the Buddha path is not yet accomplished: 「初心、後心無有異相，但勤精進，則成佛道」 tr. "the first mind and the later mind have no different marks; only be diligent and vigorous, and the Buddha path will be accomplished". Subhūti answers, 「我應報恩」 tr. "I ought to repay the kindness", and the treatise-author opens this into four layers: to have attained liberation from the suffering of old age, sickness, and death is the great kindness of the Dharma, to be remembered; the Buddha, out of great compassion, delights in teaching the Dharma to liberate beings, and my helping the Buddha teach the Dharma is repaying the Buddha’s kindness; the present World-Honored One attained through the buddhas of the past, and so one loves and reveres the buddhas of the past, as a son who loves and reveres his father extends it to his grandfather; one loves and reveres the bodhisattvas and disciples of the past, because they were able to teach the Dharma and instruct—gathered back into the Three Jewels: the Dharma is the Dharma Jewel, the present Buddha and the past buddhas are the Buddha Jewel, and the bodhisattvas and disciples are the Saṅgha Jewel. The way of repaying kindness is teaching the Dharma, and teaching the Dharma is adorned by the four things of showing, teaching, benefiting, and gladdening: showing people good and ugly, wholesome and evil; teaching people to abandon evil and practise good; at the place where they fall back, guiding them so that their minds are sharpened; praising them according to what they practise so that their minds are gladdened. The whole unit begins from ‘hearing prajñā’ and ends with ‘speaking prajñā’; the teaching of the Dharma itself is the on-the-spot manifestation of the very prajñā that is taught.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「以無所得故」 tr. "because of nothing to be attained" as cultivating nothing at all. In the whole passage that answers 「住」 tr. "abiding", sentence after sentence says 「修四念處，以無所得故」 tr. "cultivating the four foundations of mindfulness, because of nothing to be attained", 「行檀波羅蜜，以無所得故」 tr. "practising dānapāramitā, because of nothing to be attained"—nothing to be attained is the mark of the mind while cultivating dharmas, not the cancelling of the dharmas cultivated. What is taken apart is the mind of attaining, not the gates of practice.

Do not read 「五眾實相即是涅槃」 tr. "the real mark of the five aggregates is precisely nirvāṇa" as though there were a nirvāṇa outside the five aggregates to head toward. The treatise-author says it plainly: 「不離五眾有涅槃，不離涅槃有五眾」 tr. "nirvāṇa is not apart from the five aggregates, and the five aggregates are not apart from nirvāṇa". If the mind still keeps ‘a nirvāṇa somewhere else’, that is exactly splitting the five aggregates and nirvāṇa into two pieces, and falling right into the two views that prajñā breaks.

Do not read 「諸法無有作者」 tr. "all dharmas have no maker" as no cause and no effect. The treatise-author immediately fends this off with the four great elements and six consciousnesses each having their own power, and with fruit trees planted in spring flourishing in flower and fruit—there is no maker, and yet causes and conditions moisten and benefit and karmic results grow. No self is the absence of a self that is a 「作者」 tr. "maker", not an annihilation without causes and conditions.

Do not read the 「不可得」 tr. "unfindability" of the mind of dedication and the mind of awakening as dedication coming to nothing and the cultivation of merit being wasted. Subhūti speaks of the two minds as both empty 「以第一義諦說」 tr. "speaking by the truth of the highest meaning"; at the level of the names of worldly truth, 「從發心已來，乃至佛道，修是功德，不休不息」 tr. "from the arousing of the mind onward, all the way to the Buddha path, one cultivates these merits without resting and without ceasing" remains plainly present and is not set aside. That within ultimate emptiness there is neither mind nor not-mind does not obstruct arousing the mind and dedicating within what is like an illusion, like a dream.

Do not read 「非心相常非心相」 tr. "the mark of not-mind is constantly the mark of not-mind" as setting up another true mind that abides constantly. The treatise-author at once adds the sentence 「亦無是非心」 tr. "there is also no ‘this is not-mind’"—not even that 「非心」 tr. "not-mind" may be grasped, and only then is it said to be 「不可思議」 tr. "inconceivable". If it is fixed as a mark that can be thought and grasped, it is no longer inconceivable.

Bearing on Practice

The three questions can be carried about as a self-check: in this sitting, in this practice, is my mind settled in abiding in prajñā, or settled on some one thing attained? There is only one test of abiding in prajñā—contemplating all dharmas throughout and finding that 「無法可得」 tr. "there is no dharma that can be attained"; the moment one feels ‘I have attained something’, one is already not abiding in prajñā.

When contemplating the five aggregates, remember the difference between shallow and deep. Impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self are the entrance, but do not stop at impermanence; learn that sentence, 「初觀五眾，便得寂滅相」 tr. "when he first contemplates the five aggregates he at once attains the mark of quiescent cessation"—seeing the five aggregates, just as they are, as quiescent, neither arising nor ceasing: only this is the contemplation of prajñā, not the contemplation of weary renunciation shared by the three vehicles.

When cultivating all wholesome dharmas, attach 「以無所得故」 tr. "because of nothing to be attained" to the end of every practice. Recollecting the Buddha, keeping the precepts, giving, cultivating contemplation—the practice is practised all the same, while in the mind one keeps from taking the mark of attaining a fruit; in this way wholesome dharmas are cultivated all the same and no haughty mind arises, and this is exactly how the First Part’s answer to 「住」 tr. "abiding" is put to use.

When arousing the mind and dedicating, keep to 「二心皆空」 tr. "the two minds are both empty" and dedicate all the same. In daily life, dedicate merit to the Buddha path and to beings, by all means dedicate; only understand in the mind that neither the mind that dedicates nor the fruit toward which it tends can be attained—dedication can be used; the mind of attaining cannot.

Regard teaching the Dharma and dealing with people, too, as repaying kindness and as prajñā made real. Showing people good and ugly, teaching people to abandon evil, guiding them where their minds fall back, praising them according to what they practise—these four things of showing, teaching, benefiting, and gladdening are at once the repaying of kindness and the making good, on the spot, of the prajñā one has understood. If what one has understood is truly the prajñā of nothing to be attained, then in teaching the Dharma one naturally claims no merit and does not cling to marks.

Further Resonances

The skeleton of the First Part is one complete arc from 「聽」 tr. "hearing" to 「說」 tr. "speaking": Śakra’s three questions establish the headings—abiding, substance, practice; Subhūti, with ‘a mind in accord with sarvajñā, by means of nothing to be attained’, runs through his answer on 「住」 tr. "abiding", points out the mark of prajñā with 「五眾實相即是涅槃」 tr. "the real mark of the five aggregates is precisely nirvāṇa", blocks the doubt of annihilation with ‘the ten dharmas each have their own power, yet there is no maker’, and pushes nothing to be attained to the root of arousing the mind with the two minds of dedication being both empty; the Buddha praises, and Subhūti repays the kindness, concluding with showing, teaching, benefiting, and gladdening. The engine of the whole unit is two sentences: 「以無所得故」 tr. "because of nothing to be attained" and 「五眾實相即是涅槃」 tr. "the real mark of the five aggregates is precisely nirvāṇa". The first sentence governs the mark of the mind in practice—whether being mindful of form, cultivating the foundations of mindfulness, practising the six perfections, or arousing the mind and dedicating, one never takes anything attained; the second governs where prajñā lands—not seeking emptiness outside the five aggregates, but seeing the real mark in them just as they are. Śakra’s questions, pressing layer after layer, seem meant to drive 「住」 tr. "abiding" to where there is nowhere to abide, but only on reading to the end does one see: precisely because there is 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained", there is nowhere one cannot abide; precisely because the real mark of the five aggregates is precisely nirvāṇa, there is no need to leave the dharmas before one’s eyes to settle a mind somewhere else. What the First Part leaves to the next unit is exactly this juncture of ‘how to abide, and how not to abide’—the right meaning of abiding having been established on nothing to be attained, the Last Part goes on to unfold, in full, ‘how one should abide, and where one should not abide’.

The Lord of the Gods, Last Part: Where One Ought to Abide and Where One Ought Not to Abide; To Abide Nowhere at All Is Right Abiding

What Is Being Asked

The First Part opened with a single question from Śakra—how ought the bodhisattva-mahāsattva to abide within prajñā? The Last Part splits this question open head-on, splitting it into two gates: where one ought to abide, and where one ought not to abide. At first glance these are two matters, one affirmative and one negative; only when one reads to the end does one know that they are two faces of one matter. Subhūti first says 「應如是住」 tr. "one ought to abide thus": form—form is empty; the bodhisattva—the bodhisattva is empty; the emptiness of form and the emptiness of the bodhisattva are not two and not different—counting all the way through the five aggregates, the six inner and outer sense-fields, the six elements, the twelve causes and conditions, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, and on to omniscience of all kinds, every category gathered in upon the phrase 「不二不別」 tr. "not two and not different". Śakra then asks where one ought not to abide, and Subhūti says again and again 「以有所得故不應住」 tr. "because there is something to be attained, one ought not to abide", likewise counting all the way through all dharmas, the unconditioned mark of the four fruits, the fields of merit, the ten grounds, and the long string of vows that runs from the first arousing of the mind to attaining buddhahood and bringing beings across. The two gates in fact take one and the same key: where one ought to abide is to abide upon the 「不二不別」 tr. "not two and not different" of nothing to be attained; where one ought not to abide is wherever a mind of 「有所得」 tr. "something to be attained" arises—there, without exception, one is not permitted to set one’s foot down. So what this unit is truly asking is: within prajñā, what after all counts as 「住」 tr. "abiding"? The answer it gives is unexpected—only to abide nowhere at all is right abiding; when the mind departs from the five aggregates and does not abide in them, this 「不住」 tr. "not abiding" is itself the meaning of 「住」 tr. "abiding". The latter half of the sūtra text presses this answer further, down to the root of speech: since one abides nowhere at all, where then are the speaker, the hearer, and the Dharma that is spoken? The gods raise a doubt: the speech of yakṣas can still be understood, yet Subhūti’s speaking cannot be understood at all; Subhūti answers with four similes—the conjured person, the dream, the two echoes in the deep ravine, and the skilled conjurer—and at the very end gathers it in upon 「於一切法無受無著，則入涅槃」 tr. "toward all dharmas not receiving and not clinging, then one enters nirvāṇa"—the question of abiding in the end turns into the question of not receiving and not clinging.

Passage by Passage

First, see 「不二不別」 tr. "not two and not different". When Subhūti says that the emptiness of form and the emptiness of the bodhisattva are not two and not different, he is not putting two emptinesses together and saying they are equal; it is that there are fundamentally not two. Ordinary people, being inverted, take the marks of the five aggregates within the five aggregates, and further, where the five aggregates come together, take a mark of a bodhisattva; within prajñā, the emptiness of beings removes beings, and then there is no mark of a bodhisattva; the emptiness of dharmas removes the five aggregates, and then there is no mark of the five aggregates—the two emptinesses are one and the same emptiness, and so it is said to be without duality and without difference. Here there is an exceedingly apt simile: the going-out of a fire of sandalwood and the going-out of a fire of dung, grass, and wood—though the fuel the fire depends on is noble or base, the going-out is no different; only while it is not yet out, when one takes marks and discriminates, does one see noble and base; once within the going-out, there is no difference. The emptiness of the five aggregates and of the bodhisattva is just like the fires in the two places going out in one and the same extinction. Recognising this layer, the words 「應如是住」 tr. "one ought to abide thus" at last have somewhere to land: what is abided in is not some separate thing that can be abided in; it is only resting in this emptiness without duality and without difference. In explaining ‘one ought to abide thus,’ the treatise-author supplies one more key: the marks of the five aggregates are empty 「以十八空觀故」 tr. "because of contemplation by the eighteen emptinesses"—the emptiness abided in is not a name hung up in the void; it is illuminated one by one by these eighteen layers of gates of contemplation, from inner emptiness and outer emptiness on to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; so ‘not two and not different’ has a landing-place in contemplative practice, and is not idly saying that two emptinesses are equal.

Next, see why 「不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide" is precisely 「住」 tr. "abiding". Śakra asks where one ought not to abide, and Subhūti answers most thoroughly: in form one ought not to abide; in feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness one ought not to abide; and so on up to: in omniscience of all kinds one ought not to abide—every line tied to the one phrase 「以有所得故」 tr. "because there is something to be attained". Someone cannot help asking: since the question is about abiding, why teach only not abiding? The answer is a single sentence—if one is able, within the five aggregates, to have the mind depart and not abide, that is the meaning of abiding. So 「住」 tr. "abiding" is not pressing the mind down upon some dharma so that it does not move; it is precisely loosening the mind from all dharmas; only when one can loosen it is there settled abiding within prajñā. So first saying that one ought not to abide in the five aggregates is the general heading; afterwards saying that one ought not to abide in the gates of permanence and impermanence and so on, or in the gates of separation and so on, is the specific clarification of through which gate one lets go. Even the unconditioned mark of the four fruits one is not permitted to abide in: when a bodhisattva contemplates the emptiness of all dharmas, the moment his mind sinks back he thinks to take nirvāṇa, and nirvāṇa is precisely the unconditioned mark; since in the unconditioned mark there is no dharma to cling to, and the conditioned mark is empty, deceptive, and unreal, neither end is a place to set one’s foot down. Fields of merit are likewise: the field of the worthy and noble yields immeasurable fruit of recompense, and a bodhisattva, the moment he hears this, thinks to become a srota-āpanna; and so he is taught not to abide even in the Buddha as a field of merit—not out of disdain for fields of merit, but because the bodhisattva’s dharma ought to be equal toward all dharmas; if he discriminates great and small, he breaks the mark of the dharma of equality, and breaks too great compassion and giving that is pure in three parts.

Once ‘one ought not to abide’ is established, the sūtra text further opens many gates upon a single dharma, so that one lets go at each in turn. As regards form: 「色是常不應住，色是無常不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide in ‘form is permanent’; one ought not to abide in ‘form is impermanent’", and so on through whether suffering or pleasure, whether pure or impure, whether self or non-self, whether empty or not empty, whether quiescent or not quiescent, whether separate or not separate—pair by pair, in none of them ought one to abide. This is just what the treatise-author means: first comes the general heading, 「五眾中不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide in the five aggregates", yet people still 「不知以何門不應住」 tr. "do not know by which gate one ought not to abide", so it continues with 「常、無常等門中不應住，乃至遠離不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide in the gates of permanence, impermanence, and so on, up to: one ought not to abide in separation" to clarify it specifically—permanence and impermanence are one gate; pure and impure, self and non-self, and so on to separate and not separate, are each a gate; even such fine words as ‘empty’ and ‘quiescent’ are among what one lets go of, lest, having just left attachment to impermanence, one gets stuck again on an attachment to emptiness.

Ground after ground is likewise. The sūtra says 「初地中不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide in the first ground", and so on to the tenth ground, none otherwise; the treatise-author’s explanation goes to the essential point: 「若不捨初地，則不得二地」 tr. "if one does not relinquish the first ground, one does not attain the second ground"; for the sake of seeking great benefit one ought to relinquish small gain; and again the reason given is 「以著心取相故不應住」 tr. "because of taking marks with a clinging mind, one ought not to abide". Clearly, not abiding in the grounds is not failing to pass through the grounds; it is not being permitted to make one’s home on any ground by taking marks with a clinging mind—the moment one stops at the first ground, one precisely cannot climb to the second.

Third, see why that long string of vows is also among what 「不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide in". From the first arousing of the mind—vowing to fulfil the six perfections, to enter the bodhisattva position, to abide on the non-retrogressing ground, to raise the five supernormal powers, to roam the buddha-realms making offerings and hearing the Dharma, to adorn worlds, to bring beings to maturity—right up to vowing to obtain a vajra world, to bring beings across by the fragrance of the bodhi tree, and that in one’s world there be no names of dharmas at all: of these vows not one is not good, not one ought not to be made; why is every line tied to 「不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide"? The treatise-author answers clearly: it does not break pure abiding; it breaks only the abiding of the mind that reckons a self and takes marks; it is like tending a field: what is pulled out is the weeds, not the sprouts. One ought not to abide in order to cut off love of dharma; one ought not to abide in order not to go against the wisdom of ultimate emptiness; if, with skilful means and an unclinging mind, one has pity on beings, then though one abides there is no fault. Clearly the words 「不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide" do not fall on the content of the vow; they fall on whether the mind that makes the vow takes marks and has something to be attained. The passage inserted in the middle on the fruits realised by 「八人」 tr. "the person of the eight"—the faith-follower and the dharma-follower; the srota-āpanna born seven times, the family-to-family one, the one entering nirvāṇa in between; the sakṛdāgāmin who goes and returns once; the eight kinds of anāgāmin; the nine kinds of arhat—enumerates clearly, rung by rung, the graded order of the worthy and noble of the three vehicles, precisely in order, upon this finest of sequences, to press home once more: each rung distinct and at no rung abiding; the more imposing the ranks of fruition, the less one is permitted to set one’s foot down.

In this passage on ‘the person of the eight’ the treatise-author’s enumeration is extremely fine, and it is worth recognising item by item; only then does one know why the sūtra text ties even such imposing ranks, line by line, to ‘one ought not to abide.’ 「八人」 tr. "The person of the eight" means the two kinds of faculty in the path of seeing the truths: the faith-follower and the dharma-follower. Entering the fruit, there is the srota-āpanna: the dull one, 「極久七世生」 tr. "at the very longest born seven times", thereafter ends suffering; the sharp one 「今世煩惱盡，得阿羅漢」 tr. "in this very life exhausts the afflictions and attains arhatship"; there is also 「家家須陀洹，三世生」 tr. "the family-to-family srota-āpanna, born three times", who then enters nirvāṇa; there is 「中間須陀洹，除第三，餘中間入涅槃」 tr. "the in-between srota-āpanna: apart from the third, the rest enter nirvāṇa in between"; all 「住六無礙、五解脫中者」 tr. "who abide within the six unobstructed and the five liberations" are srota-āpannas tending toward sakṛdāgāmin. Going further, one who cuts off six kinds of fetters of the desire realm, goes once to the heavens and returns to the human world, and then enters nirvāṇa, is called a sakṛdāgāmin; cutting off the seventh portion of fetters is called tending toward anāgāmin; cutting off the eighth portion of fetters is also called tending toward anāgāmin, and is further called 「一種子斯陀含」 tr. "the single-seed sakṛdāgāmin", who dies here, is born there, and enters nirvāṇa. One able to cut off all the fetters of the desire realm is called an anāgāmin: dying here, he is born in the form or formless realm and enters nirvāṇa, never coming back to be born again; the anāgāmin is further analysed into eight—ceasing in this life; ceasing in the intermediate existence; entering nirvāṇa at the very moment of birth; after birth cultivating and raising the practices; not diligently seeking the practices; going upward up to Akaniṣṭha; being born in the formless realm and entering nirvāṇa; attaining the bodily witness and entering nirvāṇa—each one distinct. As for the arhat, he too 「有九種，漏盡捨身時，名入無餘涅槃」 tr. "has nine kinds; when, with the outflows exhausted, he relinquishes the body, this is called entering nirvāṇa without remainder". In this long string, from the faith-follower and the dharma-follower to the nine kinds of arhat, the ranks are analysed ever more finely, yet the sūtra presses home ‘one ought not to abide’ at every rung—precisely to show that the more imposing and delightful the ranks of fruition, the easier it is to recognise something attained halfway and make one’s home there; so each rung is distinct, and at no rung is one permitted to set one’s foot down.

Among the vows there are also several extraordinary states, which the sūtra likewise ties one by one to ‘one ought not to abide,’ and on which the treatise-author comments. First, the four bases of supernormal power and long life: a śrāvaka who cultivates the four bases of supernormal power well, obtaining the power of samādhi, is still 「能住壽若一劫、若減一劫」 tr. "able to sustain his life for an eon or for somewhat less than an eon"; a bodhisattva who cultivates well the samādhi of the four bases of supernormal power—「若欲如恒河沙劫壽，亦得如意」 tr. "if he wishes for a lifespan of eons as many as the sands of the Ganges, he also obtains it as he wishes"—a lifespan as long as this he vows to obtain, and yet is not permitted to cling to. Second, the vajra world: 「餘世界雖底有金剛及佛所行所坐處有金剛，而餘處皆無」 tr. "though other worlds have vajra at their base, and have vajra where the Buddha walks and sits, elsewhere they have none"; this bodhisattva alone makes a great vow, vowing that a whole three-thousand great-thousand world be pure vajra. Third, bringing beings across by the fragrance of the bodhi tree: he vows that his own bodhi tree give forth such a wondrous fragrance that beings who smell it 「無有婬欲、瞋恚、愚癡，亦無聲聞、辟支佛心」 tr. "have no sexual desire, anger, or delusion, nor the mind of a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha", and will surely attain unsurpassed awakening; even those who smell the fragrance have 「身病、意病皆悉除盡」 tr. "sicknesses of body and sicknesses of mind all entirely removed". Each state surpasses the one before, and surpassing states are precisely where the taking of marks and the haughty mind lurk most easily; so one vows to obtain them, yet the mind is not permitted to abide.

The last state is the hardest to believe, and also shows the purport most. Someone objects: the matters above, though rare, can still be believed; only the item ‘that in the world there be no names of form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the buddhas’ is truly hard to believe and accept. The treatise-author answers with a picture of a pure land: in a world where people of great merit and wisdom are born, 「樹木、虛空、土地、山水等常出諸法實相之音」 tr. "the trees, space, the ground, the mountains and waters, and so on constantly give forth the sound of the real mark of all dharmas", the sounds they give forth all being non-arising and non-ceasing, neither pure nor stained, empty, signless, and non-action; 「眾生生便聞是音，自然得無生法忍」 tr. "as soon as beings are born they hear these sounds and naturally attain the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas", and therefore there is no need to explain distinctly the names of the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, the six perfections, and so on up to the buddhas. The beings of this world 「皆有三十二相、八十隨形好莊嚴身，無量光明，一種道，一種果」 tr. "all have bodies adorned with the thirty-two marks and the eighty minor marks, immeasurable light, one kind of path, one kind of fruit". Why is even so surpassing a vow also ‘one ought not to abide’? The treatise-author lays it bare: when a bodhisattva thinks to himself 「我能生如是世界」 tr. "I am able to bring forth such a world", he easily 「生高心」 tr. "gives rise to a haughty mind", and so 「不應取相住」 tr. "one ought not to abide by taking marks"; Subhūti further states for himself the root of not abiding—「諸佛得佛道時，於諸法中不得定實相故，當何所住」 tr. "when the buddhas attained the buddha-path, because they did not find any fixed real mark among dharmas—where should one abide?" If even the buddhas found among dharmas no fixed, real mark to abide in, then a bodhisattva making this pure vow of course also has no mark to settle in.

Fourth, see Śāriputra’s supplementary question and the four similes. This exchange was originally Śakra asking and Subhūti answering; in the middle Śāriputra suddenly has a thought: if there is no abiding anywhere at all, abiding where does one accomplish the buddha-path? Subhūti asks back, 「諸佛何所住」 tr. "where do the buddhas abide?", and Śāriputra answers for himself, 「諸佛無有住處」 tr. "the buddhas have no place of abiding"—they do not abide in form, do not abide in the nature of the conditioned or the unconditioned, and so on up to not abiding in omniscience of all kinds; Subhūti then confirms it: the bodhisattva ought to abide in dharmas as the buddhas do—neither abiding nor not abiding—training in 「住不住法」 tr. "the dharma of abiding-not-abiding". In the latter half of the sūtra text, the gods raise a doubt: the speech of yakṣas is coarse and near and can still be understood—why can Subhūti’s speaking not be understood at all? Subhūti simply lifts the lid off speech altogether: I have nothing to discourse on, I do not even speak a single word, and there is also no hearer; words are not prajñā, within prajñā there is no hearer, and the awakening of the buddhas is without words and without speaking. Immediately the four similes come one after another—a conjured person teaching the Dharma to a conjured person; seeing a buddha teach the Dharma in a dream; two people in a deep ravine each giving forth an echo; a skilled conjurer conjuring a buddha and the fourfold assembly and teaching the Dharma—and at each simile he asks, 「是中有說者、聽者、知者不」 tr. "is there within this a speaker, a hearer, a knower, or not?", and the gods answer each one, 「不也」 tr. "No." The four similes share one mechanism: speaking and hearing are plainly there, yet speaker and hearer are wholly unfindable. The gods turn to the thought 「轉深轉妙」 tr. "ever deeper, ever more subtle", and Subhūti then says that form, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, is all neither deep nor subtle; neither deep nor subtle—precisely to break their taking hold of prajñā as some exceedingly deep, hard-to-come-by thing. Hearing 「非深非妙」 tr. "neither deep nor subtle", the gods turn another thought: within this Dharma it 「不說色」 tr. "does not speak of form", and so on up to 「不說阿耨多羅三藐三菩提道」 tr. "does not speak of the path of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi"—it turns out to 「不說名字語言」 tr. "not speak in names and language". This thought is not a complaint; rather it has come close to the actual state of things—Subhūti at once confirms that this is precisely the point: within this Dharma 「無說者、無聽者、無知者」 tr. "there is no speaker, no hearer, no knower", so all who wish to abide in and wish to realise the four fruits and on up to the buddha-path 「不離是忍」 tr. "do not depart from this acceptance", and the bodhisattva, from the first arousing of the mind, ought to abide thus, 「以無說、無聽故」 tr. "because there is no speaking and no hearing".

The treatise-author’s explanation of Śāriputra’s question comes to rest on one meaning, ‘the Buddha’s children follow the father’: 「諸菩薩皆是佛子，子法應如父所行」 tr. "all bodhisattvas are the Buddha’s children, and the dharma of a child is that it ought to act as the father acts"—the mind of the buddhas 「於一切法中無所住」 tr. "abides nowhere among all dharmas"; from form on to omniscience of all kinds it abides nowhere, and so the bodhisattva ought 「用無所住心行般若波羅蜜」 tr. "to practise prajñāpāramitā with a mind that abides nowhere". It goes through one layer further: the buddhas 「無所住心中亦不住，非不住心中亦不住」 tr. "do not abide even in the mind that abides nowhere, and do not abide even in the mind that is not non-abiding", leaning on neither of these two minds, ‘abiding nowhere’ and ‘not non-abiding,’ solely 「畢竟清淨故」 tr. "because of ultimate purity"; the bodhisattva, abiding as the Buddha abides and training as the Buddha trains, also takes his stand upon this ultimate purity. This brings the abstruse phrase ‘neither abiding nor not abiding’ down to earth as a household rule that can be practised—not hanging up a separate mark of not abiding to guard, but loosening along with it even the mind that guards ‘not abiding.’

Fifth, see the closing at the end. The treatise-author supplies a layer to the simile of the yakṣas: the gods compare what they have not yet understood to what people cannot make out, and the matter and its drift need not be entirely the same; though the speech of yakṣas is hard to make out, by seeing their appearance with the eye and gauging their minds one can still know them, as a deep abyss of swift water can be crossed if one gets a boat; but prajñā is ultimately empty, without fixed mark, not graspable, not something that can be passed on by translation to bring about understanding—existent, non-existent, both existent and non-existent, neither existent nor non-existent, and on to the negation of the negation of existence and the negation of the negation of non-existence: none of these can be said to reach it; the place of the mind’s activity ceases, the path of speech is cut off. Names are all empty, deceptive and without reality; only by using names is there language, and without names there is no language; so 「無說無聽」 tr. "no speaking and no hearing" is not a deliberate show of loftiness and mystery; it is the actual fact that names and words are empty from the first. At the end Subhūti states for himself: it is not so for me alone; when the Buddha attained awakening he too did not speak, and within the mark of quiescence there is in truth no speaker and no hearer; from srota-āpanna on up to the buddha-path, all exist by virtue of the unconditioned dharma; apart from this dharma, apart from this acceptance, none of them stands. The final sentence gathers up the whole unit: because all contemplations cease and because language is cut off, it cannot be spoken; because it cannot be spoken, it cannot be heard; because it cannot be heard, it cannot be known; because it cannot be known—toward all dharmas not receiving and not clinging, then one enters nirvāṇa. So the 「不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide" all along the way, walked to its end, is 「無受無著」 tr. "not receiving and not clinging"; where there is no receiving and no clinging, that is the gate of nirvāṇa.

In supplementing the simile of the yakṣas, the treatise-author also cites a tradition to fill out the scene: 「天帝九百九十九門，門皆以十六青衣夜叉守之」 tr. "the lord of the heavens has nine hundred and ninety-nine gates, and each gate is guarded by sixteen blue-robed yakṣas"; these yakṣas are 「語言浮偽，情趣妖諂」 tr. "shallow and false in speech, uncanny and fawning in disposition"; the gods look down on them and pay them no mind, so although they do not understand their speech, by observing their appearance and gauging their intent they can still know them—which is precisely using this ‘base and yet knowable’ to set off, by contrast, the ‘profound and unknowable’ of prajñā. Again the gods doubt: since one wishes to understand by means of similes, why is it that 「此譬喻轉更深妙」 tr. "these similes become even deeper and more subtle"? The treatise-author explains: a simile is basically 「以麁喻細、以定事明不定」 tr. "using the coarse to illustrate the fine, using a fixed matter to clarify what is not fixed", but what is illustrated in prajñā has no fixed mark, so 「此譬喻亦微妙無定相」 tr. "these similes too are subtle and without fixed mark"—only when even the similes used to bring about understanding have no fixed mark to grasp are they similes of deep prajñā.

One further echo must also be recognised: the gods are lost and sunk in deep prajñā, and the treatise-author points out on Subhūti’s behalf that 「般若波羅蜜不異五眾，五眾實相即是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā is not different from the five aggregates; the real mark of the five aggregates is itself prajñāpāramitā", and so 「五眾非深非妙，乃至一切種智非深非妙」 tr. "the five aggregates are neither deep nor subtle, and so on up to: omniscience of all kinds is neither deep nor subtle". This sentence is woven on the very same loom as the First Part’s ‘the real mark of the five aggregates is itself nirvāṇa’—prajñā is not some separate deep and subtle thing outside the five aggregates; the real mark of the five aggregates, just as it is, is prajñā, so there is no depth to take hold of and no subtlety to cling to. Once the notion of depth and subtlety comes to rest, it flows straight on to the closing place at the end: 「無受無著，則入涅槃」 tr. "not receiving and not clinging, then one enters nirvāṇa".

At the end Subhūti pushes this no speaking and no hearing further, to its extreme: it is not so for himself alone—「佛得菩提時亦無說，寂滅相實無說者、聽者」 tr. "when the Buddha attained awakening he too did not speak; in the mark of quiescence there is in truth no speaker and no hearer"; and further, 「菩薩初發心乃至得佛，於其中間，一切法無說、無聞」 tr. "from the bodhisattva’s first arousing of the mind until he attains buddhahood, in all that interval, all dharmas are without speaking and without hearing". From the first arousing of the mind to becoming a buddha, in between there is not one place where it can be spoken or heard—only now does one see that ‘no speaking and no hearing’ is not a pointed remark for one occasion but the real mark through and through; and the four fruits, on up to the buddha-path, 「皆因無為法而有」 tr. "all exist by virtue of the unconditioned dharma"; apart from this unconditioned dharma, apart from this acceptance, not a single fruit stands.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「不二不別」 tr. "not two and not different" as two things being equal. It does not say that the emptiness of form equals the emptiness of the bodhisattva; it says that there are fundamentally not two emptinesses to be equal. If it is read as equality, two marks are still being kept and compared, and precisely this is not yet empty. What the simile of the sandalwood fire going out and the dung-and-grass fire going out wants is precisely the words ‘within the going-out there is no difference.’

Do not read 「不應住」 tr. "one ought not to abide" as doing nothing at all. The sūtra text speaks fully, item by item, of the six perfections, the supernormal powers, adorning worlds, and bringing beings across to liberation, and not one of them does it urge people to lay aside; what is broken is only the mind that takes marks, reckons a self, and has something to be attained. Having pity on beings with skilful means and an unclinging mind, though one abides there is no fault—this sentence is the watershed of the whole passage; miss it, and one reads prajñā as withered stillness.

Do not read not abiding in the unconditioned mark of the four fruits as disdain for the noble fruits. That the graded order is enumerated so clearly, rung by rung, shows precisely that it is not discarded; what does not abide is the mind that, the moment it hears that the field of merit is immeasurable, thinks to take realisation and stop. The more imposing the ranks of fruition, the more it reminds one that one is not permitted to make one’s home halfway.

Do not read 「無說無聽」 tr. "no speaking and no hearing" as Subhūti not having taught the Dharma. In the four similes the conjured person, the dream-buddha, and the conjurer are all plainly teaching the Dharma; what is broken is the grasping at 「有一個實說者實聽者」 tr. "there being a real speaker and a real hearer"; speaking and hearing are plainly there, yet speaker and hearer are unfindable. If, because of 「不說一字」 tr. "not speaking a single word", one says that the Buddhadharma cannot be transmitted, one falls straight into the gods’ doubt, 「今日聚會為何所作」 tr. "what is this gathering today for?"

Do not read 「則入涅槃」 tr. "then one enters nirvāṇa" as there being some other nirvāṇa to enter. The preceding text has just said that nirvāṇa is the unconditioned mark, and that one ought not to abide in the unconditioned mark; here 「入涅槃」 tr. "entering nirvāṇa" is not heading toward a thing; it is the name for the very moment when there is no receiving and no clinging. Once receiving and clinging come to rest, nirvāṇa appears of itself; it is not obtained from elsewhere.

Bearing on Practice

Take 「心離不住則是住義」 tr. "the mind departing and not abiding—that is the meaning of abiding" to check one’s own effort. When sitting quietly, when facing objects, ask: is the mind at this moment pressed down upon an object seeking stability, or has it departed and does not abide? Pressing down to seek ease is having something to be attained; departing and not abiding is alone abiding within prajñā. The sense of stability is not the goal; being able to loosen is.

Take 「以有所得故不應住」 tr. "because there is something to be attained, one ought not to abide" to examine every good vow. Vowing to fulfil the six perfections, to adorn a pure land, to bring beings across widely—the vows are pure in themselves; what is examined is the mind that makes the vow—is there secretly hidden within it an 「我能得此」 tr. "I can attain this"? In tending the field and pulling weeds, what is pulled out is the mark of self and the taking of marks, not the vow.

Take the graded order of the four fruits as a warning to oneself not to make one’s home halfway. When one’s practice has come into accord even a little, the thought 「我已到某地」 tr. "I have already reached such-and-such a ground" easily arises; the fruits realised from the person of the eight onward, each rung distinct and at no rung abiding, are precisely the reminder: every bit that is attained is a new place to stop, and also a new place where stopping is not permitted.

Take the four similes to loosen the grasping at speech. Hearing the Dharma, teaching the Dharma, and even the silent recitation in one’s own mind—regard them all as a conjured person teaching the Dharma, as hearing the Dharma in a dream—speaking and hearing plainly there, yet speaker and hearer wholly unfindable. Hearing thus, one is not stuck to words; speaking thus, one does not claim the merit of being able to speak.

Take 「無受無著則入涅槃」 tr. "not receiving and not clinging, then one enters nirvāṇa" as the plumb line for daily life. In the course of a day, when favourable circumstances appear one receives pleasure, and when adverse circumstances appear one receives suffering—this is 「受」 tr. "receiving"; receiving and then clinging fondly is 「著」 tr. "clinging". Toward all dharmas practise not receiving and not clinging—not numbness without feeling, but feeling without retaining; retain one bit, and one is one bit further from the gate of nirvāṇa.

Further Resonances

This unit walks, by itself, the whole course of a receiving and an unfolding. What it receives is Śakra’s question in the First Part—how ought the bodhisattva to abide in prajñā; what it unfolds is splitting this question into the two gates of where one ought to abide and where one ought not to abide, and then joining the two gates back into one key: where there is nothing to be attained is where one ought to abide; where there is something to be attained is where one ought not to abide; and when the mind departs and does not abide, this 「不住」 tr. "not abiding" is itself 「住」 tr. "abiding". From the question of abiding unfolds the question of speech: since one abides nowhere at all, speaker and hearer are also unfindable, and so the four similes come one after another, and names and words are empty from the first. At the end the question of speech is gathered back into the question of receiving and clinging—because it cannot be spoken it cannot be known, and because it cannot be known, toward all dharmas there is no receiving and no clinging. Three questions, strung on one thread: abiding is not abiding, speaking is no speaking, attaining is no attaining, and at the end they return together to the single gate of nirvāṇa, which is not receiving and not clinging. What the Last Part hands on to those who come after is just this thread—first, at the place of effort, to recognise that 「離而不住」 tr. "departing and not abiding" alone is abiding; then, at the place of making vows, to recognise that only 「不著取相」 tr. "not clinging and not taking marks" does not hinder practice; and finally, wherever receiving and clinging appear, to recognise that 「不受不著」 tr. "not receiving and not clinging" is, right there, nirvāṇa. The lord of the gods’ single question asked about abiding; the Last Part, answering to the very end, answers with a nirvāṇa of not receiving and not clinging, where the path of speech is cut off.

Further Resonances

The vein of meaning in the chapter "The Lord of the Gods" has something it inherits before it and something it opens after it. What it inherits is the preceding chapter, "Non-arising": that chapter, with the threefold non-arising, ultimate purity, and the acceptance of non-arising, carries 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" forward from a language of negation and searching into a gate of right contemplation that can be cultivated and realised, and gathers this into Subhūti's answer for which he received praise—not only delight in speaking and words are non-arising, but form, up to omniscience of all kinds, is likewise without any arising. Non-arising having already been spoken down to the level of words, this chapter follows on from it and advances one step further: the lord of the gods opens with the question 「云何應住般若」 tr. "How should one abide in prajñā?"; Subhūti answers with 「不應住」 tr. "one should not abide," and finally carries this 「不應住」 tr. "one should not abide" all the way through to 「我無所論說，乃至不說一字，亦無聽者」 tr. "I have nothing to discourse on, up to not speaking a single word, and there is also no listener," ending at 「於一切法無受無著，則入涅槃」 tr. "with no receiving and no clinging toward all dharmas, one then enters nirvāṇa." The preceding chapter makes clear the acceptance of non-arising; this chapter makes clear the abiding of non-abiding—spoken to the ultimate, both are one and the same gate, where the path of words is cut off and the place of mental activity is extinguished. As for what it opens, the chapter's end already shows the first signs of it: the gods fall into doubt upon deeper doubt, and Subhūti answers them with four similes—a conjured person, a dream, the two echoes in a deep ravine, and a skilled conjurer—speaker, listener, and knower being all unfindable. This hinge of 「化」 tr. "conjuration" is precisely what lays the ground for the chapter after it, "The Illusory Person Hears the Dharma"—the speaking of the Dharma being like an illusory person, the hearing of the Dharma is likewise like an illusion, and the vein of meaning flows on downward from this.

When later ancient masters read this chapter, the one whose approach is most complete composed a line-by-line commentary on the great sūtra that this treatise explains, and left for this chapter an explanation of the whole. In explaining the chapter's name, he does not set up the heading from 「天主」 tr. "the lord of the gods" at the end of the sūtra, but says 「從答作名，今從三問中初問為目」 tr. "Naming it from the answer—now the first of the three questions is taken as the heading," naming the chapter 「問住」 tr. "Asking about Abiding," and beneath the chapter's name he notes 「亦云無生品」 tr. "also called the chapter on Non-arising"—which shows that in this ancient master's eyes, the asking about abiding of this chapter and the non-arising of the preceding chapter were at root two faces of one continuous breath, and so their names pass into each other; this records his approach only, without judging higher or lower. At the chapter's opening he divides it as 「三品判文開為二：初、諸天請；二、受請為說」 tr. "The text of the three chapters, as divided, opens into two: first, the gods' request; second, accepting the request and speaking," meeting one by one the great gathering of the gods at the sūtra's opening and Subhūti's speaking in response to the request. On who presides in this chapter, his commentary has one sentence that judges it very clearly: of the questions of the three rounds—Śāriputra's question, Subhūti's question, and the lord of the gods' question—yet 「今是天主問，但非說教之主，故非三人也」 tr. "Now this is the lord of the gods' question; but he is not the master of the teaching, and therefore he is not one of the three persons"—though the lord of the gods is the one who opens the questioning, he is not the master of the teaching; the master of the teaching remains Subhūti, who answers in keeping with the Buddha's intent. This accords exactly with the structure of speakers in this chapter, whose main body is the lord of the gods asking and Subhūti answering, with the Buddha opening his mouth only in the middle section and at the chapter's end.

On the section on 「不應住」 tr. "one should not abide," his commentary further divides out 「別明不住凡舉十科法，涅槃中亦舉十，對得無得義」 tr. "Separately making clear non-abiding, in all ten categories of dharmas are raised; in the part on nirvāṇa ten are likewise raised, matching the meaning of attaining and not attaining"—taking ten categories to enumerate the dharma-counts in which, in this chapter, one should not abide: from the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields, the permanent and the impermanent, the mark of the unconditioned, the fields of merit, and the ten grounds, up to the gates of the worthy and noble of the three vehicles and the four bases of supernormal power—corresponding one by one with the sūtra text's enumeration of dharma-counts, which does not collapse them. Further, on the stages of the 「八人」 tr. "person of the eight" he separately sets up a reckoning of 「二十七」 tr. "twenty-seven," counting through the fruits from the faith-practiser and the dharma-practiser downward; this is the commentator's own tally, and the sūtra text of this treatise gives no total; it is recorded alongside, without judgement. On the section of Sūtra ③ and Treatise ③, following the treatise he further divides out the text as ten doubts: from citing a comparable case and refuting the attachment that the visibly present gathering of the great assembly has something being done, he refutes in turn the doubts that it is very deep and hard to understand, by what means one hears the Dharma, that the listener and the speaking are not like conjurations, and that the path of buddhahood and nirvāṇa cannot be conjured—running parallel one by one with the four similes and the simile of the yakṣa. Among these, the words cited in the doubt of the comparable case, 「九百九十九門，青衣守之」 tr. "nine hundred and ninety-nine gates, which blue-clad ones guard," run closely parallel to this treatise's explanation, 「天帝九百九十九門，門皆以十六青衣夜叉守之」 tr. "the lord of the heavens's nine hundred and ninety-nine gates, each gate guarded by sixteen blue-clad yakṣa"; only, the source he relies on reads 「喜見城」 tr. "the City of Joyful Sight" and 「王」 tr. "king," while this treatise reads 「天帝」 tr. "the lord of the heavens" and 「主」 tr. "lord"—the names differ while the circumstance is shared; both are recorded side by side, without judgement. There is another ancient master, who also once composed a commentary on this treatise itself; his work survives today in incomplete fascicles, but the surviving fascicles, as actually checked, do not reach fascicle fifty-four of the treatise, and for this chapter there is no line-by-line explanation—this records it faithfully according to the actual state of the incomplete fascicles; it is not that there was a commentary and it was lost.

Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, what the ancient master points to and what this treatise itself says are one and the same thing: this chapter's 「不應住」 tr. "one should not abide" is not an annihilation with nowhere to abide, but the proper place of prajñā, abiding without anywhere to abide. The preceding chapter removes the clinging to arising and reveals non-arising; this chapter removes the attachment to abiding and reveals non-abiding. From compliant acceptance to the acceptance of non-arising, from the question of how one should abide to the answer that one should not abide—head and tail join, and both return alike to where the path of words is cut off. And this chapter itself had long since gathered this meaning into the place of practice and the place of fruition: the five aggregates are empty, the bodhisattva is empty, neither two nor different; toward all dharmas, because nothing is attained, one should not abide, and yet the buddhas abide precisely within this abiding-nowhere; names are empty and deceptive, speaker and listener are both unfindable, and yet srota-āpanna, up to the path of buddhahood, all exist because of the unconditioned dharma. Non-abiding does not lie outside practice; it lies right in the very place of the contemplation of the emptiness of the five aggregates, of not clinging to the four fruits, and of words perishing and thought being cut off.

Therefore what the chapter "The Lord of the Gods" finally leaves behind is a way of asking that can be used again and again: the 「住」 tr. "abiding" I am now seeking—do I want to abide on some really existent support, or to abide without anywhere to abide? When I hear that all dharmas are neither two nor different and that one should not abide, is what arises in my mind bewilderment, doubt, and fear with nowhere to set my hands, or the ease of taking no further mark of the emptiness of the five aggregates and the emptiness of the bodhisattva? This stretch of Dharma that I hear and speak—am I gripping it within the marks of speaker and listener in words and phrases, or is it like a conjured person listening to a conjured person, like two echoes answering each other—speaking without speaking, hearing without hearing? Answer these few questions well in every exchange, and 「不應住」 tr. "one should not abide" is not a verdict that takes away the place of abiding, but the ultimate right abiding—with no receiving and no clinging toward all dharmas, one then enters nirvāṇa.

The Illusory Person Hears the Dharma: The Hearer Like an Illusion, and So On Up to Nirvāṇa Like an Illusion—Why It Does Not Fall into Annihilation

What Is Being Asked

The name of this chapter is 「幻人聽法」 tr. "an illusory person hears the Dharma"—hearing the Dharma with a person like a conjuration. At the very opening, a thought arises in the minds of the gods: 「該用什麼樣的人，來聽須菩提所說的法？」 tr. "What sort of person should be used to hear the Dharma that Subhūti speaks?" Subhūti, knowing their thoughts, answers: a person like a conjured person should be used to hear it, because such a person has no hearing, no listening, no knowing, and no realising. Following on from this one sentence, Subhūti pushes 「如幻如夢」 tr. "like an illusion, like a dream" all the way outward—beings are like an illusion, and the hearers of the Dharma are also like an illusion; the self, and so on up to the knower and the seer, are like an illusion, like a dream; form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the six sense-fields, contact, and feeling, the emptinesses, the perfections, the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, the four fruits of the śramaṇa up to the path of the pratyekabuddha—he picks them up one after another, time after time, and at the last says outright 「佛道如幻、如夢」 tr. "the Buddha-path is like an illusion, like a dream." Up to here the gods can still bear it, but one step further and they can hold out no longer: is even nirvāṇa like an illusion, like a dream? This question is precisely the sharpest point of the whole chapter.

Beneath it lie several questions that are not easy to answer. First, since it has already been said earlier 「無說者、無聽者」 tr. "there is no speaker and no hearer," why ask again 「該用什麼人聽」 tr. "what person should be used to hear"? Second, a conjured person has no mind and no mental-factor dharmas and simply cannot hear and receive; what meaning is there in speaking the Dharma to it? Third, and the weightiest question of all—the Buddha and nirvāṇa are called foremost among all beings and among all dharmas, the highest and most wondrous; how can they be said to be like an illusion, like a dream? Does this not sweep away even the most honoured along with everything else and fall into annihilation? The latter half of the chapter changes to another group of people, who ask about another side of the same matter: this prajñā, so very deep, hard to see, hard to understand, hard to know, quiescent, and subtle—who, in the end, can bear it? What this chapter sets out to answer is exactly how the two words 「如幻」 tr. "like an illusion" can be pushed all the way to nirvāṇa and still not fall into annihilation, and on what kind of person this deep Dharma, without anything existent, can stand firm.

Passage by Passage

First, look at where the strange phrase 「用幻化人聽法」 tr. "hearing the Dharma with a conjured person" comes from. The gods had earlier found what Subhūti said hard to understand, and only then did Subhūti take up 「幻化人聽」 tr. "a conjured person hears" as his answer—not that he really wants an illusory person to come and hear, but that he wants those who hear the Dharma to use the mind as if it were an illusion, without clinging to any dharma. Here the treatise-author points out a pair of contrasts: 「眾生」 tr. "beings" refers to the one who speaks the Dharma, and 「聽法」 tr. "hearing the Dharma" refers to the one who receives the Dharma; the speaker, the receiver, and even the Dharma that is spoken—all three places are like an illusion, like a dream. This step first hollows out the very matter of hearing the Dharma: the hearer does not cling to there really being a self that can hear or a Dharma that can be received, and only so can the 「乃至涅槃如幻」 tr. "and so on up to nirvāṇa, like an illusion" below be pushed forward.

Second, look at how Subhūti pushes 「如幻」 tr. "like an illusion" all the way to the top. Beings, the self, the knower and the seer; form up to consciousness; the six sense-fields, contact, and feeling; inner emptiness up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; dānapāramitā up to prajñāpāramitā; the four foundations of mindfulness up to the eighteen unshared dharmas; the four fruits of the śramaṇa up to the path of the pratyekabuddha; the Buddha-path—this long series is not a display of fine words, but is meant to make clear that whatever falls within names and marks, whatever falls within causes and conditions, is without a single exception like an illusion, like a dream. Pushed as far as 「佛道如幻」 tr. "the Buddha-path is like an illusion," even the highest fruit-stage has been gathered in. The gods are startled and doubtful because 「一切眾生中佛第一，一切諸法中涅槃第一」 tr. "among all beings the Buddha is foremost; among all dharmas nirvāṇa is foremost"—how can these two, the highest and most wondrous, be like an illusion? So they settle their minds and ask once more: are the Buddha and nirvāṇa truly like an illusion, like a dream—could it be that Subhūti has misspoken, or that we have misheard? Subhūti’s reply is decisive, as if cutting through nail and iron: 「正自如幻、如夢。」 tr. "They are precisely like an illusion, like a dream." The key lies in the reason he gives immediately afterward—though these two dharmas, the Buddha and nirvāṇa, are wondrous, both come forth from false dharmas: it is from false dharmas that there is nirvāṇa, and from merit and wisdom that there is the Buddha; both dharmas belong to causes and conditions and have nothing really fixed. It can be seen that 「如幻」 tr. "like an illusion" does not say that nirvāṇa is annihilated and does not exist, but says that it too is established in dependence on conditions and has no own-nature to be clung to—this is exactly where the prajñā sentence 「幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別」 tr. "illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa are not two and not different" comes to rest: the three are equal in the one sense of 「無自性」 tr. "having no own-nature"; this is not lowering nirvāṇa to the level of the false, but setting down, along with it, even the mark of opposition between the false and nirvāṇa.

Third, look at how the hypothesis 「設有法勝涅槃亦如幻」 tr. "supposing there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion" is set up. Subhūti had already said 「無有法勝涅槃者」 tr. "there is no dharma that surpasses nirvāṇa"—nirvāṇa is the place where all sorrow and suffering ultimately cease, highest as the great ocean is highest among the many rivers, as Sumeru is highest among the mountains, as space is highest among dharmas; in it there is no suffering of old age, sickness, and death, no declines such as wrong views, greed, and anger, no suffering of separation from the loved, meeting with the hated, and not getting what one seeks; all that is impermanent, false and deceptive, ruined, and changing is entirely absent from it; it is where the buddhas, bodhisattvas, and disciples of the ten directions return, and it is never broken by Māra. Since no dharma surpasses it, why set up further 「若有法勝涅槃亦如幻」 tr. "if there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion"? The treatise-author’s answer is most steady: the method of simile sometimes uses real things and sometimes puts forth hypotheses, in every case speaking according to causes and conditions; just as 「若令樹木解我所說，我亦記言得須陀洹」 tr. "if trees could understand what I say, I would also predict that they attain srota-āpanna"—trees have nothing by which to understand, and this is hypothesised only to open and awaken people’s minds. This hypothesis serves to state the power of prajñā in breaking dharmas to its very end: like a great red-hot iron ball set on a fine hair, which burns straight through and passes on with its heat undiminished, only there is nothing more to burn; prajñā breaks all existent dharmas, even nirvāṇa, passing straight through without obstruction with the power of its knowledge undiminished, only there is no dharma left to break. 「設有法勝涅槃亦如幻」 tr. "Supposing there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion" speaks precisely of this power of wisdom that breaks until there is nothing more to break, and not of there truly being a dharma that surpasses nirvāṇa.

Fourth, the latter half of the chapter changes to another group of people, who ask about another side of the same deep Dharma: who can bear it? The great disciples and countless thousands of bodhisattvas ask together—this prajñā, very deep, hard to see, hard to understand, hard to know, quiescent, and subtle: who shall be its receiver? The treatise-author explains these six senses word by word: because dharmas have no fixed mark, it is 「甚深」 tr. "very deep"; because reflection, contemplation, and practice cease, it is 「難見」 tr. "hard to see"; because one does not cling to prajñā, it is 「難解、難知」 tr. "hard to understand, hard to know"; because it extinguishes the three poisons and all idle discourse, it is 「寂滅」 tr. "quiescent"; because one who obtains this wondrous flavour is ever satisfied, and all other knowledge is coarse and rough, it is 「微妙」 tr. "subtle". The knowledge of worldly people is shallow: they covet merit yet do not cultivate merit; clinging to existence they are brave, and at the breaking of existence they are timid; they cling firmly to wrong views and will not let them go—people like this cannot bear it, and so the question is asked, 「誰能信受」 tr. "who can believe and receive it?" Ānanda comes forward and answers on their behalf with four kinds of people: first, the avaivartika bodhisattva, who knows that dharmas neither arise nor cease and clings to nothing; second, the arhat whose outflows are exhausted, whose vows are already fulfilled, who ever abides in the three samādhi and accords with prajñā; third, the three kinds of learners, because they are accomplished in right view and by the power of the four faiths; fourth, the bodhisattva who, though he has not yet attained avaivartika, has merit and sharp faculties and constantly follows good friends. What the four kinds of people share is 「不言是法非法」 tr. "not saying of this Dharma that it is not the Dharma"—they do not, out of love and attachment for what they previously learned, disparage prajñā as not the Dharma.

Fifth, here is inserted a challenge concerning the one who speaks the Dharma, and in it the measure of the whole chapter can be seen exactly. It is asked: Ānanda has always been silent—why does he answer on others’ behalf here? The treatise-author’s answer is very important: Ānanda is the general of the third turning of the Dharma-wheel and the World-Honored One’s close attendant; though he has attained the first path, his outflows are not yet exhausted, and he is not yet skilful in the wisdom of 「空」 tr. "emptiness"; were he to speak the dharma of emptiness, he himself not yet having realised and entered it, whatever he said would become someone else’s affair, and so he is without words; but asking 「誰能信受」 tr. "who can believe and receive it" is a matter having marks, not one concerning the principle of emptiness, and so Ānanda can ask and can answer—at this moment the mind of delight in speaking arises in him, and though his afflictions are not yet exhausted, his power of faith is keen and strong, and so within deep prajñā he can ask and answer in accordance with the Dharma. This passage is no idle stroke: it draws the boundary between 「說空」 tr. "speaking of emptiness" and 「說有」 tr. "speaking of existence"—speaking of emptiness requires entering it oneself, while speaking of existence can be reached through the wisdom of hearing and the power of faith; even the qualification to answer on others’ behalf must be distinguished this carefully, which shows exactly that the emptiness of prajñā is not something to be spoken of loosely. Then another question gathers up the doctrinal meaning: prajñā is without anything existent and without fixed dharmas—how can it be said that the four kinds of people believe and receive it and do not slander it as not the Dharma? The answer lies in the cause and condition Subhūti himself speaks—「不以空分別色，色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "one does not use emptiness to discriminate form; form is emptiness, and emptiness is form": prajñā has nothing lost and nothing broken; since nothing is broken there is no fault or offence, and so they do not slander it as not the Dharma; emptiness is prajñā—not that emptiness is used to break form and make it empty, but that form and emptiness are from the root not two.

Sixth, the final section brings the deep Dharma back down to the bodhisattva’s practice and virtues. Someone doubts: the great disciples ask the question, so why does Subhūti answer the gods instead? The treatise-author answers: the great disciples have already attained arhatship; they ask for the sake of their own doubts, and the benefit is small; the gods have aroused the mind to become bodhisattvas, and because the benefit is deep he speaks for them—and though he speaks for the gods, that is itself answering the great disciples. Next, Śāriputra praises and helps bring it to completion: prajñā can not only be received as empty, but also broadly teaches the three vehicles, gathers in bodhisattvas, takes a body by apparitional birth, and brings about the seven eloquences. The treatise-author explains them one by one: 「攝取菩薩」 tr. "gathers in bodhisattvas" means that within prajñā there are the ten grounds, which lead the bodhisattva from one ground up to the tenth; 「化生」 tr. "apparitional birth" speaks of the karmic result of practising prajñā; and the seven eloquences are the virtue of practising prajñā without obstruction in all dharmas—swift eloquence, sharp eloquence, the inexhaustible eloquence of delight in speaking, unbreakable eloquence, responsive eloquence, the eloquence of meaning, and the eloquence foremost in the world—each one having its reason. Finally Śāriputra has one more doubt: Subhūti always delights in speaking of emptiness—why does he accept my words about broadly teaching the three vehicles? Subhūti gathers up the whole chapter in one sentence: though prajñā broadly teaches the three vehicles, it does not have fixed marks, 「皆以十八空和合故說」 tr. "all are spoken because of the coming together of the eighteen emptinesses"; gathering in bodhisattvas and the seven eloquences are likewise so, 「以空智慧故」 tr. "because of the wisdom of emptiness." It can be seen that broadly teaching the three vehicles and ultimate emptiness do not obstruct each other—precisely because of the eighteen emptinesses can the teaching of the three vehicles be established without falling into fixed marks.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「乃至涅槃如幻」 tr. "and so on up to nirvāṇa, like an illusion" as nirvāṇa being annihilated, not existing at all. The treatise says it clearly: nirvāṇa is like an illusion with respect to its 「從虛妄法出、屬因緣、無有實定」 tr. "coming forth from false dharmas, belonging to causes and conditions, having nothing really fixed"; it is that there is no own-nature to be clung to, not that there is no nirvāṇa to be realised; the sūtra’s own verdict is 「幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別」 tr. "illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa are not two and not different"—the three are equal in having no own-nature, not that nirvāṇa is pulled down to the false. Nor should 「設有法勝涅槃亦如幻」 tr. "supposing there were a dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, it too would be like an illusion" be read as there truly being a dharma that surpasses nirvāṇa; it is a hypothetical phrase spoken according to causes and conditions, like the simile of trees understanding speech, only to carry the power of prajñā in breaking dharmas to the end where 「更無可破」 tr. "there is nothing more to break." Still less should 「用幻化人聽法」 tr. "hearing the Dharma with a conjured person" be read as teaching people to hear numbly and without mind; it teaches the hearer to use the mind as if it were an illusion, without clinging to dharmas—it is not a matter of neither hearing nor receiving. Finally, do not read Ānanda’s answering on others’ behalf as Ānanda being able to speak of emptiness; the treatise uses precisely this to draw the boundary—what Ānanda can answer is the question having marks, 「誰能信受」 tr. "who can believe and receive it," while speaking of emptiness still requires entering it oneself before one can be skilful; this distinction is precisely the chapter’s most solemn reminder of 「空之難說」 tr. "how hard emptiness is to speak of."

Bearing on Practice

This chapter can serve as a mirror in which to look into the mind. When we apply ourselves to hearing the Dharma and reading the sūtras, we might reflect on the phrase 「幻人聽法」 tr. "an illusory person hears the Dharma": can we hear and receive while not clinging to there being a real 「我」 tr. "self" who hears, a real 「法」 tr. "Dharma" that is obtained? Only by hearing as if in an illusion do we keep the Dharma from becoming one more thing to be clung to and contended over. On meeting words as shaking as 「乃至涅槃如幻」 tr. "and so on up to nirvāṇa, like an illusion," do not rush to fear or rush to deny; first see which sense it speaks of—「無自性」 tr. "having no own-nature," or 「無其事」 tr. "there being no such thing"; once this step is clearly distinguished, the many prajñā sayings that seem to sweep everything away will not be read as annihilation. Setting ourselves beside the four kinds of people who can receive deep prajñā, we can also look back at ourselves: out of love and attachment for old understandings, do we judge first 「非法」 tr. "not the Dharma," or can we, before ultimate emptiness, keep the mind from growing timid and from slandering? And the passage in which Ānanda 「說有能答、說空須自入」 tr. "speaking of existence, can answer; speaking of emptiness, must enter it himself" is an even closer reminder: some principles cannot be spoken just because one has heard much and remembers them well—one must truly enter into them oneself; keeping a measure of honesty where one has not yet realised, and not forcing oneself to speak of a state one has not entered, is exactly the measure a practitioner should have.

Further Resonances

The shaking phrase of this chapter, 「乃至涅槃如幻」 tr. "and so on up to nirvāṇa, like an illusion," has long been valued in prajñā learning, and later expounders of the sūtras have often drawn on it. An ancient master of the Tiantai house, in discussing the truth of cessation and explaining 「若有一法過涅槃者，我亦說如幻化」 tr. "if there were one dharma surpassing nirvāṇa, I would also say it is like an illusion, like a conjuration," quotes word for word this chapter’s opening sūtra text, 「諸天子心念，如幻人聽法，無聽無聞、無知無證」 tr. "the gods thought in their minds: hearing the Dharma like an illusory person, without listening and without hearing, without knowing and without realising," up to the treatise’s explanation 「一切眾生中佛第一、一切法中涅槃第一」 tr. "among all beings the Buddha is foremost, among all dharmas nirvāṇa is foremost," using it to bear out the sense that nirvāṇa is like an illusion and not annihilation—only the fascicle numbers he cites differ slightly from the present text; here his approach is noted, without discussing the similarities and differences. Another ancient master, commenting passage by passage on the preceding chapter, passes over this chapter’s gist with a single sentence, 「次幻聽品示其聽法之方」 tr. "next, the chapter Illusory Hearing shows the method of hearing the Dharma," without unfolding it—it can be seen that those who read this chapter in ancient times all first recognised 「聽法之方」 tr. "the method of hearing the Dharma" as its eye. As for the chapter’s name, this chapter was of old also called 「如幻品」 tr. "the chapter Like an Illusion"; in the old scripture catalogues, indexes, and the like, among the several Chinese translations of the same Sanskrit text, it appears sometimes as 「幻人聽法品」 tr. "the chapter The Illusory Person Hears the Dharma," sometimes as 「幻聽品」 tr. "the chapter Illusory Hearing," sometimes as 「如幻品」 tr. "the chapter Like an Illusion" or 「法師如幻品」 tr. "the chapter The Dharma-Teacher Is Like an Illusion," the chapter names and chapter order varying from one to another; these are only differences of designation in transmission and translation, recorded together for reference, without judging which is right. Bringing these readings back to this chapter, what most deserves keeping is not a finer table of chapter names, but this chapter’s use of 「如幻」 tr. "like an illusion": it dares to push like-an-illusion all the way to nirvāṇa, yet on reaching the end it holds fast with 「不二不別」 tr. "not two and not different," neither leaving a single dharma to be clung to nor sweeping nirvāṇa away into nothingness—in this one letting go and one holding fast lies precisely the measure of prajñā’s 「畢竟空而不斷滅」 tr. "ultimate emptiness and yet no annihilation."

Overview

"Scattering Flowers" opens with an offering made in joy. Śakra Devānām Indra and the gods of the three-thousand great-thousand world, having heard the meaning of prajñā that Subhūti spoke, each scatter heavenly flowers over the Buddha, the bodhisattvas, the saṅgha of bhikṣus, and Subhūti; the flowers spread through all of space and are transformed into a flower-dais, dignified and surpassingly wondrous. Subhūti thinks in his mind: these flowers are conjured flowers, 「從心樹生」 tr. "born from the heart-tree", not flowers born of trees. Śakra Devānām Indra knows what he is thinking and says to Subhūti: these flowers are not flowers that arise, nor are they born from the mind-tree. Subhūti presses him on this very point—if they are a dharma that does not arise, then 「若非生法，不名為華」 tr. "if it is not an arising dharma, it is not called a flower"; once one says that it does not arise, then even the name 「華」 tr. "flower" has nowhere to be placed. Śakra Devānām Indra presses further: is it only that these flowers do not arise, or does form too not arise? Subhūti answers comprehensively: form; feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness; the six sense-fields and the six contacts; dānapāramitā and so on to prajñāpāramitā; inner emptiness and so on to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on to the eighteen unshared dharmas; and so on to omniscience of all kinds—each one, 「若不生，是不名為某」 tr. "if it does not arise, it is not called such-and-such"—not a single dharma collapses out of the account; whatever falls within names and marks is all non-arising. The chapter is named "Scattering Flowers," but its eye lies not in the flowers as an offering but in the non-arising that is discussed on the occasion of this one scattering of flowers: since the flowers are non-arising, all dharmas too are non-arising; if one dharma is empty, then all dharmas are empty. And the question and answer of the whole chapter consists mainly of Śakra Devānām Indra (whom the sūtra also calls Kauśika and the lord of the gods) raising the questions and Subhūti taking them up and answering them, with Śāriputra now and then joining in to ask; the Buddha only, in sūtra ②, approves what Subhūti has said—nowhere in the whole chapter does the Buddha speak for himself as the lead voice, so one should read according to what the sūtra text marks, and not by habit attribute the words to the Buddha.

The two rounds of the First Part carry the non-arising of the scattered flowers forward into the positive proposition 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name". Once sūtra ① has made clear that the flowers are non-arising and all dharmas are non-arising, the treatise-author explains why: the gods, rejoicing on hearing prajñā, scatter conjured flowers, making offerings in accord with the mark of the emptiness of all dharmas that prajñā speaks of; scattering them over the Buddha is for the Buddha Jewel, scattering them over prajñā is for the Dharma Jewel, and scattering them over the saṅgha of bhikṣus is for the Saṅgha Jewel; what is called 「非生華」 tr. "flowers that do not arise" means that these flowers are non-arising, empty, with nothing they come out from, and what is called 「意樹」 tr. "the mind-tree" means that the gods obtain whatever they think of at will. Non-arising once set firm, Subhūti further unfolds the meaning of the provisional name and the real mark: the five aggregates arise from the coming together of causes and conditions, have no fixed nature, and have only a provisional name, while 「五眾如、法性、實際」 tr. "the suchness of the five aggregates, dharma-nature, and the limit of reality" are precisely the real mark of this provisional name; the noble ones know that names are the mundane truth and the real mark is the truth of the highest meaning, and within the highest meaning there is neither this nor that, and no contention either. Sūtra ② turns to the core question of the whole chapter: Śakra Devānām Indra asks the Buddha 「云何不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "how does one speak the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name?"; the Buddha approves, and answers it himself—form and so on to omniscience of all kinds, the srota-āpanna and so on to the Buddha, are all only provisional names; Subhūti speaks the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name, because 「是諸法實相，無壞不壞故」 tr. "this real mark of all dharmas is neither destroyed nor not destroyed". This one sentence, 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name", appears eight times in the one round of the First Part, restated list of dharmas by list of dharmas, and it is what the thread of meaning of the whole chapter hangs upon. Subhūti at once takes it up: the bodhisattva who trains thus trains by not training in form and so on to not training in omniscience of all kinds, because he does not see any fixed form or fixed dharma that could be trained in; the emptiness of form does not train in the emptiness of form, and if one thus does not train in emptiness, this is called training in emptiness, because it is not two; thus one is able to train in immeasurable, boundless, asaṃkhyeya buddha-dharmas, not training for the increase of form nor for the decrease of form, not training for receiving nor for cessation. Śāriputra here joins the question and answer, and it closes on a string of determinations: because the bodhisattva does not receive any dharma, he is able to reach omniscience of all kinds; he does not see the arising of form nor see the cessation of form, does not see receiving nor see not receiving, because the nature of form is empty—「不生不滅、不受不捨、不垢不淨」 tr. "neither arising nor ceasing, neither receiving nor relinquishing, neither stained nor pure". Treatise ② explains this, setting up the simile of the great ocean to make it clear—「譬如大海，眾流歸之不增，火珠煎之不減」 tr. "it is like the great ocean: the many streams return to it and it does not increase, the fire-pearl boils it and it does not decrease"; all dharmas are also thus: the dharma-nature constantly abides, and therefore, though there is arising and ceasing, going out and coming in, it neither increases nor decreases.

The two rounds of the Last Part carry the real mark of 「不壞假名」 tr. "not destroying the provisional name" forward to the unfindability of the Tathāgata, and then gather it into the threefold praise of the vastness of prajñā. In sūtra ③, Śakra Devānām Indra asks Śāriputra: where should the bodhisattva's prajñāpāramitā be sought? Śāriputra answers with a line widely transmitted in later ages—「當於須菩提品中求」 tr. "it should be sought in Subhūti's chapter". Śakra Devānām Indra turns and asks Subhūti whose spiritual power it is that makes Śāriputra speak thus; Subhūti answers 「是佛神力」 tr. "it is the Buddha's spiritual power", because of the dharma of nothing received; from this he speaks at large of the unfindability of the Tathāgata: within the suchness of form the suchness of the Tathāgata is unfindable, and within the suchness of the Tathāgata the suchness of form is unfindable; the Tathāgata, within the suchness of the five aggregates and within the mark of dharmas, is neither joined nor dispersed, and so on to omniscience of all kinds, all likewise. He goes on to unfold where prajñā is not to be sought: one should not seek prajñā within form, nor should one seek prajñā apart from form, because all dharmas are without anything existent and unfindable. Treatise ③ takes this up and, by the principle of refuting the Tathāgata, pushes it forward layer by layer—the real mark of all dharmas is also called non-receiving and also called suchness; seeking the Tathāgata within the five aggregates in the five ways, he is in every case unfindable; only because of idle discourse is it said that there is a Tathāgata, and in order to cut off idle discourse there is no Tathāgata; at the end, by the three kinds of prajñā (the prajñā of words, the prajñā of the real mark, and the prajñā of right contemplation), it settles the meaning of 「當於何處求」 tr. "where should it be sought". In sūtra ④, Śakra Devānām Indra praises prajñā three times—「是摩訶波羅蜜」 tr. "this is the mahāpāramitā", it is the immeasurable pāramitā, it is the boundless pāramitā; Subhūti explains his praise at large: 「色大故，般若波羅蜜亦大」 tr. "because form is great, prajñāpāramitā too is great", because the three limits of form are unfindable; 「色無量故，般若波羅蜜無量」 tr. "because form is immeasurable, prajñāpāramitā is immeasurable"—as the measure of space is unfindable, so too the measure of form is unfindable; because form is boundless, prajñā is boundless; because its objects are boundless, prajñā is boundless; and so on to 「眾生無邊故，般若波羅蜜無邊」 tr. "because beings are boundless, prajñāpāramitā is boundless". And beings are boundless precisely because beings have only a provisional name, are without anything existent, and are pure from the very beginning; therefore the treatise-author gathers it up, saying 「若破眾生相，餘一切易破」 tr. "if the mark of beings is broken, all the rest is easily broken"—and the whole chapter ends here.

The sūtra text and the treatise's explanation of the whole chapter run to four rounds each, sūtra and treatise advancing in alternation; all within fascicle fifty-five, the chapter is divided, at the end of the second round of treatise explanation, into two arcs, the First Part and the Last Part. The First Part gathers the first two rounds—the gods scattering flowers, the discussion of non-arising on the occasion of the flowers, the provisional name and the real mark, the eight appearances of "speaking the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name," form and emptiness neither two nor different, neither arising nor ceasing, neither receiving nor relinquishing, neither stained nor pure, and the simile of the great ocean that neither increases nor decreases; the Last Part gathers the last two rounds—"it should be sought in Subhūti's chapter," the unfindability of the Tathāgata, the three kinds of prajñā, and Śakra Devānām Indra's threefold praise of prajñā as great, immeasurable, and boundless, ending at 「若破眾生相，餘一切易破」 tr. "if the mark of beings is broken, all the rest is easily broken". What the First Part lays out is how the non-arising of the scattered flowers comes to be spoken as 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name"; what the Last Part lays out is how this real mark, 「無壞不壞」 tr. "neither destroyed nor not destroyed", is pushed all the way to the unfindability of the Tathāgata and the vast, boundless prajñā.

Therefore, in reading each round of question and answer, one may ask at least three layers of question. First, on which meaning precisely does the 「無生」 tr. "non-arising" and the 「不壞」 tr. "not destroying" spoken in this round fall—is it the non-arising of the scattered flowers, with nothing they come out from; is it the mundane truth of the provisional name and the highest meaning of the real mark; or is it the Tathāgata neither joined nor dispersed within the suchness of the five aggregates, neither destroyed nor not destroyed? Second, on which layer of difficulty precisely does the question of Śakra Devānām Indra and of Śāriputra catch—is it whether the flowers arise or do not arise; is it how, without destroying the provisional name, one is able to speak the real mark; or is it where prajñā may be sought and where the Tathāgata may be found? Third, with what kind of 「無所有、不可得」 tr. "without anything existent, unfindable" does Subhūti answer, neither letting the provisional name be destroyed into annihilation, nor letting the real mark stand as a separate reality apart from the provisional name? The chapter's way of answering always first lets the place of the question stand firm—is it that these flowers do not arise, or does form too not arise; how does one speak the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name; where should prajñā be sought—and then answers layer by layer with the non-arising of all dharmas, with the name being provisional while the real mark is not destroyed, and with all dharmas being without anything existent and unfindable. Follow the four rounds of dialogue down, and one will come at last to the same place: one speaks the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name, all dharmas are without anything existent and unfindable, and the greatness, the immeasurability, and the boundlessness of prajñā lie precisely in this very place where the provisional and the real are not two.

Reading On in the Order of the Treatise

Scattering Flowers, First Part: The Non-arising of One Flower Extends to the Non-arising of All Dharmas; Speaking the Real Mark of All Dharmas without Destroying the Provisional Name

What Is Being Asked

This unit runs from the gods scattering flowers as an offering up to the treatise-author's explanation of 「無學、無出」 tr. "no learning, no going forth", and what runs through it from beginning to end is a single difficulty: since all dharmas, even prajñā and the Buddha, are 「不生」 tr. "not arising" and are only provisional names, how then are offering, arousing the mind, and learning prajñā—things so plainly present—still to be established? The sūtra text uses one scene of 「散華」 tr. "scattering flowers" to force this question before our eyes. The gods conjure heavenly flowers to make offerings; Subhūti sees at a glance that these are transformed 「化華」 tr. "conjured flowers", 「非樹生華」 tr. "flowers not born of trees"; Śakra follows on and says 「是華非生華，亦非意樹生」 tr. "these flowers are not arisen flowers, nor are they born of the mind-tree"; Subhūti at once turns the question back—‘if they do not arise, why are they called flowers?’ One sentence sets 「不生」 tr. "non-arising" and 「假名」 tr. "provisional name" against each other: plainly they do not arise, and yet there is still this name 「華」 tr. "flower". Śakra presses on, 「但是華無生，諸法亦無生」 tr. "is it only these flowers that are without arising, or are all dharmas also without arising?", and Subhūti answers 「非但是華不生，色亦不生」 tr. "it is not only these flowers that do not arise; form too does not arise", pushing 「不生」 tr. "non-arising" all the way through form, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, the six sense-fields and the six contacts, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the four foundations of mindfulness, and on to omniscience of all kinds, none of which is not ‘if it does not arise, it is not called such-and-such’. This is the overall question of this unit: all dharmas do not arise and have only provisional names—what, then, is the relation between the real mark and the provisional name? Sūtra ② sets up the key phrase of this unit—「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name"; Treatise ① and ② then explain, layer upon layer, that 「名字是俗諦、實相是第一義諦」 tr. "names are the mundane truth; the real mark is the truth of the highest meaning", and why practice and learning, amid not receiving, not ceasing, not arising, and not ceasing, are all the same 「能到一切種智」 tr. "able to reach omniscience of all kinds".

Passage by Passage

First look at the scattering of flowers in Sūtra ①. The gods' scattering of flowers is no idle touch; the treatise-author sets out its causes and conditions: the gods, hearing Subhūti speak prajñā, understood that 「一切法盡是實相，無所分別」 tr. "all dharmas are wholly the real mark, with nothing to discriminate", and moreover that 「雖說空，於諸法無所破，亦不失諸行業果報」 tr. "though emptiness is spoken, nothing in dharmas is destroyed, nor are the karmic results of any practices and deeds lost"; only then, in their joy, did they conjure flowers to offer. The treatise-author sets the tone with two similes in succession. First, timely rain is the simile for the 「法雨」 tr. "Dharma rain": the Small Vehicle dharma praises giving, keeping the precepts, meditation, impermanence, and the like, and is 「有量有限」 tr. "measured and limited", only at the very end speaking of nirvāṇa; what Subhūti makes clear, however, is 「從初發心乃至佛道，唯說諸法實相」 tr. "from the first arousing of the mind up to the Buddha-path, only the real mark of all dharmas is spoken", like a great rain that soaks the whole of Jambudvīpa. Next, the simile of evil wind and dust that vanish as soon as they meet the rain matches four kinds of affliction, one by one, with four kinds of calamitous vapour: evil initial and sustained thought (scattered, dim, and turbulent thinking) is matched with 「塵土」 tr. "dust", the three unwholesome roots (the three poisons of greed, hatred, and delusion) with 「毒」 tr. "poison", wrong views (inverted views) with 「惡風」 tr. "evil wind", and wrong teachers and evil friends (teachers and companions who lead one into the wrong) with 「惡蟲」 tr. "evil vermin"—these four, 「得般若波羅蜜法雨，則皆除滅」 tr. "on receiving the Dharma rain of prajñāpāramitā, are all removed and extinguished", just as 「惡風、塵土、諸熱、毒氣」 tr. "evil wind, dust, all the heats, and poisonous vapours" 「得雨則消滅」 tr. "vanish on receiving rain". The scattering of flowers is further divided among the Three Jewels: scattered over the Buddha, it is an offering to the Buddha Jewel; scattered over the bodhisattvas, Subhūti, and prajñā, an offering to the Dharma Jewel; scattered over the bhikṣu Saṅgha, an offering to the Saṅgha Jewel—「隨意變化，供養三寶」 tr. "transforming at will, they make offerings to the Three Jewels", precisely because for the gods 「心生所願，皆得如意」 tr. "whatever wish arises in the mind is all obtained as intended".

Next look at the question-and-answer backbone of Sūtra ①. Subhūti discerns that these are 「化華」 tr. "conjured flowers", 「非樹生華」 tr. "flowers not born of trees"; Śakra says 「是華非生華，亦非意樹生」 tr. "these flowers are not arisen flowers, nor are they born of the mind-tree"; the treatise-author explains 「非生華」 tr. "not arisen flowers" as 「無生、空、無所出」 tr. "without arising, empty, with nothing they come out from", and explains 「意樹」 tr. "the mind-tree" as 「隨意所念則得」 tr. "whatever the mind thinks of is then obtained". What matters is Subhūti's counter-question: since Śakra has said both that the flowers are without arising and that they are not born from a tree, Subhūti asks, ‘if they do not arise, why are they called flowers?’—within the dharma of non-arising there is at root 「無所分別」 tr. "nothing to discriminate", and one cannot speak of 「是華、是非華」 tr. "this is a flower, this is not a flower". Śakra, won over in his mind, asks 「但是華無生，諸法亦無生」 tr. "is it only these flowers that are without arising, or are all dharmas also without arising?"; Subhūti answers 「非但是華不生，色亦不生」 tr. "it is not only these flowers that do not arise; form too does not arise", and points out the general rule: 「若一法空，則一切法皆空；若行者於一法中了了決定知空，則一切法中皆亦明了。」 tr. "If one dharma is empty, then all dharmas are empty; if the practitioner, within one dharma, knows emptiness clearly, distinctly, and decisively, then within all dharmas he is likewise clear." From the non-arising of one flower it extends to the non-arising of the five aggregates and on to omniscience of all kinds. The treatise-author at once supplies the crucial sentence—「五眾從因緣和合生，無有定性，但有假名」 tr. "the five aggregates arise from the coming together of causes and conditions; they have no fixed nature and have only a provisional name", while 「假名實相」 tr. "the real mark of the provisional name" is precisely 「五眾如、法性、實際」 tr. "the suchness of the five aggregates, dharma-nature, and the limit of reality"; the noble ones know that 「名字是俗諦、實相是第一義諦」 tr. "names are the mundane truth; the real mark is the truth of the highest meaning", and in speaking the Dharma they follow ordinary people, while in the truth of the highest meaning there is 「無彼此、亦無諍」 tr. "neither this nor that, and no contention either". This joins 「不生」 tr. "non-arising" to 「假名」 tr. "provisional name": non-arising is not annihilation, only the absence of a fixed nature; the provisional name is not something false that may be thrown away, only a designation on the side of the mundane truth.

Sūtra ② establishes this meaning as the key phrase. Śakra exclaims 「須菩提其智甚深，不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "Subhūti's wisdom is very deep: without destroying the provisional name he speaks the real mark of all dharmas"; the Buddha approves, and Śakra asks further 「云何不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "how does one speak the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name?"; the Buddha answers in perfect order: form is only a provisional name, feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness are only provisional names, and so on up to srota-āpanna and on up to the Buddha are only provisional names, and Subhūti in every case 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name"—「所以者何？是諸法實相，無壞不壞故，須菩提所說亦無壞不壞。」 tr. "Why is that? Because this real mark of all dharmas is neither destroyed nor not destroyed, what Subhūti speaks is likewise neither destroyed nor not destroyed." The real mark has at root no such thing as destroyed or not destroyed, and so the one who speaks the Dharma does not go on to destroy that provisional name. Next Subhūti, taking up the Buddha's intent, unfolds 「如是學，為不學色」 tr. "learning in this way is not learning form": the bodhisattva knows that dharmas are only provisional names, and so 「不見色當可學者」 tr. "does not see form as something that can be learned", and so on up to 「不見須陀洹果乃至一切種智當可學者」 tr. "does not see the fruit of srota-āpanna, and so on up to omniscience of all kinds, as something that can be learned". Śakra does not understand by what cause and condition form is not seen; Subhūti answers 「色，色空」 tr. "form—form is empty", and turns one layer deeper—「若如是不學空，是名學空，以不二故」 tr. "if one in this way does not learn emptiness, this is called learning emptiness, because they are not two": it is not learning some separate emptiness; the emptiness of form and the one who learns are not two, and only so 「能學無量無邊阿僧祇佛法」 tr. "is one able to learn immeasurable, boundless, asaṃkhyeya Buddha-dharmas". From here it comes down further to not increasing and not decreasing, not receiving and not ceasing, and on to Śāriputra's repeated pressing as to how 「不受、不滅」 tr. "not receiving, not ceasing" is 「能到一切種智」 tr. "able to reach omniscience of all kinds"; Subhūti answers with 「一切法不受故，能到一切種智」 tr. "because all dharmas are not received, one is able to reach omniscience of all kinds" and 「色性空故」 tr. "because the nature of form is empty", and closes by saying that one learns prajñā 「為一切法不生不滅、不受不捨、不垢不淨、不合不散，不增不減故」 tr. "because all dharmas neither arise nor cease, are neither received nor relinquished, neither stained nor pure, neither combined nor scattered, neither increasing nor decreasing", and so 「能到一切種智，無所學、無所到故」 tr. "is able to reach omniscience of all kinds, because there is nothing learned and nothing reached".

Treatise ② explains these several junctures one by one. 「佛讚須菩提」 tr. "The Buddha praises Subhūti" is no mere courtesy; the treatise-author explains it as 「示師不自高，弟子承順師法」 tr. "showing that the teacher does not exalt himself, and that the disciple follows and accords with the teacher's Dharma", and also 「以大悲心，欲令眾生信受須菩提所說」 tr. "out of the mind of great compassion, wishing to cause beings to believe and accept what Subhūti says", and so he praises him as 「其智甚深」 tr. "his wisdom is very deep". 「不學色」 tr. "Not learning form" is explained most finely: within the dharma of the provisional name 「無有定色」 tr. "there is no fixed form"; the bodhisattva seeks form with the five eyes and 「不見是色若我、若無我等相」 tr. "does not see marks of this form such as self or non-self", and because the mark of form is empty it cannot be seen—this is precisely 「自相空」 tr. "emptiness of specific marks"; further, because 「色空即自不能學色空」 tr. "the emptiness of form itself cannot learn the emptiness of form", as 「人乘馬，非馬乘馬」 tr. "a person rides a horse; a horse does not ride a horse"—the one who learns and the emptiness that is learned do not fall on the same mark. As for how 「學一切智」 tr. "learning omniscience" is to be understood, the treatise-author answers 「若能於諸法空中無所著，是為真學色空」 tr. "if one is able to be without attachment within the emptiness of dharmas, this is truly learning the emptiness of form": attached to emptiness, one 「破諸法而不破空」 tr. "destroys dharmas but does not destroy emptiness"; not attached to emptiness, 「色與空不二不別」 tr. "form and emptiness are not two and not different". 「不增」 tr. "Not increasing" and 「不減」 tr. "not decreasing" are explained as sicknesses of the mind's activity—toward the body, to 「起男女、好醜、長短相，謂為定實」 tr. "give rise to marks of male and female, beautiful and ugly, long and short, and take them to be fixed and real", and so produce defiled attachment, is increase; to break form down so as to make it empty while the mind clings to emptiness is decrease. Most crucial are 「不受、不滅」 tr. "not receiving, not ceasing" and inner and outer emptiness: because empty, not received; because the causes and conditions of deeds and results continue in succession, not ceasing; one ought to empty dharmas with the eighteen emptinesses—why then are only the two emptinesses of inner and outer spoken of here? The treatise-author answers 「受色者無故說『內空』，色不可受故名『外空』」 tr. "because the one who receives form does not exist, ‘inner emptiness’ is spoken of; because form cannot be received, it is called ‘outer emptiness’", and 「是內、外空，則攝一切法空」 tr. "this inner and outer emptiness then includes the emptiness of all dharmas"—once the two emptinesses of inner and outer are set up, the emptiness of all dharmas is wholly contained within them. Finally Śāriputra doubts how not receiving and not ceasing can 「出至薩婆若」 tr. "go forth to sarvajñā (omniscience)"; Subhūti answers comprehensively with the sixfold 「不」 tr. "not" (neither arising nor ceasing, neither received nor relinquished, neither stained nor pure), and takes the great ocean as his simile: 「大海，眾流歸之不增，火珠煎之不減」 tr. "the great ocean—the many streams return to it and it does not increase; the fire-pearl boils it and it does not decrease", because 「法性常住」 tr. "dharma-nature abides constantly" and 「一切法自性不可得」 tr. "the own-nature of all dharmas is unfindable", and so one is able to 「出到薩婆若」 tr. "go forth and arrive at sarvajñā" and 「不見學相、不見出相」 tr. "not see a mark of learning, not see a mark of going forth". The treatise-author concludes with 「此中略說故，但說『無學、無出』」 tr. "because this is spoken in brief here, it says only ‘no learning, no going forth’"—the whole weight of this unit presses on this one line: ‘nothing to be attained, and yet plainly present’.

Do Not Misread

Do not read ‘all dharmas do not arise’ as there being nothing at all. Subhūti says 「若不生，是不名為色」 tr. "if it does not arise, it is not called form", and the treatise-author further says 「五眾從因緣和合生，無有定性，但有假名」 tr. "the five aggregates arise from the coming together of causes and conditions; they have no fixed nature and have only a provisional name"—non-arising says that there is no fixed nature and no own-nature; it does not say that provisional designation and the karmic results of practices and deeds are wiped away along with it. The sūtra text says plainly 「雖說空，於諸法無所破，亦不失諸行業果報」 tr. "though emptiness is spoken, nothing in dharmas is destroyed, nor are the karmic results of any practices and deeds lost"; to read 「不生」 tr. "non-arising" as annihilation is exactly what it sets out to break.

Do not read 「不壞假名」 tr. "not destroying the provisional name" as clinging to names. The reason for not destroying the provisional name is 「是諸法實相，無壞不壞故」 tr. "because this real mark of all dharmas is neither destroyed nor not destroyed"—since the real mark can be neither destroyed nor not destroyed, the one who speaks the Dharma does not go on to destroy the name on the side of the mundane truth. This is the two truths running side by side, 「名字是俗諦、實相是第一義諦」 tr. "names are the mundane truth; the real mark is the truth of the highest meaning"; it is not making the provisional name solid as truly existent, nor is it requiring that the provisional name be broken before the real mark counts as spoken.

Do not read ‘not learning form, not seeing form’ as shutting one's eyes and not contemplating. The treatise-author explains it clearly: it is 「不見是色若我、若無我等相」 tr. "not seeing marks of this form such as self or non-self"; it is that the mark of form 「不可得故不可見」 tr. "is unfindable and therefore cannot be seen"; it is not failing to contemplate form, but contemplating form without seeing any fixed mark in it. Still less should 「學空」 tr. "learning emptiness" be read as setting up a separate emptiness to learn—「若如是不學空，是名學空，以不二故」 tr. "if one in this way does not learn emptiness, this is called learning emptiness, because they are not two"; once one 「破諸法而不破空」 tr. "destroys dharmas but does not destroy emptiness", one is on the contrary attached to emptiness, and that is exactly what the treatise-author calls decrease.

Do not read the two emptinesses of inner and outer that 「攝一切法空」 tr. "include the emptiness of all dharmas" as meaning there are only two kinds of emptiness. The treatise-author says to begin with 「應以十八空空諸法」 tr. "one ought to empty dharmas with the eighteen emptinesses"; that here 「但說『內、外空』」 tr. "only ‘inner and outer emptiness’ is spoken of" is a naming of the essentials—「受色者無故說『內空』，色不可受故名『外空』」 tr. "because the one who receives form does not exist, ‘inner emptiness’ is spoken of; because form cannot be received, it is called ‘outer emptiness’"; once inner and outer are set up, they govern and include all the rest; it is not that of the eighteen emptinesses only two remain.

Do not read 「無學、無出」 tr. "no learning, no going forth" and 「無所學、無所到」 tr. "nothing learned, nothing reached" as meaning there is no need to practise and learn. That is 「略說」 tr. "speaking in brief", speaking from the side of the real mark, where both the one who learns and what is learned are unfindable; on the side of the mundane truth, learning prajñāpāramitā and being 「能到一切種智」 tr. "able to reach omniscience of all kinds" remain plainly present and are not set aside. The great ocean, 「眾流歸之不增，火珠煎之不減」 tr. "the many streams return to it and it does not increase; the fire-pearl boils it and it does not decrease", says exactly that within 「法性常住」 tr. "dharma-nature abiding constantly" practice and realisation go on all the same.

Bearing on Practice

Hold fast to the measuring-rule of ‘not arising, and yet having a provisional name’. In daily life, facing the five aggregates, facing wholesome dharmas and unwholesome dharmas, on the one hand illuminate them as 「無有定性，但有假名」 tr. "having no fixed nature and only a provisional name", and on the other hand do not set aside the karmic results of practices and deeds—when the feeling comes that ‘everything is empty, and practice too is useless’, recall the sentence 「雖說空，於諸法無所破，亦不失諸行業果報」 tr. "though emptiness is spoken, nothing in dharmas is destroyed, nor are the karmic results of any practices and deeds lost", and turn the view of annihilation back.

When cultivating all wholesome dharmas, fasten nothing-to-be-attained onto 「不壞假名」 tr. "not destroying the provisional name". Recollecting the Buddha, keeping the precepts, giving, making offerings—in their outward form do each one in full (just as the gods scattering flowers in offering to the Three Jewels is plainly merit), while in the mind understanding clearly that all of these are provisional designations and that the real mark is without destruction—this is precisely 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name" made real in one's own person.

When contemplating emptiness, guard against both extremes. Do not 「破諸法而不破空」 tr. "destroy dharmas but not destroy emptiness" and so be attached to emptiness (that is decrease); nor 「起男女、好醜、長短相，謂為定實」 tr. "give rise to marks of male and female, beautiful and ugly, long and short, and take them to be fixed and real" and so produce defiled attachment (that is increase); learn that sentence 「色與空不二不別」 tr. "form and emptiness are not two and not different", contemplating form as empty in its very substance without setting up a separate emptiness that can be attained—this alone is 「真學色空」 tr. "truly learning the emptiness of form".

Gather in the use of the mind with the two emptinesses of inner and outer. When an object appears before one and the mind is about to take it in, recall 「受色者無故說『內空』，色不可受故名『外空』」 tr. "because the one who receives form does not exist, ‘inner emptiness’ is spoken of; because form cannot be received, it is called ‘outer emptiness’"—the self that receives is unfindable, the object received is unfindable, and 「是內、外空，則攝一切法空」 tr. "this inner and outer emptiness then includes the emptiness of all dharmas", so there is no need to go emptying dharma after dharma piecemeal.

Set the simile of the great ocean upon the meditation seat. When favour and adversity, gain and loss appear before one, 「眾流歸之不增，火珠煎之不減」 tr. "the many streams return to it and it does not increase; the fire-pearl boils it and it does not decrease"—dharma-nature abides constantly and own-nature is unfindable, and so 「不見學相、不見出相」 tr. "one does not see a mark of learning, does not see a mark of going forth". Cultivating without seeing that there is cultivating, arriving without seeing that there is arriving—what this unit answers is exactly ‘how to abide in practice within nothing to be attained’.

Further Resonances

The skeleton of the First Part is a single line of the non-duality of emptiness and existence drawn out from 「散華」 tr. "scattering flowers": Sūtra ① extends the non-arising of one flower to 「一切法皆空」 tr. "all dharmas are empty", setting up 「無有定性，但有假名」 tr. "having no fixed nature and only a provisional name"; Sūtra ② establishes 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name" as the key phrase, gathering the provisional name and the real mark into the two truths running side by side, 「名字是俗諦、實相是第一義諦」 tr. "names are the mundane truth; the real mark is the truth of the highest meaning"; Treatise ① and ② then explain 「不生」 tr. "non-arising" as not annihilation, 「假名」 tr. "provisional name" as a designation of the mundane truth, 「學空」 tr. "learning emptiness" as non-dual, and the two emptinesses of inner and outer as 「攝一切法空」 tr. "including the emptiness of all dharmas", and at last, with the simile of the great ocean, make firm ‘nothing to be attained, and yet plainly present’. The two engine-sentences of the whole unit are 「若一法空，則一切法皆空」 tr. "if one dharma is empty, then all dharmas are empty" and 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name": the former governs the thoroughness of 「空」 tr. "emptiness"—if one dharma does not arise, then all do not arise; the latter governs the plain presence of 「有」 tr. "existence"—names and marks are not destroyed and the real mark shows itself. Śakra presses question after question, seemingly to drive non-arising, non-receiving, and non-ceasing to the point where practice has nowhere to take hold; only on reading 「大海，眾流歸之不增，火珠煎之不減」 tr. "the great ocean—the many streams return to it and it does not increase; the fire-pearl boils it and it does not decrease" does it become clear: precisely because 「法性常住」 tr. "dharma-nature abides constantly" and own-nature is unfindable, one can be 「無學、無出」 tr. "without learning, without going forth" and yet learning and practice are not set aside. The interface the First Part leaves to the Last Part is exactly this ‘where it should be sought’—since emptiness and existence are already non-dual and the provisional name is already not destroyed, the next unit goes on in turn to ask: this prajñā that neither arises nor ceases, where after all should it be sought?

Scattering Flowers, Last Part: Where Prajñā Is to Be Sought; the Tathāgata Is Unfindable; the Three Praises—Great, Measureless, Boundless; Seeking without Anything Sought

What Is Being Asked

The first part arose from the offering of scattered flowers and closed with 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name"; the last part then turns from offering to seeking—the moment Śakra opens his mouth he asks where the prajñāpāramitā 「當於何處求」 tr. "is to be sought". Śāriputra answers 「當於須菩提品中求」 tr. "it should be sought in Subhūti's chapter". One question and one answer look ordinary, yet they draw out a whole chain of difficulties, link within link: since it is what Subhūti spoke, is that not Subhūti's spiritual power? The answer is 「非我神力」 tr. "not my spiritual power", 「是佛神力」 tr. "it is the Buddha's spiritual power". But Śakra at once presses and will not let go—all dharmas have no place of receiving, and even the Tathāgata is unfindable, so how can one say 「是佛神力」 tr. "it is the Buddha's spiritual power"? And so the question of seeking prajñā is pressed, all the way, into the question of whether the Tathāgata is findable or not. The treatise-author takes it up: first he distinguishes 「無受相與如有何等異」 tr. "what difference there is between the mark of non-receiving and suchness", then seeks the Tathāgata in the five aggregates one by one, finds him in none of the five ways, and only at the end comes back to 「當於何處求」 tr. "where it is to be sought", concluding with the seeking of heavy treasure, which must be in the great ocean and the mountain of jewels. By sūtra passage ④ Śakra no longer raises difficulties but praises prajñā three times—「是摩訶波羅蜜」 tr. "this is the mahāpāramitā", the immeasurable pāramitā, the boundless pāramitā; Subhūti explains each one at length: great, because the three limits are unfindable; measureless, because like the measure of space it is unfindable; boundless, because conditions are boundless, suchness is boundless, and so on up to beings are boundless. So what this unit is really asking is: a prajñā that is unfindable and without anything existent—how can one still 「求」 tr. "seek" it, how can one 「讚」 tr. "praise" it? The answer it gives is the same from first to last—seeking without anything sought, praising without anything to praise: one does not seek it within the five aggregates, nor seek it apart from the five aggregates; to call it great, measureless, and boundless is to praise precisely its emptiness, not to boast of the bulk of some supremely large thing.

Passage by Passage

First, look at 「當於須菩提品中求」 tr. "it should be sought in Subhūti's chapter". Śakra asks where to seek, and Śāriputra points to Subhūti; this is not raising Subhūti above the Buddha. The treatise-author distinguishes it clearly: this is not asking about the substance of prajñā, only about 「般若言說名字可讀誦事」 tr. "the matter of the spoken words and names of prajñā that can be read and recited"—what is asked is which stretch of words best sets out the meaning of prajñā. Subhūti delights in speaking of emptiness and constantly cultivates emptiness; all that he says tends toward emptiness, and even emptiness is empty; therefore Śāriputra points to him. As for why he does not say 「於佛所說品中求」 tr. "seek it in a chapter spoken by the Buddha", it is because the Buddha teaches the Dharma according to the faculties of beings and is not fixed: sometimes he speaks of impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self; sometimes of the coming together of causes and conditions; sometimes of the emptiness of dharmas and ultimate emptiness—every one of these is called prajñā, so it is instead hard to point to a single place. Pointing to Subhūti is pointing to the chapter that tends most single-flavouredly toward emptiness; it is not saying that Subhūti surpasses the Buddha.

Next, look at the difficulty about spiritual power and the unfindability of the Tathāgata. Subhūti humbly says 「非是我力，是佛所受神力」 tr. "it is not my power; it is the spiritual power received from the Buddha", but Śakra bites down on this very phrase: all dharmas are without anything received, and the Tathāgata moreover is unfindable—where then is there 「佛所受神力」 tr. "the spiritual power received from the Buddha"? The treatise-author therefore first separates 「無受」 tr. "non-receiving" and 「如」 tr. "suchness"—the real mark of all dharmas is 「亦名無受，亦名如」 tr. "also called non-receiving, and also called suchness": because it cannot be clung to among dharmas it is called non-receiving, because idle discourse cannot break and destroy it it is called suchness; one substance, two names.

The treatise-author goes on to point out that the one name 「如來」 tr. "Tathāgata" is taken in two ways: 「或以佛名名為如來，或以眾生名字名為如來」 tr. "sometimes the name of the Buddha is called Tathāgata, sometimes the name of a being is called Tathāgata". Taken in the sense of a being, 「如先世來，後世亦如是去」 tr. "as he came from a former life, so too he goes to a later life", and therefore he is called ‘thus-come’ and also called ‘thus-gone’; the treatise-author at once cites the fourteen questions set aside as proof—the fourteen questions set aside are the fourteen questions with which those of the outside paths challenged the Buddha and which the Buddha set aside without answering, and one of them is precisely 「死後如去者，為有？為無？亦有亦無？亦非有非無」 tr. "after death, does the thus-gone one exist? Not exist? Both exist and not exist? Neither exist nor not exist?". The treatise-author cites this, first to show how the name 「如來」 tr. "Tathāgata" is established, and second to pick out that this 「如去者」 tr. "thus-gone one" in the sense of a being falls squarely into the idle discourse of the four propositions of existence and non-existence. Taken in the sense of the Buddha, just as Dīpaṃkara Buddha 「行六波羅蜜，得成佛道」 tr. "practised the six perfections and attained the path of buddhahood", Śākyamuni Buddha too came thus, came from suchness, and therefore is called Tathāgata; what is spoken of here is this Buddha-Tathāgata. Only once the two senses are clear does the text that follows connect: precisely because 「如來是不生不滅法」 tr. "the Tathāgata is a dharma that neither arises nor ceases", one cannot seek him through the idle discourse of existence and non-existence; and the reason those four propositions among the fourteen questions are set aside is exactly this—if one seeks the Tathāgata through idle discourse, one does not see the Tathāgata.

Next he pursues the Tathāgata through the five aggregates to the end: the five aggregates are not the Tathāgata; apart from the five aggregates there is no Tathāgata; the five aggregates are not in the Tathāgata; the Tathāgata is not in the five aggregates; nor does the Tathāgata possess the five aggregates—「五種求如來不可得」 tr. "seeking the Tathāgata in five ways, he is unfindable". Why? The five aggregates arise and cease and are impermanent; if the Tathāgata were the five aggregates, he too would come to arise and cease; 「五眾是五法，如來是一」 tr. "the five aggregates are five dharmas; the Tathāgata is one", and five dharmas cannot make up one; if apart from the five aggregates there were separately a Tathāgata, then the Tathāgata would be neither seen nor heard and ought to be permanent like space, and one falls again to an extreme. Pushed to the very end, there remains only one sentence: 「但以戲論故，說有如來；以斷戲論故，無如來。」 tr. "Only because of idle discourse is it said that there is a Tathāgata; because idle discourse is cut off, there is no Tathāgata." What matters is that the treatise-author at once secures both ends—「如來是不生不滅法」 tr. "the Tathāgata is a dharma that neither arises nor ceases"; if, because he is unfindable, one dismisses him as wholly non-existent, 「則墮邪見」 tr. "then one falls into wrong view". So it can be seen that 「如來不可得」 tr. "the Tathāgata is unfindable" does not abolish the Tathāgata; it abolishes the idle-discourse grasping at marks with regard to the Tathāgata.

Third, look at the direct answer to the seeking of prajñā. Once pressed as far as the unfindability of the Tathāgata, Śakra's question 「當於何處求」 tr. "where it is to be sought" at last has a place to land. The treatise-author says: the five aggregates are false and deceptive and impermanent—formerly not existing and now existing, having existed and again not existing—like an illusion, like a dream, whereas prajñā is the true and real wisdom of the buddhas; how could it be sought in this heap of false deception that is the five aggregates? It is like one who 「求重寶，必於大海寶山中求」 tr. "seeks heavy treasure: he must seek it in the great ocean and the mountain of jewels"; he 「不應在溝瀆臭穢處求」 tr. "should not seek it in ditches and drains, in foul and filthy places". Yet apart from the five aggregates there is again no arising and no ceasing, no making and no rising, no mark of dharmas at all, and still there is nowhere to seek. Pinched from both ends, the answer comes out: one does not seek within the five aggregates, nor seek apart from the five aggregates; prajñā and the five aggregates are neither one nor different, neither combined nor dispersed, 「無色、無形、無對」 tr. "without form, without shape, without resistance", 「一相，所謂無相」 tr. "of one mark, namely, the signless". Here there is also tucked in an exchange worth savouring—prajñā is a mental-factor dharma and so can be said to be without shape and without resistance; the form aggregate plainly has shape, so how can it too be said to be without shape and without resistance? The answer is that the noble ones, with the wisdom-eye, contemplate all dharmas as equal and all empty, and within this single flavour of emptiness the form aggregate is likewise without shape and without resistance. The doubt about where to seek here comes to rest in the one word 「無相」 tr. "signless". Meanwhile, fearing that the sentence 「五眾如，即是法相」 tr. "the suchness of the five aggregates is itself the mark of dharmas" might be misunderstood, the treatise-author especially sets out the simile of touching fire: when a practitioner first arrives at the suchness of the five aggregates and sees that the mark of dharmas is ultimately empty, the mind takes fright—just as 「觸火燒手，則無慍心」 tr. "when one touches fire and it burns one's hand, one has no resentful mind"—knowing that the mark of fire is naturally so, one is not vexed; only if one took it that someone had brought fire to burn one would anger stir. The mark of dharmas is of itself ultimately empty; recognising that it is naturally so, one no longer takes fright.

Fourth, look at the three praises of sūtra passage ④. Śakra turns from raising difficulties to praising, calling prajñā 「摩訶波羅蜜、無量波羅蜜、無邊波羅蜜」 tr. "the mahāpāramitā, the immeasurable pāramitā, the boundless pāramitā", and Subhūti explains each at length; the three praises are just three faces of the meaning of emptiness. 「色大故，般若波羅蜜亦大」 tr. "because form is great, the prajñāpāramitā too is great"—great in what way? In form's 「前際不可得，後際不可得，中際不可得」 tr. "the prior limit is unfindable, the later limit is unfindable, the middle limit is unfindable", that is, 「三際不可得」 tr. "the three limits are unfindable"; it is not a greatness of volume but a greatness in which all three limits are empty. 「無量」 tr. "Measureless" takes space separately as its simile: 「譬如虛空量不可得」 tr. "just as the measure of space is unfindable", the measure of form and of omniscience of all kinds is likewise unfindable, and therefore it is measureless; the treatise-author also takes care to make a distinction—「有法雖大，不必無量」 tr. "though some dharma is great, it is not necessarily measureless", as Mount Sumeru is 「雖大而有量」 tr. "great, yet it has a measure", having the count of eighty-four thousand yojanas; so it can be seen that Sumeru is not fit to serve as the simile, and only space can serve as the simile for the measureless. 「無邊」 tr. "Boundless" is opened out most widely: form is boundless, conditions are boundless, suchness is boundless, and so on up to beings are boundless. Conditions are boundless because the four conditions (the causal condition, the sequential condition, the object condition, the dominant condition) 「一切處、一切時皆有」 tr. "are present in all places and at all times", and because the four conditions are false and deceptive and without reality, ultimately empty, they are boundless; suchness, dharma-nature, and the limit of reality are the mark of the naturally unconditioned, and therefore measureless and boundless.

Fifth, look at the boundlessness of beings and the gathering-up. Among the three praises, 「眾生無邊」 tr. "beings are boundless" is questioned most finely. Śakra himself answers 「無有法名眾生，假名故為眾生」 tr. "there is no dharma called a being; because of a provisional name there is a being", only 「強為作名」 tr. "a name forcibly made"; in prajñā it is not said that beings really exist, and beings 「亦無所趣」 tr. "also have nothing toward which they tend"—as fire must have something toward which it tends, whereas the name of beings has no real being toward which to tend. The question is pressed to the bottom: if the Buddha, with a lifespan of kalpas as many as the sands of the Ganges, proclaimed the names of beings, did this dharma of beings arise or cease because it was spoken? The answer is no, because 「眾生從本已來常清淨」 tr. "beings from the very beginning have been constantly pure". So to say that beings are boundless is precisely to say that beings are originally empty, originally pure. The final question concludes the whole praise—why is the boundless spoken of at length, and the great and the measureless spoken of briefly? The answer: because of beings, ordinary people give rise to delusion and carry out all manner of wrong practices within the five aggregates, and this is the hardest to break, so it is spoken of at length here; 「若破眾生相，餘一切易破」 tr. "if the mark of beings is broken, all the rest is easily broken". One sentence gathers it all: once one can break that root attachment, 「有眾生」 tr. "there are beings", the doubts of weighing and measuring—great and measureless—all loosen along with it.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「當於須菩提品中求」 tr. "it should be sought in Subhūti's chapter" as Subhūti being higher than the Buddha. The treatise says plainly 「非我神力」 tr. "not my spiritual power", 「是佛神力」 tr. "it is the Buddha's spiritual power"; Subhūti is pointed to only because he tends single-flavouredly toward emptiness and is easiest to point out, and the Buddha's chapters are not pointed to because the Buddha teaches according to the occasion and is not fixed—not because the Buddha falls short of Subhūti.

Do not read 「如來不可得」 tr. "the Tathāgata is unfindable" as dismissing the Tathāgata as non-existent. The same passage goes straight on to say 「如來是不生不滅法」 tr. "the Tathāgata is a dharma that neither arises nor ceases", and warns 「若當都無如來，則墮邪見」 tr. "if one holds that there is no Tathāgata at all, then one falls into wrong view". What is unfindable is the Tathāgata as grasped by marks in idle discourse, not an abolishing of the Tathāgata himself; that the idle discourse at both ends, existence and non-existence, cannot find him—this is the right meaning.

Do not read 「當於何處求」 tr. "where it is to be sought" as there being a separate prajñā to take hold of. The answer blocks both ends: one does not seek within the five aggregates, nor seek apart from the five aggregates; prajñā is 「無色、無形、無對」 tr. "without form, without shape, without resistance", 「一相，所謂無相」 tr. "of one mark, namely, the signless". The posture of seeking is still there, but the mark of what is sought has vanished—it is ‘seeking without anything sought’, not tracking down a thing.

Do not read the three praises ‘great, measureless, boundless’ as prajñā being some supremely large thing. Great, because the three limits are unfindable; measureless, because like the measure of space it is unfindable; boundless, because beings are originally empty. The treatise-author takes care to exclude Sumeru, 「雖大而有量」 tr. "great, yet it has a measure", as unfit for the simile, precisely so that one will not hear 「大」 tr. "great" as greatness of volume—what is praised is emptiness, not quantity.

Do not read 「眾生無邊」 tr. "beings are boundless" as beings really existing in measureless numbers. The sūtra text says plainly that beings are 「假名故為眾生」 tr. "beings because of a provisional name", 「強為作名」 tr. "a name forcibly made", 「從本已來常清淨」 tr. "from the very beginning constantly pure". The boundless is boundless because it is originally empty, not because there are really inexhaustible beings in number; read it as really existent, and one reads the liberating of beings as there being a crowd of real beings to be liberated.

Bearing on Practice

Take ‘not seeking within the five aggregates, not seeking apart from the five aggregates’ to check one's own application of effort. Wanting to seize hold of a prajñā in sensations and thoughts is seeking within the five aggregates; loathing away all sensations and searching for some other empty state is seeking apart from the five aggregates. Neither end is it—on the five aggregates now present, see them as like an illusion, neither grasping nor rejecting; that signless place is itself prajñā, and there is no need to search elsewhere.

Take 「非是我力，是佛所受神力」 tr. "it is not my power; it is the spiritual power received from the Buddha" to train in not claiming for oneself. When one's practice comes a little into accord, or one's teaching happens to strike home, the thought ‘this is my power’ arises most easily. Subhūti's crediting the merit to the Buddha and not claiming the ability as his own is exactly the remedy. After crediting the merit, one also loosens, all together, the self-mark of the one who credits; only then is one in accord with non-receiving.

Take the simile of touching fire to remedy the fright at seeing emptiness. When in applying effort the ultimate emptiness of the mark of dharmas appears before one, the mind often takes fright and draws back, wanting to seize some solid ground. Remember 「觸火燒手，則無慍心」 tr. "when one touches fire and it burns one's hand, one has no resentful mind"—knowing that it is naturally so, one is neither vexed nor draws back; ultimate emptiness is the natural mark of dharmas, not something just now taken away by someone.

Take the three praises as the standard when one praises. Praising the Dharma, praising a teacher, praising one's own attainment—none of these is a hindrance; but remember that what is praised is emptiness—great is the emptiness of the three limits, measureless is like space, boundless is the original purity of beings. Praising while knowing that what is praised is emptiness, the praise does not become a new grasping.

Take 「若破眾生相，餘一切易破」 tr. "if the mark of beings is broken, all the rest is easily broken" to fix where one's effort begins. Liberating beings, weighing and measuring, discriminating high and low—all manner of entanglements coil around one root, 「實有眾生」 tr. "beings really exist". In daily life practise seeing beings as like an illusion, liberating them while there are no beings to be liberated; once this one mark is broken, the rest of the weighing and reckoning is naturally easily broken along with it.

Further Resonances

This unit itself runs the whole course of a further resonance. What it carries on from is the offering and the question of Śakra in the first part—the offering of scattered flowers, 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name"; what it develops is pressing 「不壞假名」 tr. "without destroying provisional names" all the way to the end, following its momentum: since provisional names are not destroyed, the provisional name 「求」 tr. "seek" is still there, and so it asks 「當於何處求」 tr. "where it is to be sought", and answers that one does not seek within the five aggregates nor seek apart from the five aggregates; the provisional name 「讚」 tr. "praise" is still there, and so come the three praises ‘great, measureless, boundless’, yet what is praised is emptiness. The section on the unfindability of the Tathāgata inserted in the middle is the pivot of this development—if even the Tathāgata is unfindable without falling into annihilation, how much more so the seeking of prajñā and the praising of prajñā: naturally both become provisional names clearly present while the real mark is unmoved. The three matters run down on one thread: offering is no offering, seeking is no seeking, praising is no praising, and at the end they return together to the one sentence 「眾生從本已來常清淨」 tr. "beings from the very beginning have been constantly pure". What the last part hands on to those who come after is just this thread—first, at the place of seeking, to recognise that 「無相」 tr. "signless" is true seeking; then, at the place of praising, to recognise that ‘the emptiness of the three limits’ is true praise; and at last, where the mark of beings is broken, to recognise that all the rest is easily broken. The first part offered flowers; the last part seeks and praises prajñā; offering, seeking, and praising—question these three matters to the end, and what answers is always the same emptiness: the real mark of all dharmas without destroying provisional names.

Further Resonances

The vein of meaning in "Scattering Flowers" has something it inherits before it and something it opens after it. What it inherits is the preceding chapter, "The Illusory Person Hears the Dharma": there, because the gods asked what kind of person should be used to hear the Dharma, Subhūti brought out 「如幻化人聽法」 tr. "hearing the Dharma as an illusory, conjured person does" as his answer, saying that such a person has 「無聞、無聽、無知、無證」 tr. "no hearing, no listening, no knowing, no realising"; and from this he carried ‘like an illusion, like a dream’ all the way to the Buddha’s path and even to nirvāṇa, gathering it into 「幻、夢、涅槃，不二不別」 tr. "illusion, dream, and nirvāṇa are not two and not different"—the matter of hearing the Dharma having thus been lifted off any ground, the speaker, the hearer, and the Dharma spoken are all like illusions and dreams; and at the end it further makes clear that prajñā broadly teaches the three vehicles and gathers in bodhisattvas, all by the coming together of the eighteen emptinesses and by the wisdom of emptiness, which shows that being like an illusion does not destroy the teaching of the three vehicles. This chapter proceeds right along from this: the gods, hearing the Dharma, rejoice and scatter flowers as an offering, and Subhūti discerns that they are 「非生華」 tr. "not flowers that are born," born from the heart-tree, non-arising and issuing from nowhere—directly inheriting the preceding chapter’s meaning of illusion-like non-arising; and the true intent of the whole chapter turns one layer further from this non-arising, marking out 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name" as its eye: though names are provisional, the real mark is undestroyed, and the non-duality of provisional and real in the preceding chapter’s 「色即是空，空即是色」 tr. "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" is here spoken as a proper proposition that can be stated again and again. What it opens is already hinted at the chapter’s end: Śakra Devānām Indra praises prajñā three times, calling it mahāpāramitā, the immeasurable pāramitā, and the boundless pāramitā, and Subhūti broadly explains his praise. This turning-point, where the lord of the gods alone praises prajñā, is precisely the groundwork for the later chapter "Looking Round"—at that chapter’s opening, the gods of the whole assembly 「同時三反稱歎」 tr. "at the same moment praised three times over," praising that what Subhūti taught was all by the power of the Buddha’s grace in appearing in the world, and 「視是人如佛」 tr. "regarding this person as a Buddha"; the Buddha then looks round the great assembly of the fourfold community and broadly praises the merit of prajñā. From the three praises of one lord of the gods unfolded into the threefold praise of all the gods, the vein of meaning then flows on down along this course.

When later ancient masters read this chapter, the one whose approach is most complete composed a line-by-line commentary on the great sūtra that this treatise explains, and left a full explanation of this chapter. His overall division of the chapter’s purport is twofold: first, the gods make an offering of wealth to Subhūti, and because of this prajñā is taught; second, the gods make an offering of Dharma to Subhūti, and because of this prajñā is taught—the section on scattering flowers belongs to the offering of wealth, and the section praising prajñā belongs to the offering of Dharma, answering head to tail to the scattering of flowers at the start of the sūtra text and the three praises at its end. His explanation of the phrase about not destroying provisional names is the most precise and apt: only if there were one dharma that is real could one discuss whether it is destroyed or not destroyed; since there has never been a single dharma that is real, what destroying or not destroying is there to discuss?—which makes exactly clear that provisional names from the outset have no fixed reality, and so, although the real mark is taught, provisional names are not destroyed. On the section 「當於何處求」 tr. "where should it be sought?" he divides out three kinds of prajñā as the places where it is learned, namely the written word, the real mark, and right contemplation, which joins word for word with Treatise ③’s judging, by the three kinds of prajñā, of the places where prajñā is sought. At the end of the sūtra text he further divides the three praises into the three levels of great, immeasurable, and boundless, saying: great because it cuts off the three times; boundless because its objects are boundless; boundless because beings are boundless (the commentary ties all three divisions to the word 「無邊」 tr. "boundless", and for the level of the immeasurable gives no separate ground; recorded as it stands)—corresponding one by one with Treatise ④’s explanation of the three praises. All of this merely records his approach, without judging higher or lower; and in his commentary on other chapters he also at times himself points back to this chapter’s three praises, which is enough to show that one master’s learning runs through consistently from before to after.

There is also another ancient master who composed a commentary on this treatise itself, and his book survives today in fragmentary fascicles; but the surviving fascicles, on actual examination, do not reach fascicle fifty-five of this treatise, and there is no line-by-line explanation of this chapter—this is recorded truthfully according to the actual state of the fragmentary fascicles; it is not that there was a commentary which has been lost. As for the phrase in this chapter’s Sūtra ②, 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name" it was transmitted very widely in later ages: interpreters through the generations sometimes cited it to set forth the tenet that prajñā does not destroy worldly truth and yet teaches the highest meaning, sometimes set it side by side with the Vimalakīrti’s words about removing the illness but not removing the dharmas, and sometimes used it to explain the meaning of calming and contemplation operating together, or of the provisional name of the Pure Land; passed on from hand to hand and praised, it became a famous phrase constantly cited in the prajñā line. The words 「當於須菩提品中求」 tr. "it should be sought in Subhūti’s chapter" in Sūtra ③ were also taken by later interpreters of the Vimalakīrti as a simile for method—saying that the doctrinal meaning of a whole sūtra returns in sum to one chapter, just as prajñā returns in sum to what Subhūti taught, and so they urged seeking within this chapter. All of this merely records how widely it spread, without judging higher or lower.

Bringing this whole line of further resonances back to this chapter, what the ancient masters identified and what this treatise itself says are exactly one and the same matter: this chapter’s 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name" is not names and the real mark standing opposed as two separate pieces, but names being false and deceptive while the real mark is undestroyed, and the two being not two. That the scattered flowers are conjured flowers, not flowers that are born, non-arising and issuing from nowhere, is exactly where this non-duality of provisional and real starts—the name of the flowers can be set up while the substance of the flowers is non-arising, just as provisional names can be spoken while the real mark is not destroyed. And this chapter itself had long since gathered this meaning into the place of contemplation and the place of fruition: the five aggregates have only a provisional name, and 「五眾如、法性、實際」 tr. "the suchness, the dharma-nature, and the limit of reality of the five aggregates" is precisely their real mark; 「色與空不二不別」 tr. "form and emptiness are not two and not different"—neither arising nor ceasing, neither receiving nor relinquishing, neither stained nor pure; all dharmas are without anything existent and unfindable, and yet the greatness, immeasurability, and boundlessness of prajñā are not diminished—up to this: beings have only a provisional name and are pure from the very beginning, and so 「眾生無邊故，般若波羅蜜無邊」 tr. "because beings are boundless, the prajñāpāramitā is boundless." Not destroying provisional names does not lie outside the real mark; it lies right at the very place where names are false and deceptive and the real mark is undestroyed.

Therefore what "Scattering Flowers" finally leaves behind is a way of asking that can be used again and again: this passage of Dharma that I am now speaking or hearing—am I gripping it within the marks of names being destroyed or not destroyed, or, without destroying provisional names, do I see the real mark of all dharmas, in which there is neither destroying nor not destroying? When I hear that all dharmas are without anything existent and unfindable, is what arises in my mind the notion of annihilation that sweeps everything away, names and marks both empty, or is it peace and security at the place where provisional names are not destroyed and the real mark is not two? The prajñā to which I make offerings and which I praise—do I take a vast and boundless real mark as something to be attained, or do I know that its being great, immeasurable, and boundless is a name forcibly given, all because the three limits are unfindable and beings are pure from the beginning? Answer these few questions well in every round of question and answer, and 「不壞假名而說諸法實相」 tr. "teaching the real mark of all dharmas without destroying the provisional name" is then no hard saying in which name and reality contradict each other, but the proper position of prajñā—names are false and deceptive while the real mark is undestroyed; all dharmas are without anything existent and unfindable, and yet it is praised three times as great, immeasurable, and boundless.

Looking Round: Within Prajñā the Buddha Is Unfindable—Why, Then, Regard the One Who Practises Prajñā as a Buddha?

What Is Being Asked

This chapter’s name is 「顧視」 tr. "looking round"—its first element means looking back, regarding with care; its second means looking upon, regarding as. Within the one chapter there are in fact two layers of 「顧視」 tr. "looking round" woven together. One layer is the gods’ looking: hearing Subhūti speak of prajñā, they exclaim, 「若有菩薩摩訶薩行是般若波羅蜜不遠離者，我輩視是人如佛」 tr. "If there is a bodhisattva-mahāsattva who practises this prajñāpāramitā and does not depart from it, we regard this person as a Buddha," taking the one who practises prajñā to be like the Buddha. The other layer is the Buddha’s looking: in the middle part of the sūtra text, 「佛觀四眾和合」 tr. "the Buddha looked upon the fourfold assembly gathered together," looking all over the bhikṣus, the bhikṣuṇīs, the upāsakas, the upāsikās, and so on up to the gods, and only 「普觀已」 tr. "having looked round everywhere" did he admonish Śakra; the treatise-author explains this 「普觀」 tr. "looking round everywhere" as precisely 「欲令會中眾生各知佛顧念，則不自輕」 tr. "wishing to let the beings in the assembly each know that the Buddha regards them with care, so that they do not belittle themselves," and also draws a comparison: 「如王顧眄群下，群下則欣然自慶」 tr. "as when a king looks round upon his subjects, and the subjects then gladly congratulate themselves." The chapter’s name, 「顧視」 tr. "looking round," has its eye set exactly on these two layers of regarding.

The first difficulty pressing underneath is the sharpest: within prajñāpāramitā not one dharma is findable—even the Buddha is unfindable, and apart from all dharmas the Buddha is also unfindable—so how can the words 「視是人如佛」 tr. "we regard this person as a Buddha" still stand? Next, prajñā is plainly ultimate emptiness, and yet it is also said that 「有三乘之教——聲聞、辟支佛、佛乘」 tr. "there is the teaching of the three vehicles—the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the Buddha vehicle"; how can emptiness and the distinction of the three vehicles stand together without falling into annihilation and without giving rise to clinging? Further on, since the Buddha regards the fourfold assembly with care, why does he single out Śakra alone to admonish, saying that of the one who receives and upholds prajñā 「魔、若魔天不能得其便」 tr. "Māra, or the gods of Māra, cannot get the advantage of him"—and on what does this 「不得便」 tr. "cannot get the advantage" rest? If the one who receives and upholds it is in an empty house, in the wilderness, or among people, why is it that he 「終不怖畏」 tr. "is never afraid"? Since the gods have already vowed to guard him, why is it further said that some gods have aroused the mind yet 「未聞是般若」 tr. "have not yet heard this prajñā"? Finally, the gods go on to say 「若供養菩薩，即是供養佛」 tr. "if one makes offerings to a bodhisattva, that is making offerings to the Buddha," and even making offerings to śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas filling the three-thousand great-thousand world is not as good as making offerings to one bodhisattva who has first aroused intent—from where does this 「不如」 tr. "is not equal to" come? What this chapter sets out to answer is exactly how 「佛不可得」 tr. "the Buddha is unfindable" and ‘regarding him as a Buddha’ are one matter, and what weight this looking with care, this guarding, and this measuring by the Buddha carry when they come to rest on the bodhisattva. Besides this, between sūtra and treatise there are also not a few particulars hidden that must be accounted for one by one—which assemblies of gods it is that praise three times over, what each of the ten epithets listed in the jātaka of Dīpaṃkara means, where the name 「憍尸迦」 tr. "Kauśika" comes from, how the words 「般若波羅蜜」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā" can be set upon spoken words and scrolls, how the five obstructions of women and women becoming buddhas stand together, and which kinds of death 「不橫死」 tr. "does not die an untimely death" defines—all of these must be made clear one by one, and cannot be skipped over.

Passage by Passage

First, look at which assemblies of gods set this praise in motion. At the opening of the sūtra text, 「諸天王及諸天、諸梵王及諸梵天、伊賒那天及神仙并諸天女，同時三反稱歎」 tr. "the kings of the gods and the gods, the Brahmā kings and the Brahmā gods, the Īśāna gods and the spirit-sages, together with the goddesses, at the same time praised three times over"; the treatise-author glosses this string of names one by one, so that one may know how wide the assembly was. 「天王」 tr. "The kings of the gods" are the Four Heavenly Kings of the heaven of the Four Kings, Śakra Devānām Indra, king of the Thirty-three, and so on up to the Brahmā kings—but only as far as the Brahmā heaven: 「梵天已上更無有王」 tr. "above the Brahmā heaven there are no further kings," because from the second dhyāna upward in the form realm there is nothing to govern, and no title of king is established. 「諸天」 tr. "The gods" refers to 「欲界天」 tr. "the gods of the desire realm"; 「諸梵」 tr. "the Brahmā gods" refers to 「色界天」 tr. "the gods of the form realm"; 「伊賒那」 tr. "Īśāna" is 「大自在天王并其眷屬」 tr. "the king of the Great Sovereign Heaven together with his retinue." The term 「神仙」 tr. "spirit-sages" cannot be taken all in one way; the treatise says there are 「有二種：或天、或人」 tr. "two kinds: either gods or humans"—either spirit-sages among the gods, or sages among humans who have cultivated and gained supernormal powers. 「天女」 tr. "The goddesses" are 「天帝釋夫人舍脂等諸天女」 tr. "Śacī, the consort of Śakra, lord of the gods, and the other goddesses." This passage looks like no more than a roll-call, but its intent lies in showing that those who praise prajñā, from the kings of the gods above down to the goddesses below, all speak with one voice, so that one can see how honoured the dharma they praise is. As for 「三反稱歎」 tr. "praised three times over"—praising three times in a row, 「快哉！快哉！」 tr. "Excellent! Excellent!"—the treatise-author lays bare the reason in a single sentence: 「人以歡喜之至，則三反稱歎」 tr. "when people reach the height of joy, they praise three times over"; only when joy reaches its utmost does one call it good again and again, and this is the outward sign of the gods hearing the deep prajñā and being unable to contain their joy.

Second, look at where 「視是人如佛」 tr. "we regard this person as a Buddha" takes root. The reason the gods praise Subhūti, the treatise-author says, is that they 「知其承佛神力故」 tr. "know that he relies on the Buddha’s spiritual power"; and the reason they are willing to say of the one who practises prajñā, 「視是人如佛」 tr. "we regard this person as a Buddha," is solely 「尊重法故」 tr. "out of honouring the Dharma." The ground is that although within prajñā not one dharma is findable, 「而有三乘之教」 tr. "yet there is the teaching of the three vehicles." The Buddha at once confirms this and carries the words through to the end: 「檀波羅蜜中佛不可得，離檀波羅蜜佛亦不可得」 tr. "within dānapāramitā the Buddha is unfindable, and apart from dānapāramitā the Buddha is also unfindable," and so on through prajñā, inner emptiness, the four foundations of mindfulness, and the omniscience of all kinds—in each, the Buddha is unfindable, and apart from it he is also unfindable. The treatise-author points out the crux of this sentence—「諸法和合因緣故有佛，無有自性。若菩薩能如是行者，當知是菩薩即是佛」 tr. "Because of the coming together of causes and conditions of all dharmas there is a Buddha; he has no own-nature. If a bodhisattva is able to practise in this way, know that this bodhisattva is the Buddha"; and 「即是佛」 tr. "is the Buddha" is 「世界中語」 tr. "worldly speech," as a crown prince, though not yet enthroned, will surely become king. It can be seen that ‘regarding him as a Buddha’ does not say that the person before one has already fulfilled the fruit of buddhahood, but that what he practises is precisely the cause of becoming a buddha, and within it not one dharma can be clung to—the cause being settled, the fruit can be expected, and so he is regarded as a Buddha. This step first joins 「佛不可得」 tr. "the Buddha is unfindable" and ‘regarding him as a Buddha’ into one meaning: precisely because the Buddha has no own-nature and exists in dependence on conditions, the one who practises prajñā with nothing to be attained 「即是佛」 tr. "is the Buddha."

Third, look at how 「一切法雖畢竟空，而有三乘分別」 tr. "although all dharmas are ultimately empty, yet there is the distinction of the three vehicles" does not fall to either side. The treatise-author’s explanation of the passage on the 「深法」 tr. "deep dharma" is the most important: if all dharmas are ultimately empty, then one should not cultivate and gather the merits of the three vehicles, and that falls into annihilation; if one cultivates the merits of the three vehicles, that is 「分別差降」 tr. "distinguishing grades and ranks," and then it is not ultimate emptiness. The measure of prajñā lies just here: 「雖畢竟空而不墮斷滅，雖分別有三乘亦不生著心，於二事中不取定相。」 tr. "Though ultimately empty, it does not fall into annihilation; though it distinguishes three vehicles, it does not give rise to a clinging mind; in the two matters it does not grasp a fixed mark." Because it is empty, it does not cling to the marks of the three vehicles; because there are three vehicles, it does not fall into the emptiness of annihilation. This is exactly where the gods exclaim 「快哉」 tr. "Excellent" and the Buddha declares it deep and subtle.

Fourth, look at the jātaka of Dīpaṃkara and the ten epithets the Buddha lists in full. At the opening of the sūtra the Buddha himself recounts a past event: formerly, in the time of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, 「華嚴城內，四衢道頭」 tr. "within the city of Flower Adornment, at the head of the crossroads," he saw the Buddha and heard the Dharma, and at once attained a practice not apart from the six perfections, inner emptiness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas, great kindness and great compassion, 「亦無所得故」 tr. "and also because there was nothing to be attained," and Dīpaṃkara Buddha then predicted that he would become a buddha in the future. This is the Buddha 「自引本事以為證」 tr. "himself citing a past event as evidence," and what it proves is precisely the sentence ‘practising prajñā with nothing to be attained is the cause of becoming a buddha’; the treatise-author says it plainly: 「此菩薩已得無生忍，入菩薩位，見十方諸佛。」 tr. "This bodhisattva had already attained the acceptance of non-arising, entered the bodhisattva position, and seen the buddhas of the ten directions." The names listed in full at the moment of prediction—「多陀阿伽度、阿羅訶、三藐三佛陀、鞞侈遮羅那、脩伽度、路迦憊、無上士、調御丈夫、天人師、佛、世尊」 tr. "tathāgata, arhat, samyaksaṃbuddha, vidyācaraṇa, sugata, lokavid, the unsurpassed one, the tamer of persons, the teacher of gods and humans, the Buddha, the World-Honored One"—are exactly the ten common epithets shared by all buddhas; they cannot be passed over vaguely here, and their meanings must be drawn out one by one according to what the ancient masters handed down. 「多陀阿伽度」 tr. "Tathāgata" is the Tathāgata, the one who comes riding the path of reality as it is; 「阿羅訶」 tr. "Arhat" is the one worthy of offerings, fit to receive the offerings of humans and gods; 「三藐三佛陀」 tr. "Samyaksaṃbuddha" is the rightly and universally knowing one, rightly awakened to all dharmas without exception; 「鞞侈遮羅那」 tr. "Vidyācaraṇa" is the one complete in clarity and conduct, whose clarity of knowledge and virtuous conduct are both perfect; 「脩伽度」 tr. "Sugata" is the well-gone, who has gone well into nirvāṇa and does not fall back again; 「路迦憊」 tr. "Lokavid" is the knower of the world, who thoroughly understands the world and what transcends the world; the next four epithets, 「無上士、調御丈夫、天人師」 tr. "the unsurpassed one, the tamer of persons, the teacher of gods and humans," show that none surpasses his rank, that he is able to tame and subdue those capable of being liberated, and that he is the teacher of gods and humans; and last comes 「佛、世尊」 tr. "the Buddha, the World-Honored One," the awakened one who is honoured by the world. Listing these ten epithets serves to show the solemnity of Dīpaṃkara’s prediction, and also foretells that Śākyamuni is to become the one Buddha—exactly echoing the earlier simile 「必當為王」 tr. "will surely become king."

Fifth, look at the second layer of praise, after the gods have heard the Buddha’s broad exposition. Once the Buddha has broadly made clear the meaning that the Buddha is unfindable and the bodhisattva is the Buddha, 「諸天聞佛廣明已所歎義，解心轉深，重復讚歎」 tr. "the gods, hearing the Buddha broadly clarify the meaning they had praised, their understanding growing deeper, praised again"—these words, 「解心轉深」 tr. "their understanding growing deeper," are important: the first praising was still in joy, while this time they praise again after their understanding has deepened. They say to the Buddha that prajñā 「能令諸菩薩摩訶薩得薩婆若」 tr. "is able to cause the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas to attain sarvajñā," and the key lies in 「於色不取不捨」 tr. "neither grasping nor relinquishing form," and likewise neither grasping nor relinquishing feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness, and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds. Why neither grasp nor relinquish? The treatise-author supplies two layers of reason for this sentence. One is 「以見一切法過罪故不取，有利益故不捨」 tr. "because one sees the faults of all dharmas, one does not grasp; because they bring benefit, one does not relinquish"—seeing that dharmas have faults, one does not cling to and grasp them; seeing that they are of benefit in transforming and liberating others, one does not cut them off and relinquish them. The other is 「又以一切法畢竟空、不生不滅故不取、不捨」 tr. "further, because all dharmas are ultimately empty, not arising and not ceasing, one does not grasp and does not relinquish"—in terms of dharma-nature, they are originally not arising and not ceasing, so there is neither anything to grasp nor anything to relinquish. The former is said from the side of function, the latter from the side of principle, and the two meanings together make the completeness of 「不取不捨」 tr. "neither grasping nor relinquishing."

Sixth, look at how the Buddha’s looking round comes to rest in admonishing Śakra, and why testimony is divided into two layers, the white-robed and those who have left the household life. In the middle part the sūtra changes scene: the Buddha no longer answers the gods’ question, but of his own accord 「佛觀四眾和合」 tr. "the Buddha looked upon the fourfold assembly gathered together," and 「普觀已」 tr. "having looked round everywhere," he then addressed Śakra Devānām Indra. The treatise-author explains that this unprompted looking round everywhere is no idle stroke. One reason is 「欲讚般若功德，故命釋提桓因」 tr. "wishing to praise the merit of prajñā, he therefore called on Śakra Devānām Indra," as 「先以好寶示人，然後讚寶所能」 tr. "one first shows a fine jewel to people, and then praises what the jewel can do"—first showing the substance of prajñā, then praising its function. The other reason is 「欲令會中眾生各知佛顧念，則不自輕」 tr. "wishing to let the beings in the assembly each know that the Buddha regards them with care, so that they do not belittle themselves," and only when they do not belittle themselves are they 「堪任聽法」 tr. "fit to hear the Dharma." This one glance of the Buddha’s care for beings is the real meaning of the chapter’s name, 「顧視」 tr. "looking round." As for why he calls on Śakra alone, the treatise-author further distinguishes two layers of witness: 「說功德故，應以白衣證；白衣中釋提桓因為大」 tr. "because merit is being spoken of, the white-robed should serve as witness; among the white-robed, Śakra Devānām Indra is the greatest"—in praising the merit of cultivating blessings at home, one should put forward a householder as witness, and Śakra is the foremost among the white-robed; 「說般若者，以出家人為證；出家人中，是舍利弗、須菩提等為大」 tr. "when prajñā is spoken of, those who have left the household life serve as witness; among those who have left the household life, Śāriputra, Subhūti, and the like are the greatest"—in discussing the deep knowledge of prajñā, the noble assembly of those who have left the household life serves as witness, and Śāriputra and Subhūti are the foremost among them. Here the sūtra text is speaking precisely of the side of merit and of receiving and upholding, and so it calls on Śakra; this division of the two layers of witness must not be left out.

Seventh, look at why the Buddha does not call him 「釋」 tr. "Śakra" but calls him 「憍尸迦」 tr. "Kauśika." The treatise-author deliberately sets up a question: since it is known that 「釋」 tr. "Śakra" is his name and 「提婆因」 tr. "Devānām Indra" is the title of the lord of the gods, why does the Buddha here set aside his name and call him by his clan name, 「憍尸迦」 tr. "Kauśika"? The answer brings out a past event: long ago in the country of Magadha there was a brahmin named Magha, of the Kauśika clan, who 「有福德大智慧」 tr. "had merit and great wisdom," and with 「知友三十三人共修福德」 tr. "thirty-three friends cultivated merit together"; at the end of their lives they 「皆生須彌山頂第二天上」 tr. "were all born in the second heaven on the summit of Mount Sumeru"; the brahmin Magha became the lord of the gods, and the other thirty-two became his ministers—「以此三十三人故，名為三十三天」 tr. "because of these thirty-three persons, they are called the gods of the Heaven of the Thirty-three." The Buddha’s calling him 「憍尸迦」 tr. "Kauśika" is exactly 「喚其本姓」 tr. "calling him by his original clan name"; his other names are 「或言天主，或言千眼」 tr. "sometimes ‘lord of the gods,’ sometimes ‘thousand-eyed,’" yet here the original clan name alone is used, because 「大人喚之，故稱其姓」 tr. "a great person is calling him, and therefore uses his clan name"—when one of standing addresses another, using the clan name is a mark of respect. This piece of glossing both explains the origin of the name and, along the way, shows how the Heaven of the Thirty-three got its name.

Eighth, look at how the words 「般若波羅蜜」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā" can be set upon spoken words and scrolls. The treatise-author explains that the 「般若波羅蜜」 tr. "prajñāpāramitā" spoken of here refers to 「十方諸佛所說語言名字、書寫經卷，宣傳顯示實相智慧」 tr. "the spoken words and names uttered by the buddhas of the ten directions and the written scrolls, which proclaim, transmit, and reveal the wisdom of the real mark." There is one layer here that must be discerned: the wisdom of prajñā itself 「無諸觀語言相」 tr. "has no mark of contemplations or of spoken words," and is from the start not something words and letters can exhaust; yet 「因語言、經卷能得此般若波羅蜜」 tr. "through spoken words and scrolls one is able to attain this prajñāpāramitā"—it is precisely by these names and scrolls serving as a bridge that people are able to enter true prajñā. Therefore 「以名字、經卷名為般若波羅蜜」 tr. "names and scrolls are called prajñāpāramitā": the name of what is expressed is set upon the teaching that expresses it; it is a provisional name and not a real entity. Only when this is clear will one neither mistake reading and reciting the scrolls themselves for the ultimate of prajñā, nor, because prajñā is apart from words, think lightly of the use of the scrolls.

Ninth, look at what 「魔」 tr. "Māra" is, why he troubles bodhisattvas, and what it is that counts as 「得便」 tr. "getting the advantage." Through three questions the treatise-author lays out the deeds of Māra in full. 「魔」 tr. "Māra" is 「自在天主」 tr. "the lord of the Sovereign Heaven"; though born there by merit, he 「懷諸邪見」 tr. "harbours all kinds of wrong views," takes the beings of the desire realm to be his own people, and fears only that the buddhas and bodhisattvas will liberate all beings and 「空我境界」 tr. "empty my domain," and so he conceives hatred, binds himself in enmity, and treats the buddhas and bodhisattvas as his foes. There are four kinds of Māra—「一者、煩惱魔，二者、五眾魔，三者、死魔，四者、自在天子魔」 tr. "first, the Māra of afflictions; second, the Māra of the five aggregates; third, the Māra of death; fourth, the Māra who is a son of the gods of the Sovereign Heaven"; relying on the power of prajñā, none of the four Māras can get the advantage: attaining the real mark of all dharmas, afflictions are cut off, and destroying the Māra of afflictions, even the heavenly Māra cannot get the advantage; entering nirvāṇa without remainder destroys the Māra of the five aggregates and the Māra of death. As for the marks of 「得便」 tr. "getting the advantage," it is Māra and Māra’s people coming to terrify the bodhisattva: either 「魔作龍身，種種異形可畏之象，夜來恐怖行者」 tr. "Māra takes the body of a nāga, with all kinds of strange shapes and fearsome forms, and comes by night to terrify the practitioner"; or he displays the finest objects of the five desires to ruin and confuse him; or he turns people’s minds to make great offerings, so that the practitioner grows greedy and attached and loses the path; or he turns people’s minds to revile, beat, wound, and harm him, so that the practitioner gives rise to anger and sorrow—「隨前人意所趣向，因而壞之，是名得便」 tr. "following wherever the other person’s mind inclines, he ruins him by that means; this is called getting the advantage," and the details are 「如〈魔品〉中廣說」 tr. "as expounded at length in the chapter on Māra." A further distinction must be made: if the bodhisattva has already entered the dharma-position and attained the body born of dharma-nature, then although Māra works evil he cannot ruin him; if he has not yet attained avaivartika, Māra ruins him in all kinds of ways; and those who are lax, greedy for pleasure, deceiving themselves and deceiving the Buddha are 「諸佛菩薩所不守護，魔得其便」 tr. "not guarded by the buddhas and bodhisattvas, and Māra gets the advantage of them"—it can be seen that whether or not the advantage is got turns on whether one oneself cultivates or not, clings or not.

Tenth, look at why Māra still cannot get the advantage of a bodhisattva of the flesh body, whose power of the path is still slight. The treatise-author again sets up a question: Māra’s power is very great, and the flesh-body bodhisattva’s power is not yet full—on what ground is he not taken advantage of? The answer has two layers. One, as said above, is 「為諸佛菩薩所護故」 tr. "because he is guarded by the buddhas and bodhisattvas." The other is a deeper cause the Buddha himself tells of: this person 「善修諸法空，亦不著空；不著空者，云何當得便」 tr. "skilfully cultivates the emptiness of all dharmas and also does not cling to emptiness; of one who does not cling to emptiness, how could the advantage be got?"—just as 「無瘡則不受毒」 tr. "where there is no wound, poison is not received": when the body has no wound, poison has no gap through which to enter; when the mind does not cling to emptiness, Māra has no crack to exploit. Further, all dharmas, contemplated as they really are, are empty, signless, and non-action, and are alike of 「一相」 tr. "a single mark," so they cannot take advantage of one another—「如火不能滅火，得水則滅，以異相故」 tr. "as fire cannot extinguish fire, but is extinguished on meeting water, because their marks differ": what shares a mark does not destroy one another, and only what differs in mark removes the other; since all dharmas share the one mark of emptiness, there is no dharma that can take advantage of another to destroy it. In this meaning the four words 「亦不著空」 tr. "also does not cling to emptiness" deserve the closest attention: to have broken through all dharmas and yet secretly lodge in 「空」 tr. "emptiness"—that 「空」 tr. "emptiness" in turn becomes an open wound.

Eleventh, look at why the bodhisattva’s abiding in the three gates of liberation does not instead become a place where the advantage is got. The objector says: when a bodhisattva abides securely in the three gates of liberation—emptiness, signlessness, and non-action—is he not precisely at odds with all dharmas? Emptiness is at odds with existence, the signless with having marks, non-action with action—is this point of opposition not exactly the flaw through which Māra gets the advantage? The treatise-author answers crisply: in this sūtra the Buddha has already said himself that 「三解脫門無有自性」 tr. "the three gates of liberation have no own-nature," and in the earlier discussions it was also said that one is 「於空、無相、無作中亦不著」 tr. "also not clinging within emptiness, the signless, and non-action." Since the three gates of liberation themselves have no own-nature and are not clung to, they do not become an entity standing in opposition to other dharmas; 「是故雖住三解脫門，魔及魔民不得其便」 tr. "therefore, although he abides in the three gates of liberation, Māra and Māra’s people cannot get the advantage of him."

Twelfth, look at the two further layers beyond Māra: ‘humans and non-humans cannot get the advantage’ and 「終不橫死」 tr. "never dies an untimely death." The sūtra says that of the one who receives and upholds prajñā, 「若人、非人不能得其便」 tr. "neither humans nor non-humans can get the advantage of him," and the treatise-author explains the reason as lying in his 「一切眾生中善修慈心、悲喜捨心，以無所得故」 tr. "skilfully cultivating, toward all beings, the mind of kindness and the minds of compassion, joy, and equanimity, because there is nothing to be attained"—embracing all beings with the four immeasurable minds, and yet not clinging to what is cultivated, humans and non-humans have no gap through which to trouble him. As for 「不橫死」 tr. "does not die an untimely death," one must first define what an untimely death is: the treatise says an untimely death is 「無罪而死」 tr. "dying without fault," as when 「壽命未盡，錯投藥故，或不順藥法，或無看病人；或飢渴、寒熱等夭命」 tr. "the life-span is not yet exhausted, but because the wrong medicine is given, or the method of the medicine is not followed, or there is no one to tend the sick; or through hunger and thirst, cold and heat, and the like, life is cut short"—only these endings that are out of due course, dying when one ought not yet to die, are called untimely death. Why does the bodhisattva who receives and upholds prajñā not die an untimely death? Because 「從初發意來，於一切眾生中，常行檀波羅蜜」 tr. "from the first arousing of intent onward, toward all beings, he has constantly practised dānapāramitā," giving medicine according to the illness, rescuing the orphaned and the poor, giving whatever is asked for, 「於一切眾生等心供給」 tr. "providing for all beings with an equal mind"; by the merit of this equal giving he does not meet an untimely death. It can be seen that not dying an untimely death does not grant a person a body that lives long and never dies; it speaks of the fruit that responds to his causal practice of giving and benefiting beings.

Thirteenth, look at why the address 「善男子、善女人」 tr. "good men and good women" takes the place of 「菩薩摩訶薩」 tr. "bodhisattva-mahāsattva," and at the five obstructions of women within it. The treatise-author sets up a question: elsewhere it always says 「菩薩摩訶薩」 tr. "bodhisattva-mahāsattva," so why here does it change to 「善男子、善女人」 tr. "good men and good women"? Answer: what was said before was that 「實相智慧難受，以能受故，則是菩薩摩訶薩」 tr. "the wisdom of the real mark is hard to receive; because one is able to receive it, one is then a bodhisattva-mahāsattva"—that is said with respect to being able to bear the deep knowledge; what is said now concerns making offerings, receiving and upholding, reading and reciting, and so on, and 「雜說故」 tr. "because it is spoken of in a mixed way," they 「得稱」 tr. "may be called" 「善男子、善女人」 tr. "good men and good women"—this is said with respect to the merit of commonly practised cultivation, whose threshold is wide, and so good men and women are named in general. Right after this the treatise-author points out a further layer of care in the change of address, namely the five obstructions of women: 「經中說女人有五礙：不得作釋提桓因、梵王、魔王、轉輪聖王、佛。」 tr. "The sūtras say that women have five obstructions: they cannot become Śakra Devānām Indra, a Brahmā king, a Māra king, a wheel-turning sage king, or a buddha." Some women, hearing 「不得作佛」 tr. "cannot become a buddha," grow discouraged and are unwilling to arouse intent; there are also teachers of the Dharma who simply do not expound the Buddha path to women. The Buddha here deliberately speaks of 「善男子、善女人」 tr. "good men and good women" side by side precisely to draw women in and not let them fall back in mind. This meaning must never be evaded, yet its boundary must also be stated clearly as the treatise states it: the five obstructions 「說一身事」 tr. "speak of the matter of one body"—they are said with respect to this present woman’s body, which cannot, as a woman’s body, occupy these five positions; and 「女人可得作佛，非不轉女身也」 tr. "a woman can become a buddha—not without transforming the woman’s body": it is not that women cannot become buddhas, only that they do so after transforming the woman’s body, and the road to buddhahood is not closed to women. On one side is the limit of this one body, on the other the open road of practice; the two meanings stand together, neither exaggerated nor concealed.

Fourteenth, look, in 「人不得便」 tr. "humans cannot get the advantage," at what the 「人」 tr. "humans" refers to, and at the discernment of the order of speaking first of emptiness and afterward of the four immeasurable minds. Having already said that Māra cannot get the advantage and that humans and non-humans cannot get the advantage, here 「人不得便」 tr. "humans cannot get the advantage" is raised on its own, and the treatise-author explains 「人」 tr. "humans" as 「若賊、若官、若怨等」 tr. "thieves, officials, enemies, and the like"—robbers, the authorities, foes, and their kind, who wish to trouble the bodhisattva and seek his weak point. Then the treatise-author poses a question to himself: earlier, when not getting the advantage was spoken of, 「但說空」 tr. "only emptiness was spoken of"; now, in speaking of humans not getting the advantage, 「但說四無量心」 tr. "only the four immeasurable minds are spoken of"—what is the reason for this order, and for what is detailed and what is brief? The treatise-author faithfully records two explanations side by side, without settling on one as right: 「有人言」 tr. "some say"—earlier it was facing Māra and Māra’s people, and 「怨大故法亦大」 tr. "because the foe is great, the dharma is also great," so the great dharma of ultimate emptiness is used; now it is facing humans, and 「怨小故法亦小」 tr. "because the foe is small, the dharma is also small," so the near dharma of the four immeasurable minds is used. Again 「有人言」 tr. "some say"—the four immeasurable minds are originally the 「菩薩常行」 tr. "constant practice of the bodhisattva," for gathering all merits, and only afterward does the mark of emptiness of prajñā cause wrong views to be removed, so that one clings neither to beings nor to dharmas; hence 「是二法前後無在」 tr. "these two dharmas have no fixed before and after," and there is no set order. The treatise-author further adds a meaning: Māra mostly does not appear in his own form, but 「或現雷震、或作風雨、或作病痛等」 tr. "either manifests thunder, or makes wind and rain, or makes sickness and pain, and the like"; this formless pressure must be dissolved by 「諸法空」 tr. "the emptiness of all dharmas"; whereas 「令人來惡口罵詈、刀杖打斫」 tr. "causing people to come and revile with harsh words, and strike and slash with knives and staves"—this trouble from sentient beings is borne with the four immeasurable minds. Emptiness counters the formless deeds of Māra, kindness and compassion counter the harms of sentient beings; each has its proper place.

Fifteenth, look at those gods who have aroused the mind and yet 「未聞般若」 tr. "have not yet heard prajñā." The sūtra says that in the three-thousand great-thousand world, from the heavens of the Four Heavenly Kings up to the gods Sovereign over Others’ Transformations, and from the Brahmā heaven up to the Heaven of Abundant Fruit, there are those who have aroused the mind of unsurpassed awakening and yet 「未聞是般若波羅蜜」 tr. "have not yet heard this prajñāpāramitā," and the Buddha urges them now to hear and receive it, draw near to it, read and recite it, and rightly bear it in mind. The treatise-author first points out the weight of this exhortation: 「諸天有大功德，猶尚供養，何況於人」 tr. "the gods have great merit and yet still make offerings—how much more so humans"—even the gods, deep in merit, must hear and receive it, how much more those among humans; and 「能發無上道心者，最應深心聽」 tr. "those who are able to arouse the mind of the unsurpassed path should most of all listen with a profound mind," because 「般若是佛道之本」 tr. "prajñā is the root of the Buddha path." He then poses a question: since these gods have already aroused the mind, why do they on the contrary not hear prajñā? The treatise-author answers along two roads. One is 「此天前世人中發意，今生天上，五欲覆心故不聞」 tr. "these gods aroused intent among humans in a former life and are now born in the heavens; because the five desires cover their minds, they do not hear"—the gods of the desire realm, 「五情利，五欲妙，染著深故，視東忘西，不能求般若」 tr. "their five faculties sharp, their five desires exquisite, because their defiled attachment is deep, look east and forget the west, and cannot seek prajñā," covered over by the five desires, attending to this and losing that, with no mind to seek the Dharma. The other is that the gods of the form realm, 「雖先聞法發心，以味著禪定深故，不能求般若」 tr. "though they earlier heard the Dharma and aroused the mind, because their relish for and attachment to meditative absorption are deep, cannot seek prajñā"—greedy for the taste of absorption, they too have the mind that seeks prajñā obstructed. One is sunk in the five desires, the other sunk in the taste of absorption; it seems that the heavens surpass the human world, yet in the one matter of seeking prajñā they fall short of the beings in the human world who have aroused the mind in the care they take, and this is exactly why the Buddha urges them that they should hear it.

Sixteenth, look at how 「不得便」 tr. "cannot get the advantage" can further be divided into two layers, inner causes and conditions and outer causes and conditions. The treatise-author points out that what was said earlier, 「魔及魔民不能得其便」 tr. "Māra and Māra’s people cannot get the advantage of him," was said with respect to 「內因緣」 tr. "inner causes and conditions"—namely 「空三昧及四無量心」 tr. "the emptiness samādhi and the four immeasurable minds," the inner protection of the Dharma that the practitioner cultivates in his own mind; now, in speaking again of 「不得便」 tr. "cannot get the advantage," it is said with respect to 「外因緣」 tr. "outer causes and conditions"—the Buddha tells the gods: you make offerings to and receive and uphold prajñā, and these good men and good women likewise receive and uphold it and make offerings to prajñā; 「同事故」 tr. "because you share the same work," 「若魔來破，汝應守護」 tr. "if Māra comes to break them, you should guard them." One layer is the practitioner himself cultivating emptiness and compassion, leaving Māra no gap from within; the other layer is the Buddha entrusting the gods, adding protection from without. Only when the two conditions, inner and outer, are seen together is the protection complete.

Seventeenth, look at the two layers of causes and conditions on which the one who receives and upholds prajñā, 「三處住」 tr. "dwelling in three places," relies so as never to be afraid. The treatise-author divides 「處」 tr. "places" into three kinds. The first is 「空舍」 tr. "empty houses": within an empty house there are 「多諸鬼魅及以賊寇，眾惡易來」 tr. "many ghosts and goblins as well as thieves and bandits, and all kinds of evil come easily," and so the sūtra speaks of it first. The second is 「曠野」 tr. "the wilderness": apart from where people dwell and from empty houses, all the rest—「山澤樹林等，皆是曠野」 tr. "mountains, marshes, forests, and the like, are all wilderness"—where human traces are few, and there are 「多諸虎、狼、師子、惡賊、鬼魅」 tr. "many tigers, wolves, lions, vicious bandits, ghosts, and goblins." The third is 「人住處」 tr. "places where people dwell": because where people live is 「不淨故，魔及鬼神尠來」 tr. "impure, Māra and ghosts and spirits seldom come," and the difficulties are fewer, and so the sūtra speaks of it last. Whichever of these three places he is in, the practitioner is 「無所畏懼」 tr. "without fear," and the treatise-author traces this to 「二因緣故：一者、善修十八空，二者、般若波羅蜜威德故」 tr. "two causes and conditions: first, skilfully cultivating the eighteen emptinesses; second, the majestic power of prajñāpāramitā"—one is inwardly cultivating the eighteen emptinesses, the mind clinging to nothing; the other is relying on the majestic power of prajñā itself bestowed upon him. So not being afraid does not rest on courage; it comes from the two layers of the contemplation of emptiness and the majesty of the Dharma.

Eighteenth, look at the gods’ guarding and the reasons for their vow. At the end of the sūtra the gods of the three-thousand great-thousand world say to the Buddha, vowing that they 「常當守護」 tr. "will always guard" the one who receives and upholds prajñā, and list a long string of things that come about 「以菩薩因緣故」 tr. "by reason of the bodhisattva": the cutting off of the three evil destinies, the cutting off of the poverty of gods and humans, the cutting off of all calamities, diseases, and famines, and so on up to the ten wholesome paths, the four meditations, the four immeasurable minds, the six perfections, the four fruits of the śramaṇa, the path of the pratyekabuddha, and so on up to bringing beings to maturity, purifying buddha-worlds, the appearance of buddhas in the world, the turning of the Dharma wheel, and the appearance of the Three Jewels—every kind of wholesome dharma and noble fruit in the world, without exception, exists because of the bodhisattva. In explaining the gods’ mind of guarding, the treatise-author first makes clear the feeling behind their vow: 「我等當守護是菩薩，與我等同事故；亦以求佛道者，能自捨身樂欲，使一切眾生得樂故。」 tr. "We should guard this bodhisattva, because he shares the same work with us; and also because one who seeks the Buddha path is able to give up his own bodily pleasures and desires so as to cause all beings to attain happiness." He also supplies the reason for such phrases as 「因菩薩斷三惡道」 tr. "because of the bodhisattva the three evil destinies are cut off": although the bodhisattva is not yet free of desire, he is able to keep beings from practising the ten unwholesome deeds, and so the three evil destinies, the poverty of gods and humans, and all calamities are cut off; by teaching people to practise the ten wholesome deeds, he thereby 「開三善道門」 tr. "opens the gates of the three good destinies"; and so on—seeing the faults of the five desires, he becomes free of desire and attains the four meditations; by his original vow he gives rise to the four immeasurable minds; to be free of bodily suffering he gives rise to the four formless absorptions; for the Buddha path he cultivates the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds—「是法，亦自行，亦教人」 tr. "these dharmas he both practises himself and teaches to others," and as teaching passes on from one to another, wholesome dharmas remain constantly in the world. The most important thing is gathered into a single sentence: 「今是菩薩結業生身，在因緣中，無有力勢，而能說是善法，令眾生修行，我等云何當不守護？」 tr. "Now this bodhisattva has a body born of fetters and karma, lies within causes and conditions, and has no power or might, and yet he is able to speak these wholesome dharmas and cause beings to cultivate them—how could we not guard him?"—just as 「太子雖小，群臣百官無不奉承」 tr. "though the crown prince is small, among the ministers and the hundred officials there is none who does not serve him": although the bodhisattva is an ordinary body brought about by karmic result and seems to have no power to speak of, he is able to open up all these wholesome dharmas—how could the gods have any reason not to guard him?

Nineteenth, look at ‘making offerings to a bodhisattva is making offerings to the Buddha’ and the concluding measure against the two vehicles. The Buddha confirms the gods’ words and goes a step further: 「若供養菩薩，即是供養佛」 tr. "if one makes offerings to a bodhisattva, that is making offerings to the Buddha"—because 「般若是三世佛母」 tr. "prajñā is the mother of the buddhas of the three times," making offerings to a bodhisattva for the sake of prajñā is the same as making offerings to the Buddha. And so on: even making offerings to śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas filling the three-thousand great-thousand world as thick as bamboo, reeds, rice, and hemp is 「不如供養恭敬初發意菩薩」 tr. "not equal to making offerings to and revering a bodhisattva who has first aroused intent." The objector will ask: those of the two vehicles have already realised the limit of reality and are originally 「一切眾生福田」 tr. "the field of merit of all beings"—why are they, on the contrary, not equal to one bodhisattva who has first aroused the mind? The treatise-author gathers it into three matters: 「一者、用薩婆若心行般若，二者、常不離六波羅蜜等諸功德，三者、由是菩薩斷三惡道、出生三乘」 tr. "first, he practises prajñā with the mind of sarvajñā; second, he is never apart from the six perfections and the other merits; third, because of this bodhisattva the three evil destinies are cut off and the three vehicles are brought forth"—the bodhisattva of the first mind practises prajñā with the mind of omniscience, is never apart from the six perfections, and is also able to cut off the three evil destinies and bring forth the three vehicles, whereas 「依二乘人，不能斷三惡道、出生三乘」 tr. "relying on the people of the two vehicles, one cannot cut off the three evil destinies or bring forth the three vehicles." It can be seen that this 「不如」 tr. "is not equal to" does not lie in the height of the fruit-stage, realised or not yet realised, but in this one portion: whether one can bear and carry on the seed of buddhahood and bring forth the three vehicles. The meaning of looking round upon him as a Buddha reaches its utmost at this point of measuring.

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「視是人如佛」 tr. "we regard this person as a Buddha" as saying that this person is right now an already perfected buddha. The treatise says it plainly: 「即是佛」 tr. "is the Buddha" is 「世界中語」 tr. "worldly speech," as a crown prince will surely become king—what it speaks of is that the cause is settled and the fruit can be expected, that this is ‘practising prajñā with nothing to be attained is the cause of becoming a buddha,’ not that the practitioner already possesses the fruit of buddhahood. To read 「如佛」 tr. "as a Buddha" as ‘already a buddha’ is to mistake the boundary between 「必當為王」 tr. "will surely become king" and ‘already being king.’

Do not read ‘ultimately empty and yet there are three vehicles’ as meaning that emptiness can do without the three vehicles, or that the three vehicles spoil emptiness. The treatise blocks both ends exactly: ultimate emptiness without cultivating the merits of the three vehicles is annihilation; cultivating the merits of the three vehicles while losing ultimate emptiness is distinguishing grades and ranks; prajñā is 「雖畢竟空而不墮斷滅，雖分別有三乘亦不生著心」 tr. "though ultimately empty, it does not fall into annihilation; though it distinguishes three vehicles, it does not give rise to a clinging mind." Emptiness and the three vehicles are not a choice of one out of two; it is 「於二事中不取定相」 tr. "in the two matters not grasping a fixed mark."

Do not read ‘Māra cannot get the advantage’ as a real battle of attack and defence in which the practitioner holds Māra off by his own abilities. Where the treatise lands is 「善修諸法空，亦不著空」 tr. "skilfully cultivating the emptiness of all dharmas and also not clinging to emptiness"—it is that all dharmas are alike of a single mark and so do not take advantage of one another; not getting the advantage is not having defeated Māra, but there being no gap to enter at all, as 「無瘡則不受毒」 tr. "where there is no wound, poison is not received." Nor should the bodhisattva’s abiding in the three gates of liberation be read as ‘at odds with existence, and just right for Māra to get the advantage’; 「三解脫門無有自性」 tr. "the three gates of liberation have no own-nature," and one does not cling even to emptiness, the signless, and non-action, so one abides in them and is not taken advantage of.

Do not read 「不橫死」 tr. "does not die an untimely death" as meaning that upholding prajñā preserves one’s life and gives long years. The treatise defines it clearly: an untimely death is 「無罪而死」 tr. "dying without fault"—being given the wrong medicine, not following the method of the medicine, having no one to tend the sick, having life cut short by hunger and thirst, cold and heat, and the like; the reason for not dying an untimely death is that the bodhisattva 「常行檀波羅蜜」 tr. "constantly practises dānapāramitā," 「於一切眾生等心供給」 tr. "providing for all beings with an equal mind"; it is said with respect to his causal practice of equal giving and of rescuing the orphaned and the poor, and does not grant a body that does not die.

Do not read the five obstructions of women as meaning that the Buddhadharma thinks lightly of women, or that women can in the end never become buddhas. The treatise lets two meanings stand together, and lacking either one it becomes lopsided: the five obstructions 「說一身事」 tr. "speak of the matter of one body," said with respect to the present woman’s body, which cannot as such occupy the five positions of Śakra, Brahmā, the Māra king, the wheel-turning king, and a buddha; and 「女人可得作佛，非不轉女身也」 tr. "a woman can become a buddha—not without transforming the woman’s body": the road to buddhahood is not closed to women, only it is completed after transforming the woman’s body. The Buddha’s deliberately saying 「善男子、善女人」 tr. "good men and good women" here has its original intent precisely in drawing women in and not letting them fall back in mind on hearing of the obstructions; still less may the reader turn it around and read it as disparagement.

Do not read ‘making offerings to a bodhisattva surpasses making offerings to the two vehicles’ as slighting the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. The sūtra says clearly that those of the two vehicles are 「一切眾生福田」 tr. "the field of merit of all beings"; the 「不如」 tr. "is not equal to" lies only in three matters—the mind of sarvajñā, not being apart from the six perfections, and being able to bring forth the three vehicles. This is a measure with respect to the one portion of bearing the seed of buddhahood, not a disparagement of the limit of reality that the two vehicles have realised.

Do not read those gods who 「未聞般若」 tr. "have not yet heard prajñā" as meaning that gods are inferior to humans, or that gods have no mind for the path. The treatise speaks evenly: these gods were mostly those who 「前世人中發意」 tr. "aroused intent among humans in a former life" and were born in the heavens, and only because of 「五欲覆心」 tr. "the five desires covering their minds" or 「味著禪定深」 tr. "deep relish for and attachment to meditative absorption" have they for a time been unable to attend to seeking prajñā; it is precisely for this that the Buddha urges them that they should hear it. What is to be valued is this portion of care, to 「深心聽」 tr. "listen with a profound mind" to prajñā, not the height of the place where one is born.

Bearing on Practice

This chapter can serve as a mirror for ‘how to regard.’ 「視是人如佛」 tr. "We regard this person as a Buddha" reminds us of the eye with which we look at people: seeing someone who honestly practises prajñā and has nothing to be attained in dharmas, do not neglect him because his appearance is ordinary—since what he practises is the cause of becoming a buddha, one should think of him as a Buddha. Conversely, the Buddha’s looking round upon the fourfold assembly, letting beings 「各知佛顧念，則不自輕」 tr. "each know that the Buddha regards them with care, so that they do not belittle themselves," reminds us ourselves as well: the illness most easily born on the road of practice is belittling and demeaning oneself, thinking ‘how could someone of my capacity talk of prajñā’; remember this one glance of the Buddha’s care, and then 「不自輕故，堪任聽法」 tr. "because one does not belittle oneself, one is fit to hear the Dharma."

Facing ‘ultimately empty and yet there are three vehicles,’ one can correct two deviations. One is feeling, on hearing 「畢竟空」 tr. "ultimate emptiness," that cultivating giving and keeping the precepts have all become superfluous—that is falling into annihilation. The other is diligently cultivating merit while secretly making real an ‘I am cultivating, there is a dharma to be attained’—that is giving rise to a clinging mind. Learn this chapter’s 「於二事中不取定相」 tr. "in the two matters not grasping a fixed mark": in practice, cultivate the merits of the three vehicles all the same; in the mind, do not grasp a fixed mark of a single dharma.

‘Māra cannot get the advantage’ gives those who apply themselves a close-at-hand pointer: what truly holds Māra off is not supernormal abilities but 「善修諸法空，亦不著空」 tr. "skilfully cultivating the emptiness of all dharmas and also not clinging to emptiness." When a state appears before one—whether fearsome, alluring, or provoking anger—if in the mind there is not one dharma to grasp or cling to, it is as 「無瘡則不受毒」 tr. "where there is no wound, poison is not received," and there is no gap to exploit. And 「不著空」 tr. "not clinging to emptiness" especially needs attention: to have broken through all dharmas and yet secretly lodge in an 「空」 tr. "emptiness" is exactly to leave Māra an open wound once more. The treatise’s way of countering the deeds of Māra by dividing them into the formless and those from sentient beings can also be borrowed: meeting groundless pressure of the kind of thunder, wind and rain, sickness and pain, settle the mind with 「諸法空」 tr. "the emptiness of all dharmas"; meeting troubles from sentient beings of the kind of reviling and striking and slashing, bear them with kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity.

Look again at those gods who, sunk in the five desires or relishing and attached to meditative absorption, 「未聞般若」 tr. "have not yet heard prajñā": they are exactly a mirror in which to see oneself. However superior one’s circumstances, if one is stuck to pleasures of desire or to states of absorption, one will likewise 「視東忘西」 tr. "look east and forget the west" and miss prajñā. Use its meaning in reverse—the more favourable the circumstances, the more there is relish within absorption, the more one should raise this portion of alertness to 「深心聽」 tr. "listen with a profound mind" to prajñā, and not let present pleasant feeling cover over the original mind that seeks the path.

Finally, ‘the bodhisattva who has first aroused intent surpasses the two vehicles filling the world’ is not meant to make one exalt oneself, but to remind one of the weight of arousing the mind: the first mind that in a single thought practises prajñā with the mind of sarvajñā, is not apart from the six perfections, and bears the bringing forth of the three vehicles—its merit is already no small thing. To guard this one thought of the first mind, not letting it, amid laxity and greed for pleasure, deceive itself and also deceive the buddhas—this is the chapter’s counsel to those who arouse the mind.

Further Resonances

The backbone of this chapter is a single thread strung together by 「顧視」 tr. "looking round": the gods begin with 「視是人如佛」 tr. "we regard this person as a Buddha," the Buddha takes it up with his caring look round everywhere, and it ends with the gods’ guarding and the measure against the two vehicles. Two sentences serve as engines running through from beginning to end—one is 「諸法和合因緣故有佛，無有自性」 tr. "because of the coming together of causes and conditions of all dharmas there is a Buddha; he has no own-nature," which governs the thoroughness of 「佛不可得」 tr. "the Buddha is unfindable"; the other is 「雖畢竟空而不墮斷滅，雖分別有三乘亦不生著心」 tr. "though ultimately empty, it does not fall into annihilation; though it distinguishes three vehicles, it does not give rise to a clinging mind," which governs the vivid presence of ‘regarding him as a Buddha, and there being three vehicles.’ Precisely because the Buddha has no own-nature and exists in dependence on conditions, the one who practises prajñā with nothing to be attained 「即是佛」 tr. "is the Buddha"; precisely because emptiness is not annihilation, the teaching of the three vehicles, Māra’s not getting the advantage, and the gods’ guarding can each be established one by one.

As for this chapter’s sentence 「視是人如佛」 tr. "we regard this person as a Buddha," the sūtra text at this point does not itself distinguish in detail what rank 「如佛」 tr. "as a Buddha" is; this meaning the treatise-author leaves to explain himself in a later text—when, in a later fascicle, he examines these words, he judges 「如佛」 tr. "as a Buddha" to refer to the dharma-nature body that abides in non-retrogression, has attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, and so on up to the ten grounds, and judges the one next to the Buddha to refer to the bodhisattva of the flesh body who is able to proclaim prajñā and its right meaning. Taking that to explain this, one can know that this chapter’s ‘regarding him as a Buddha’ is not vague praise but has a definite rank to which it points; only here it is still spoken of in general by the single simile 「必當為王」 tr. "will surely become king," and not yet unfolded.

As for the chapter’s name, in this treatise’s base text this chapter is titled 「顧視品」 tr. "the chapter Looking Round," while the same chapter of the Larger Sūtra that it explains is in some places titled ‘Three Praises’—one takes the meaning of the Buddha’s 「顧視」 tr. "looking round" upon the fourfold assembly, the other takes the event of the gods’ 「三反稱歎」 tr. "praising three times over"; both belong to this chapter, and from of old the designations in transmission and translation have been seen to differ; this is only a divergence of names, recorded side by side for reference, without judging which is right. Bringing these readings back to this chapter, what is most worth keeping is not a table of chapter names but the use of the two words 「顧視」 tr. "looking round": the gods looking round upon the practitioner as a Buddha, the Buddha looking with care upon the fourfold assembly so that they do not belittle themselves—between these two layers of regarding, one from below and one from above, one sees exactly the measure of prajñā: ‘the Buddha is unfindable, and yet one regards him as a Buddha; ultimately empty, and yet the three vehicles are not set aside.’

Quelling Strife: Why Prajñā Can Quell All Strife, and Where the Worldly Six Perfections Differ from the World-Transcending Six Perfections

What Is Being Asked

This chapter is named 「滅諍亂」 tr. "Quelling Strife"—of its two words, the first means contention and fighting, and the second means harassment and agitation. The eye of the chapter’s name falls precisely on that sentence of the sūtra: where a person who receives and upholds prajñā dwells, even if all manner of quarrels arise and seek to come and destroy, 「以般若波羅蜜威力故，隨所起處，即疾消滅」 tr. "by the majestic power of the prajñāpāramitā, wherever they arise, they are swiftly extinguished"; how can it be so? 「是般若波羅蜜能滅諸法諍亂」 tr. "This prajñāpāramitā can quell the strife of all dharmas," and so on up to 「是一切法諍亂，盡能滅，不令增長」 tr. "the strife of all these dharmas it can entirely quell, not letting it grow." The whole chapter unfolds around this one pivot: that prajñā can quell strife.

Beneath it lie several difficulties. First, what is 「諍亂」 tr. "strife"? The dharmas the sūtra lists—lust, anger, and delusion; ignorance and so on up to the great mass of suffering; all kinds of views; the afflictions—run all the way to 「著檀波羅蜜」 tr. "clinging to dānapāramitā", 「著四念處」 tr. "clinging to the four foundations of mindfulness", and 「著涅槃」 tr. "clinging to nirvāṇa"—why is even the 「著」 tr. "clinging" to wholesome dharmas, even to nirvāṇa, counted as strife? Second, when 「魔、若魔民、若外道梵志、增上慢人」 tr. "Māra, or Māra's people, or brahmin ascetics of the outsiders' paths, or people of overweening pride" wish to destroy prajñā, why is it that the moment this thought arises it is at once extinguished, and instead 「惡心轉滅、功德轉增」 tr. "the evil mind turns to extinction and merit turns to increase"? What does this ‘finding no opening’ rest on? Third, for the person who receives and upholds prajñā, the sūtra spreads out a long passage on how he, with all four matters complete—‘practising himself, teaching others, praising, and rejoicing’—practises the ten wholesome deeds, practises the six perfections, cultivates the eighteen emptinesses, enters the absorptions and the samādhis, and so on up to fulfilling the Buddha’s dharmas—why can the cultivation of a single wholesome dharma not be merely 「自行」 tr. "practising oneself", but must have all four matters complete, teaching others, praising, and rejoicing as well? Fourth, in the latter half of the sūtra text, Śakra sets out again and again that the worldly six perfections 「著吾我故生高心」 tr. "give rise to a haughty mind because of clinging to the self", while the world-transcending six perfections, because they are 「不可得」 tr. "unfindable", do not give rise to a haughty mind—who, after all, is speaking this long passage? Fifth, why does the treatise-author speak again of the three kinds of people who would destroy prajñā—is it not a repetition? These several questions are exactly what this chapter sets out to account for, one by one.

Passage by Passage

1. First, the gloss on the nine words ‘hearing, receiving, upholding, drawing near, reading, reciting, expounding for others, right recollection, cultivating’. In explaining the sūtra, the treatise-author does not first speak of the great meaning, but glosses word by word these nine actions of receiving and upholding prajñā; this is the entry-level work of the whole chapter, and it must first be made clear. 「聞」 tr. "Hearing" is hearing, from the Buddha, from a bodhisattva, or from some other expounder of the Dharma, this prajñā that is 「十方三世諸佛法寶藏」 tr. "the treasure-store of the Dharma of the buddhas of the ten directions and the three times." Having heard it, to take it on with the power of faith is called 「受」 tr. "receiving"; to guard it with the power of mindfulness so that it is not lost is called 「持」 tr. "upholding"; to taste the flavour of the Dharma and constantly come to serve, consult, and receive instruction is called 「親近」 tr. "drawing near"; after drawing near, whether looking at the text of the sūtra or receiving it by word of mouth, is called 「讀」 tr. "reading"; to go over it again and again, seeking never to forget it, is called 「誦」 tr. "reciting"; to proclaim and pass on to others what they have never heard is called 「為他說」 tr. "expounding for others". As for 「正憶念」 tr. "right recollection", the treatise speaks of it most weightily: to remove all wrong recollection, such as the four inversions of permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, and to abide in the right recollection of the four foundations of mindfulness, solely for attaining the path and not for idle discourse—only this is called 「正憶念」 tr. "right recollection"; and 「正憶念是一切善法之根本」 tr. "right recollection is the root of all wholesome dharmas." When one who studies first enters this gate, it is called right recollection; practising it constantly without break and attaining concentration by it is called 「修」 tr. "cultivating". Glossing the nine words one after another takes ‘receiving and upholding prajñā’ out of a vague manner of speaking and breaks it apart into real work that one can take up step by step.

2. The division of present-life merit and later-life merit, and why 「一心諦聽」 tr. "listen attentively with one mind" is said. Śakra exclaims that prajñā is exceedingly wondrous and rare, and enumerates the present-life merits obtained by one who receives and upholds prajñā—bringing beings to maturity, purifying Buddha-worlds, making offerings to the buddhas, not forgetting the Dharma heard, and so on up to ten accomplishments: of family, mother, birth, retinue, marks, radiance, eye, ear, samādhi, and dhāraṇī; and further, by the power of skilful means, being able to transform his body like a buddha’s and to liberate beings by the dharmas of the three vehicles. The Buddha confirms this and further divides the merit into two lives: the bodhisattva through the long night practises the six perfections, gives up inner and outer things and inner and outer dharmas, and establishes beings one by one in the six perfections and so on up to the four fruits of the śramaṇa and the Buddha path—this is 「現世功德」 tr. "present-life merit"; attaining unsurpassed awakening, turning the Dharma wheel, having his vows fulfilled, and entering nirvāṇa without remainder—this is 「後世功德」 tr. "later-life merit". What matters is that the Buddha specially enjoins Śakra, 「汝一心諦聽」 tr. "Listen attentively with one mind!"—and the treatise points out two layers of reason for it: first, the text above spoke only briefly of present-life merit, and now it is to be spoken of at length, and the matter is hard to believe, so he bids him listen attentively; second, 「因小果大」 tr. "the cause is small and the fruit is great"—in the causal ground there is only the one matter of receiving and upholding prajñā, yet in the fruit one obtains merit this vast, and this contrast itself is hard to believe, so he bids him listen attentively. And Śakra, though he has already believed and received it, fears that others do not know of his believing reception, and so he specially answers with the words 「唯！世尊！」 tr. "Yes, World-Honored One!"—declaring his own reception openly.

3. Which dharmas are 「諍亂」 tr. "strife" —even the 「著」 tr. "clinging" to wholesome dharmas and to nirvāṇa is included. The strife listed in the sūtra runs from lust, anger, and delusion; ignorance and the great mass of suffering; the hindrances, fetters, and entanglements; all kinds of views (the view of a self, the view of a person, the view of a being, and the views of annihilation and permanence, defilement and purity, existence and non-existence); afflictions such as stinginess and greed and the breaking of precepts; and the course of craving for permanence, pleasure, purity, and self—all the way to 「著色」 tr. "clinging to form" and 「著受、想、行、識」 tr. "clinging to feeling, perception, constructions, and consciousness", and further to 「著檀波羅蜜」 tr. "clinging to dānapāramitā" and so on up to prajñāpāramitā, 「著四念處乃至十八不共法」 tr. "clinging to the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas", 「著一切智、一切種智」 tr. "clinging to omniscience and to the omniscience of all kinds", and 「著涅槃」 tr. "clinging to nirvāṇa". Here one must look most closely: strife is not only the coarse and manifest afflictions and evil dharmas; even the 「著」 tr. "clinging" to the six perfections, to the limbs of the path, and even to nirvāṇa is in every case strife. Why? Wherever there is something clung to, some mark grasped, there is subject and object, high and low, this set against that—and that is the root of contention. What prajñā quells in quelling strife is not only the contention of evil dharmas but, still more, all this 「著」 tr. "clinging"—even clinging to wholesome dharmas and clinging to nirvāṇa are among what is quelled: 「盡能滅，不令增長」 tr. "it can entirely quell them, not letting them grow."

4. The substance of prajñā cannot be destroyed, but its language can, and so three kinds of people come to destroy it. The treatise-author first sets up a distinction: the substance of prajñā, the real mark, cannot at root be destroyed, but the language that 「宣示實相」 tr. "proclaims the real mark" can be destroyed; since the language can be destroyed, people whose faith is not yet settled can also be shaken, and that is why it is said that brahmin ascetics of the outsiders' paths and others come wishing to destroy prajñā. This sentence is the pivot of the whole chapter’s ‘destroyed and not destroyed’—what is to be destroyed was never prajñā itself, but a faith not yet standing firm. Next the treatise explains the three kinds of people who would destroy the Dharma: 「梵志」 tr. "brahmin ascetics" are all renunciants of the outside paths, and whoever takes up and uses their doctrine is also called a brahmin ascetic; they love and cling to the doctrine of their own school, and as soon as they hear the Dharma of the emptiness of the real mark they do not believe it and wish to destroy it; of 「魔、若魔民」 tr. "Māra, or Māra's people" the treatise says only 「如先說」 tr. "as was said before", meaning that its sense has already been explained earlier; 「增上慢人」 tr. "people of overweening pride" must be distinguished most clearly—they are those among the Buddha’s disciples who have 「得禪定，未得聖道，自謂已得」 tr. "attained meditative concentration, have not yet attained the noble path, and say of themselves that they have attained it"; hearing it said that there is no srota-āpanna and so on up to no arhat, no path, and no nirvāṇa, they give rise to overweening pride, produce a mind of anger and vexation, and want to destroy this Dharma of the emptiness of the real mark. Though the three kinds of people come with different intentions, all alike hurl themselves at prajñā.

5. Why those who would destroy the Dharma ‘find no opening’—three similes alike showing 「於內外法不著」 tr. "not clinging to inner and outer dharmas" . The spiritual power of prajñā makes the evil mind of those who would destroy the Dharma cease on the spot, never getting its wish. The treatise takes as its simile 「如人以手障鉾，但自傷其手，鉾無所損」 tr. "as when a person blocks a spear with his hand, he only wounds his own hand, and the spear suffers no harm": the evil mind hurling itself at prajñā is just like a palm hurling itself at a spear-point—what is wounded is oneself, and the spear (the real mark of prajñā) is not harmed in the least. Why can it be so? 「菩薩於內外法不著」 tr. "The bodhisattva does not cling to inner and outer dharmas"—beings, from beginningless time, have raised quarrels because of clinging to inner and outer dharmas; the bodhisattva, having given up clinging to the inner and the outer, establishes himself in the six perfections, and also teaches beings likewise to give up the inner and outer dharmas of quarrelling and to establish themselves in the six perfections; having thus cultivated and gathered merit through immeasurable lifetimes, the root of quarrelling is exhausted, and so 「雖有鬪亂事來，不能得便」 tr. "though matters of quarrel and disturbance come, they cannot find an opening". The treatise restates this further with the moqi medicine: there is a medicine named moqi, and when a snake smells its scent it cannot come near; 「毒蛇欲食蝦蟇，常隨逐之」 tr. "a poisonous snake, wishing to eat a toad, constantly follows after it", and once the toad reaches the place of the medicine, the snake’s venom at once subsides—the evil people who would ruin the Dharma, following after the one who practises prajñā, have the venom of their anger and wrong views extinguished in just this way, and in the end there are three outcomes: 「有降伏得道者，有作弟子者，有復道還去者」 tr. "some are subdued and attain the path, some become disciples, some turn back on the road and go away." Taking the three similes together, ‘finding no opening’ is not some separate power of warding off an enemy; it is just this one meaning: ‘not clinging, the root exhausted.’

6. The gods and the buddhas together protect the one who receives and upholds prajñā. The sūtra says plainly: in the three-thousand great-thousand world, the heavens of the Four Heavenly Kings, the Śakra Devānām Indras, the Brahmā kings, and so on up to the highest, the Akaniṣṭha heaven, all constantly protect the good men and good women who can receive and uphold, make offerings to, read, recite, expound for others, and rightly recollect prajñā; not only do the gods of the desire realm and the form realm protect them, but 「十方現在諸佛亦共擁護」 tr. "the buddhas now present in the ten directions also together protect" such people. This passage brings the principle of the earlier ‘Māra finds no opening’ down to the matter of protection—from the highest heaven, the Heaven of Ultimate Form, above, to all the buddhas now present in the ten directions without, all are protecting and keeping this person in mind. Yet one must go on to look at where it lands: this protection is not an extra layer of bodyguards come from outside, but is connected with what follows, 「不善法滅，善法轉增」 tr. "unwholesome dharmas cease, and wholesome dharmas increase all the more"—it is precisely because this person’s own wholesome dharmas increase day by day and the root of quarrelling is exhausted that he is in accord with all this protection.

7. Unwholesome dharmas cease and wholesome dharmas increase, 「以無所得故」 tr. "because there is nothing to be attained" . Of the present-life merit of receiving and upholding prajñā, the sūtra first speaks in general: this good man or good woman’s unwholesome dharmas cease portion by portion, and wholesome dharmas increase portion by portion—dānapāramitā increases, and so on up to prajñāpāramitā increases; inner emptiness and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas increase; the four foundations of mindfulness and so on up to the eighteen unshared dharmas increase; the gates of samādhi, the gates of dhāraṇī, omniscience, and the omniscience of all kinds increase. And to every sentence are attached the words 「以無所得故」 tr. "because there is nothing to be attained"—this is the most important stroke: the reason wholesome dharmas can truly increase without becoming a new 「著」 tr. "clinging" is precisely that they increase without holding on to their increase, increasing with nothing to be attained. If one increases and then relies on oneself for it, one falls back into the strife of 「著檀波羅蜜」 tr. "clinging to dānapāramitā" spoken of in the third section. Next the sūtra says of this person that 「所說，人皆信受」 tr. "what he says, people all believe and accept", and that 「親友堅固，不說無益之語」 tr. "his friends and kin are steadfast, and he does not speak profitless words"; nor is he covered over by anger, arrogance, stinginess, or jealousy—these few sentences answer precisely the fifth section’s ‘because wholesome dharmas increase, the root of quarrelling is exhausted’: since wholesome dharmas have grown, the coarse and evil afflictions naturally cannot cover his mind.

8. Practising the ten wholesome deeds with the four matters complete—first teaching this paradigm of 「四事」 tr. "the four matters" thoroughly. From here on, the sūtra uses a fixed sentence-pattern to count off, item by item, the practice of one who receives and upholds prajñā: taking not killing as the example, it is 「自不殺生，教人不殺生，讚不殺生法，亦歡喜讚歎不殺生者」 tr. "himself not killing living beings, teaching others not to kill living beings, praising the dharma of not killing living beings, and also joyfully praising those who do not kill living beings"—practising oneself, teaching others, praising the dharma, and rejoicing: each of these four matters complete. This ‘four matters complete’ is the opening move of the chapter’s latter half, and one must first ask: why can a single wholesome dharma not be merely 「自行」 tr. "practising oneself", but must have all four matters complete? The treatise breaks it open for us in a later passage—「二乘人不能具足四行，以不深樂善法故」 tr. "people of the two vehicles cannot fulfil the four practices, because they do not deeply delight in wholesome dharmas"; the bodhisattva, by contrast, 「深樂善法故，能於善法四種正行求」 tr. "because he deeply delights in wholesome dharmas, can seek in wholesome dharmas by the four kinds of right practice". So the difference of the four matters is exactly the watershed between the bodhisattva and the two vehicles: caring only to finish one’s own affair is the single matter of practising oneself; only when one deeply loves this dharma and wants all beings alike to obtain it will one go on to teach others, praise the dharma, and rejoice on seeing others practise it. Practising oneself is benefiting oneself; teaching others is benefiting others; praising is making the Dharma spread and making beings give rise to faith; rejoicing is, toward the good of others, giving rise not to jealousy but to joy—the four matters together are exactly the complete pattern of practice that ‘benefits self and others, with no partition between self and other.’ Once this paradigm is understood, each class below is only the same paradigm fitted onto a different Dharma-gate. As for the ten wholesome deeds: not killing, not taking what is not given (not stealing), not engaging in sexual misconduct, and not lying, together with divisive speech, harsh speech, and profitless speech (frivolous speech), all have the four matters complete; the three deeds of mind—non-greed, non-anger and non-vexation, and non-wrong-view—likewise; each of the ten wholesome deeds is practised oneself, taught to others, its dharma praised, and rejoiced in—this is the most basic round.

9. Practising the six perfections and cultivating the eighteen emptinesses with the four matters complete. The same paradigm is pushed up to the bodhisattva’s proper practice. The six perfections—dāna, śīla, kṣānti, vīrya, dhyāna, and prajñā—each has all four matters complete: ‘practising oneself, teaching others to practise, praising its dharma, and joyfully praising those who practise.’ Why must the six perfections also have the four matters? Because the six perfections cannot be brought to completion by one person cultivating alone: giving requires a receiver, keeping the precepts takes place within the community, patience is toward an object, and so on up to prajñā, which shows its function only when proclaimed for others; so besides practising oneself one must also teach others, praise the dharma, and rejoice, and only then are the six perfections practised to completion. Pushed further up to the eighteen emptinesses—from inner emptiness, outer emptiness, and inner-and-outer emptiness, and so on up to the emptiness of non-existent and existent dharmas—each too has the four matters complete. Emptiness is the very Dharma-gate most easily misread as ‘contemplating emptiness by oneself alone’; yet the sūtra puts it too into the paradigm of ‘teaching others to cultivate it, praising, and rejoicing,’ precisely as a reminder: even contemplating emptiness is not a matter of being good alone—one is to have all beings enter the gate of emptiness together.

10. Entering the samādhis, attaining dhāraṇī, and entering the four meditations, the four immeasurables, and the four formless absorptions with the four matters complete. The gates of concentration too follow this paradigm. ‘Himself entering all the samādhis, teaching others to enter … praising … and also joyfully praising those who enter’; dhāraṇī (total retention) likewise; the four meditations—the first meditation, the second meditation, the third meditation, and the fourth meditation—each with the four matters; the four immeasurable minds—kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity—each with the four matters; the four formless absorptions—the station of boundless space, the station of boundless consciousness, the station of nothingness, and the station of neither perception nor non-perception—likewise each with the four matters. States of concentration are just where one most easily enjoys alone and most easily gives rise to the conceit ‘I have attained concentration’; the sūtra insists that they too be ‘taught for others to enter, praised, and rejoiced in’—turning one’s own bliss of concentration into a gate through which the multitude enter together is exactly the safeguard that does not let meditative concentration be made solid as a 「我」 tr. "self".

11. Cultivating the thirty-seven limbs of the path, the three samādhi, the eight liberations, and the nine successive absorptions with the four matters complete. The world-transcending proper practices too all enter this paradigm. The thirty-seven limbs of the path—the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four bases of supernormal power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven limbs of awakening, and the eightfold noble path—each with the four matters; the three samādhi—emptiness, the signless, and non-action—each with the four matters; the eight liberations (also called the eight abandonments)—entering oneself, teaching others to enter, praising, and rejoicing; the nine successive absorptions likewise. This round is the backbone Dharma-gates that tend toward liberation; the sūtra takes them all into ‘teaching others, praising, and rejoicing,’ so that practitioners will understand: the limbs of the path are not the private tool of one who seeks only his own release—the bodhisattva cultivates the limbs of the path in order to bring all beings out of birth and death together.

12. With the four matters complete, and so on up to the Buddha’s ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and the omniscience of all kinds. The paradigm is pushed all the way to the merits of the Buddha ground—the Buddha’s ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the four unobstructed knowledges, great kindness and great compassion, the eighteen unshared dharmas, and so on up to the dharma of being without error and the dharma of constant equanimity—all ‘practising oneself, teaching others, praising, and rejoicing’; and at the very last, 「自得一切種智，教人得一切種智，讚一切種智，亦歡喜讚歎得一切種智者」 tr. "himself attaining the omniscience of all kinds, teaching others to attain the omniscience of all kinds, praising the omniscience of all kinds, and also joyfully praising those who attain the omniscience of all kinds". By this point the four-matter paradigm runs from the most basic, not killing, all the way to the highest, the omniscience of all kinds, and not one Dharma-gate in between is an exception—this is exactly a great meaning this chapter wants to show: what the bodhisattva practises, from not killing to the omniscience of all kinds, is without exception a practice that benefits both self and others with the four matters complete; there is absolutely no dharma cultivated alone behind closed doors.

13. Sharing the karmic fruit of practice with beings and dedicating it to awakening, 「以無所得故」 tr. "because there is nothing to be attained" . Having practised so much, how is the karmic fruit to be disposed of? The sūtra says: when the bodhisattva practises the six perfections, 「所有布施與眾生共已，迴向阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，以無所得故」 tr. "whatever giving he does, having shared it with beings, he dedicates to anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, because there is nothing to be attained"; the karmic fruits of keeping the precepts, patience, vigour, meditation, and wisdom are likewise, after being shared with beings, dedicated to unsurpassed awakening, likewise 「以無所得故」 tr. "because there is nothing to be attained". This passage is the closing stroke of the four-matter paradigm: the four matters are no partition between self and other at the gate of practice, and this passage is no partition between self and other at the fruit—the merit one has cultivated oneself is first shared with all beings and then dedicated together to the Buddha path; and the phrase 「以無所得故」 tr. "because there is nothing to be attained" is still attached at the end, showing that even this dedication is not held as one’s own achievement. With both ends, practice and fruit, being 「無所得」 tr. "nothing to be attained", wholesome dharmas can truly increase without becoming clinging.

14. The bodhisattva’s self-spurring ‘six reflections’ and 「四事功德」 tr. "the merit of the four matters" . The bodhisattva has not yet entered the right position, his afflictions are not yet exhausted, and at times minds of stinginess, greed, and the like still arise; at such a time, how should he admonish himself? The sūtra records a passage of the bodhisattva’s own reflection, setting each of the six perfections, item by item, against the karmic fruit of its opposite: 「我若不布施，當生貧窮家」 tr. "If I do not give, I shall be born into a poor family", and being poor, I cannot bring beings to maturity, purify Buddha-worlds, or attain the omniscience of all kinds; if I do not keep the precepts, I shall fall into the three evil destinies, where even a human body cannot be obtained, let alone bringing beings to maturity; if I do not cultivate patience, my faculties will be ruined and my form incomplete, and I cannot obtain that complete form-body at whose mere sight beings arouse the mind of awakening; if I am lazy, I cannot attain the bodhisattva path; if my mind is scattered, I cannot give rise to the meditative concentrations; if I am without wisdom, I cannot attain the knowledge of skilful means and cannot pass beyond the grounds of the two vehicles. Having finished reflecting, he admonishes himself again and again: I should not follow stinginess and greed and so fail to fulfil dānapāramitā; I should not follow the breaking of precepts, anger, laziness, a scattered mind, or a deluded mind and so fail to fulfil the other five perfections—if the six perfections are not fulfilled, 「我終不能出到一切種智」 tr. "I shall never be able to go forth and arrive at the omniscience of all kinds." This passage sets the motive force for practising the six perfections upon the personally felt warning that ‘not to practise is to lose oneself, to make oneself fall.’ In a later passage the treatise further condenses this self-spurring into a chain of cause and effect, 「四事功德」 tr. "the merit of the four matters": if one does not give, one 「自失四事功德」 tr. "loses for oneself the merit of the four matters"—in a later body one is born poor; being poor, one cannot benefit oneself; unable to benefit oneself, one cannot benefit others; unable to benefit others, one cannot bring beings to maturity; unable to bring beings to maturity, one cannot purify a Buddha-world (「以眾生淨故，世界清淨」 tr. "because beings are pure, the world is pure")—with this whole chain unfulfilled, how could one attain the omniscience of all kinds? The merit of the four matters pushes the loss of 「不布施」 tr. "not giving" to the very bottom, link by link, so that the practitioner dare not abandon giving out of stinginess.

15. The distinction between the worldly and the world-transcending six perfections in the latter half of the sūtra—who, after all, is speaking. This step is the easiest to misread. The sūtra first has Śakra address the Buddha: this bodhisattva’s prajñāpāramitā is 「為迴向薩婆若心故，亦為不高心故」 tr. "for the sake of the mind that dedicates to sarvajñā, and also for the sake of a mind that is not haughty"; the Buddha does not expound it himself directly, but instead asks Śakra back, 「云何」 tr. "How so?"—how is it for dedicating to sarvajñā, and how for a mind that is not haughty? Thereupon Śakra himself takes it up and restates it to the Buddha: if the bodhisattva practises the worldly six perfections—giving while thinking that he himself is able to give, keeping the precepts while saying ‘I am able to keep the precepts in full,’ and so on up to cultivating the worldly four foundations of mindfulness and the three samādhi while thinking ‘I cultivate, I fulfil’—in every case these 「無方便故生高心」 tr. "give rise to a haughty mind because they are without skilful means", 「著吾我故生高心」 tr. "give rise to a haughty mind because of clinging to the self"; conversely, if he practises the world-transcending six perfections, 「不得施者，不得受者，不得施物」 tr. "he does not obtain a giver, does not obtain a receiver, does not obtain a thing given", and the six perfections and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds are all 「不可得」 tr. "unfindable"—only this is 「為迴向薩婆若故，亦不生高心」 tr. "for the sake of dedicating to sarvajñā, and also not giving rise to a haughty mind". This whole paired distinction between the worldly and the world-transcending is Śakra setting out his own understanding of the meaning of emptiness in prajñā; it is not the Buddha’s instruction, nor is it the treatise-author’s explanation; in reading, one must recognise this layer of who the speaker is, so as not to mistake Śakra’s restatement for the Buddha’s words.

16. The treatise-author explains the latter half—the reason for speaking again, the brief statement that gathers all, with and without skilful means, the first gate. In explaining the latter half of the sūtra, the treatise-author does not follow the practice of 「釋曰」 tr. "The explanation says" but begins directly with question and answer. First the question: since the three kinds of people who destroy prajñā have already been spoken of, 「今何以故重說」 tr. "why now speak of them again?" The answer: in the three places they come with different intentions—those who came first 「求便、恐怖，欲令愁惱」 tr. "seek an opening and frighten, wishing to cause sorrow and vexation"; those who came in the middle 「但欲破毀般若波羅蜜」 tr. "wish only to destroy and ruin the prajñāpāramitā"; those who come last, 「雖欲生心破壞，即時滅去」 tr. "though they wish to give rise to the thought of destroying, it at once ceases and goes"—their intentions in coming are not the same, so it is not a repetition. Next it explains that for one who receives and upholds prajñā, 「所語人皆信受」 tr. "what he says, people all believe and accept"—this person has cultivated and gathered merit and wisdom and achieved great majestic virtue: 「設使妄語，人皆信受，何況實語」 tr. "even were he to speak falsely, people would all believe and accept it, how much more when he speaks truly"; 「親友堅固」 tr. "his friends and kin are steadfast"—toward all beings he still has deep kindness and compassion, how much more toward the friends and kin who are of benefit to him; and further, because wholesome dharmas grow, 「瞋恚等煩惱不能覆心」 tr. "afflictions such as anger cannot cover his mind"; even if the fetters arise for a moment, he 「不令覆心」 tr. "does not let them cover his mind" and does not give rise to deeds of speech or deeds of body, and so, though his own station be lowly, 「以行勝法故，得在勝人數中」 tr. "because he practises a superior dharma, he is counted among superior people"—this is present-life merit. Next the treatise gathers that whole long passage on the four matters complete into a single sentence: 「上四種行廣說，今略說一切功德總攝入六波羅蜜中，所得果報與眾生共之。」 tr. "Above, the four kinds of practice were spoken of at length; now, speaking briefly, all merits are gathered together into the six perfections, and the karmic fruit obtained is shared with beings." So the earlier class-by-class ‘practising oneself, teaching others, praising, and rejoicing’ of the ten wholesome deeds, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, and the Buddha’s dharmas all return, in sum, to this one gathering of the six perfections, and the karmic fruit obtained is shared with beings; this 「略說」 tr. "brief statement" is precisely what gathers that long, intricate enumeration back into the single guiding thread of the six perfections for the reader. Finally, answering Śakra’s distinction between the worldly and the world-transcending, the treatise draws out the watershed between 「無方便」 tr. "without skilful means" and 「有方便」 tr. "with skilful means": 「無方便者雖行六波羅蜜，內不能離我心，外取諸法相」 tr. "one without skilful means, though he practises the six perfections, inwardly cannot leave the thought of self, and outwardly grasps at the marks of dharmas"—holding fixedly that 「我是施者，彼是受者，是布施物」 tr. "I am the giver, that one is the receiver, this is the thing given," he 「不能到佛道」 tr. "cannot reach the Buddha path"; only what runs contrary to this is having skilful means. Last, one question and answer sums up the whole chapter: since the worldly pāramitās are not the right path, why does the Buddha speak of them? The answer: 「此是行者初門，與正道相似故；先行相似法，後得真道。」 tr. "This is the practitioner's first gate, because it resembles the right path; first one practises the resembling dharma, afterwards one attains the true path."

Do Not Misread

Do not read 「滅諍亂」 tr. "quelling strife" as prajñā fighting with people and beating back enemies. The point on which both the sūtra and the treatise land is not ‘victory’ but ‘no gap’: the bodhisattva 「於內外法不著」 tr. "does not cling to inner and outer dharmas", the root of quarrelling is already exhausted, and the evil mind that hurls itself at him is just like 「以手障鉾，但自傷其手」 tr. "blocking a spear with one's hand, only wounding one's own hand"—it is not that prajñā has blocked the spear, but that the evil mind hurling itself at prajñā wounds itself. Finding no opening is not winning a round of attack and defence; it is that there is fundamentally no opening to be found.

Do not read 「諍亂」 tr. "strife" as evil dharmas only. The sūtra plainly lists 「著檀波羅蜜」 tr. "clinging to dānapāramitā" and so on up to 「著涅槃」 tr. "clinging to nirvāṇa" among 「諸法諍亂」 tr. "the strife of all dharmas". If one thinks that once one cultivates wholesome dharmas and seeks nirvāṇa there is no more strife to speak of, one has missed exactly the subtlest layer—where there is something clung to, some mark grasped, there is the opposition of subject and object, high and low, and that is contention. What prajñā 「盡能滅」 tr. "can entirely quell" includes precisely this portion of clinging to wholesome dharmas and clinging to nirvāṇa.

Do not read ‘the four matters complete’ as a parallelism repeating four phrases. Practising oneself, teaching others, praising the dharma, and rejoicing are four different matters, and if one is lacking, it is incomplete: to practise only oneself is to finish one’s own affair; only being willing to teach others is benefiting others; only being willing to praise the dharma makes the Dharma spread and makes people give rise to faith; only being able to rejoice is not giving rise to jealousy toward the good of others. The treatise says it clearly: 「二乘人不能具足四行」 tr. "people of the two vehicles cannot fulfil the four practices"—the difference lies exactly here. Nor should one read that long enumeration of the ten wholesome deeds, the six perfections, the eighteen emptinesses, the absorptions, the limbs of the path, and the Buddha’s dharmas as a running ledger—it is the same four-matter paradigm fitted onto one Dharma-gate after another, running all the way to the omniscience of all kinds, and what it shows is the great meaning that ‘no wholesome dharma is cultivated alone behind closed doors.’

The most important place of all: do not read that long passage in the latter half of the sūtra—the worldly six perfections giving rise to a haughty mind and the world-transcending six perfections not giving rise to a haughty mind—as the Buddha’s instruction. It is what Śakra himself restates after he has addressed the Buddha and the Buddha has asked back 「云何」 tr. "How so?"—it is Śakra setting out his own understanding, not the Buddha’s words, nor the treatise-author’s explanation. Mistake the speaker, and one will misremember Śakra’s one restatement as the Buddha’s golden mouth personally proclaiming it.

Do not read 「世間波羅蜜」 tr. "the worldly pāramitās" as the Buddha teaching people to practise giving and keeping the precepts with something to be attained. The treatise says it clearly: the worldly six perfections are 「行者初門，與正道相似」 tr. "the practitioner's first gate, resembling the right path", a guiding-in by way of 「先行相似法，後得真道」 tr. "first practising the resembling dharma, afterwards attaining the true path", not the ultimate right path. They are spoken of in order to lead in, not to approve them as the definitive meaning.

Bearing on Practice

This chapter can serve as a mirror for seeing 「著」 tr. "clinging". The real root of strife lies not in the disturbance of outer objects but in one’s own mind’s 「著」 tr. "clinging" and grasping at marks. The sūtra counts even 「著涅槃」 tr. "clinging to nirvāṇa" as strife, reminding those who apply effort that even a hidden fixed hold on wholesome dharmas, on the fruit one seeks, must be seen through. To practise the six perfections while in the mind making it real that I am giving, that I am able to keep the precepts—that is exactly what Śakra called 「著吾我故生高心」 tr. "giving rise to a haughty mind because of clinging to the self"; to learn this chapter is to practise the six perfections in deed while in mind 「不得施者，不得受者，不得施物」 tr. "not obtaining a giver, not obtaining a receiver, not obtaining a thing given"—only this is 「有方便」 tr. "having skilful means".

The paradigm of the four matters complete is most fit to be used to check whether one’s own practice is finishing one’s own affair or is the bodhisattva practice. Cultivating the same wholesome dharma, caring only that one’s own keeping of it is pure is only the one matter of practising oneself; whether one is willing to teach others, whether one is willing to praise so that the Dharma spreads, whether on seeing others do good one can refrain from jealousy and rejoice instead—check oneself against these three matters, and one knows how far one deeply delights in wholesome dharmas. The treatise’s saying 「二乘人不能具足四行，以不深樂善法故」 tr. "people of the two vehicles cannot fulfil the four practices, because they do not deeply delight in wholesome dharmas" places this very mirror in one’s hand: it is not that they cannot practise themselves, but that their love of the Dharma is not yet deep enough to be willing for all beings to obtain it alike.

The bodhisattva’s ‘six reflections’ and 「四事功德」 tr. "the merit of the four matters" give the one who applies effort a personally felt spur. The moment a stingy thought arises or laziness comes, there is no need to talk principles in the air; just, as the bodhisattva does, push the consequences to the bottom and look: not giving, one is born poor in a later body; being poor, one cannot benefit oneself, still less benefit others, cannot bring beings to maturity or purify a Buddha-world, and in the end cannot attain the omniscience of all kinds—this link-by-link self-loss can spur the mind back to wholesome dharmas better than any words urging good. And that the karmic fruit of every wholesome dharma is dedicated only 「與眾生共已」 tr. "after being shared with beings", and moreover 「以無所得故」 tr. "because there is nothing to be attained", reminds one further: while spurring oneself to vigour, do not make the merit one has cultivated solid as one’s own possession.

‘Māra finds no opening’ gives the one who applies effort a close-at-hand pointer: what wards off objects is not ability or supernormal powers but 「於內外法不著」 tr. "not clinging to inner and outer dharmas". When a state appears before one—fearful, alluring, or provoking anger and vexation—if in the mind there is not a single dharma to cling to, then even if an evil mind hurls itself at prajñā, it is like 「以手障鉾，但自傷其手」 tr. "blocking a spear with one's hand, only wounding one's own hand", and there is no gap in the practitioner for it to exploit. Conversely, with the slightest clinging, one leaves strife a gap it can exploit.

Śakra’s paired distinction between the worldly and the world-transcending is especially fit for looking at oneself: both alike practise the six perfections and cultivate the limbs of the path, but one thinks ‘I cultivate, I fulfil,’ while the other dedicates to sarvajñā in a way that is 「不可得」 tr. "unfindable"—outwardly no different, inwardly as far apart as heaven and earth. The dividing line lies only in the single thread of having or not having skilful means—at every moment check which side one is practising on.

Further Resonances

The backbone of this chapter is a single line strung together by 「滅諍亂」 tr. "quelling strife": beginning with the treatise-author’s word-by-word gloss of the nine matters of receiving and upholding prajñā, passing through Śakra’s asking about present-life and later-life merit and the Buddha’s likening prajñā’s quelling of the strife of all dharmas to the moqi medicine, on to the protection of the gods and the buddhas, the one who receives and upholds it practising, with the four matters complete, the ten wholesome deeds and so on up to the omniscience of all kinds, and the karmic fruit shared with beings and dedicated to awakening, passing midway through Śakra’s own statement of the difference between the worldly and the world-transcending, and ending with the treatise-author’s closing on 「行者初門」 tr. "the practitioner's first gate". One sentence runs through it from beginning to end—「是一切法諍亂，盡能滅，不令增長」 tr. "the strife of all these dharmas it can entirely quell, not letting it grow"; from lust, anger, and delusion at one end to clinging to nirvāṇa at the other, nothing lies outside what is quelled, and what makes the quelling possible is only 「於內外法不著」 tr. "not clinging to inner and outer dharmas". Quelling strife is not adding one more dharma that can quell, in order to counteract it; it is precisely the two words 「不著」 tr. "not clinging" that leave strife nowhere to arise from. And that whole enumeration of the four matters complete is gathered up at the end of the treatise by the one sentence 「今略說一切功德總攝入六波羅蜜中」 tr. "now, speaking briefly, all merits are gathered together into the six perfections"—profuse yet not disordered, returning in the end to the single guiding thread of the six perfections.

The matter of the chapter’s name may be mentioned in passing. In the base text of this treatise the chapter is titled 「滅諍亂品」 tr. "Chapter on Quelling Strife", while the same chapter of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā that it explains has many different names handed down—sometimes 「滅諍品」 tr. "Chapter on Quelling Contention" (without the word 「亂」 tr. "disturbance"), sometimes 「現功德品」 tr. "Chapter on Displaying Merit" (taking its sense from the present-life merit at the beginning of the sūtra), and later sūtra catalogues and indexes also have 「滅淨品」 tr. "Chapter on Quelling Purity"; one name takes the function of 「滅諍亂」 tr. "quelling strife", one takes the aspect of 「現功德」 tr. "displaying merit", both of which this chapter possesses, and the appellations in the transmission and translation from of old differ from one another. This is only a discrepancy of names; they are recorded together for reference, without judging which is right; this edition’s reading text follows the base text of this treatise and titles it 「滅諍亂品」 tr. "Chapter on Quelling Strife".

As for the passage on 「重說」 tr. "speaking again", the ancient masters have here yet another reading: of old there was a way of judging this passage of the Larger Sūtra by weighing it through five fruits, which judged this chapter to be the head of the 「周三品」 tr. "three chapters of one cycle" (Quelling Contention, Great Illumination, and Stating the Accomplishment), weighing the merit of prajñā by the fruits of Māra and his people finding no opening, the protection of the gods, not dying an untimely death, and having no fear in one’s dwelling-place; there was also a way of judging the substance of 「諍亂」 tr. "strife" by the two gates of the contention of persons and the contention of dharmas, saying that Māra, those of the outside paths, the people of overweening pride, and so on up to all people who have something to be attained constitute the contention of persons, while the oppositions of the ten evil deeds and the ten wholesome deeds, and of birth and death and nirvāṇa, constitute the contention of dharmas—all of which prajñā quells. This is one house’s structural analysis by the ancient masters, setting up a separate outline apart from the treatise-author’s own questions and answers in this chapter; it is recorded for reference, and its right and wrong, higher and lower, are not judged by this edition.