文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經 文殊般若 · 卷上 · 阿耨多羅

The Buddha asks whether the dharmas of all Buddhas are supreme. Mañjuśrī does not establish among dharmas a separate mark of superiority or sameness, yet he still says plainly that the Tathāgata personally awakens to the emptiness of all dharmas. When the Buddha asks whether “anuttara” is called the Buddha-Dharma, Mañjuśrī likewise does not cancel the name, but says that precisely because no dharma can be attained, it is called unsurpassed. From there onward, cultivating prajñā is not rejecting the Buddha-Dharma; it is not dividing the dharmas of ordinary beings, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and Buddhas into fixed attainable marks, and it takes up neither abiding and non-abiding, conceivable and inconceivable, bondage and liberation, nor differences among the three vehicles. The Buddha vehicle has only a name; the unobstructed does not again attain the unobstructed; the seat of awakening is not a place where one sits alone. At the end, the sūtra presses the question into the most intimate place: the view of a self in the body and the rest are the reality-limit; its suchness-mark is neither real nor unreal, neither comes nor goes, and is both body and not body. Names may still be spoken, Dharma may still be cultivated, and the fruits of the path may still be accomplished, yet nowhere can a highest dharma be established as attainable, inhabitable, or discriminable. This is the essential meaning of anuttara raised through the chapter’s continuous questions and answers.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Anuttara · Heart-Essence · Summer 2026

The Buddha asked Mañjuśrī, ‘Are these dharmas of all Buddhas not wondrously supreme?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘I do not see among dharmas a fixed mark that is superior to or the same as another. The Tathāgata personally awakens to the emptiness of all dharmas; this is something He personally realizes and knows.’

The Buddha told Mañjuśrī, ‘Exactly so, exactly so! Through perfect awakening, the Tathāgata personally realizes the dharma of emptiness.’

Mañjuśrī asked the Buddha, ‘World-Honored One! Since this is within the dharma of emptiness, can there still be a mark superior to or the same as another dharma that can be attained?’

The Buddha said, ‘Excellent, excellent, Mañjuśrī! As you have said, is this the true Dharma?’ The Buddha again asked Mañjuśrī, ‘Is “anuttara,” meaning “unsurpassed,” called the Buddha-Dharma?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘As the Buddha has taught, anuttara is called the Buddha-Dharma. Why? Because no dharma can be attained, this is called anuttara.’

Mañjuśrī continued, ‘To cultivate the prajñā-pāramitā in this way is not to designate a person as a vessel that receives the Dharma. It is not a fixed dharma used to transform ordinary beings, not a Buddha-Dharma that can be taken up, and not a dharma that can increase. This is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā. Further, World-Honored One! When cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā, one does not see a dharma that can be discriminated or conceptually considered.’

The Buddha asked Mañjuśrī, ‘Do you not conceptually consider even the Buddha-Dharma?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘It is not through conceptual discrimination that I consider the Buddha-Dharma, World-Honored One! As I observe it, I do not see a fixed Buddha-Dharma, nor can dharmas be discriminated as: this is an ordinary being’s dharma, this is a śrāvaka’s dharma, and this is a pratyekabuddha’s dharma. This is called the unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma.

‘Further, when cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā, one does not see a fixed mark of an ordinary being, does not see a fixed mark of the Buddha-Dharma, and does not see any fixed and unchanging mark among dharmas. This is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā.

‘Further, when cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā, one does not see the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm, or the realm of quiescence. Why? Because one does not see any dharma bearing a mark that can be exhausted and extinguished. This is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā.

‘Further, when cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā, one does not see a person who bestows a kindness or a person who repays it. When considering the two marks of giving and repaying kindness, the mind makes no discrimination. This is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā.

‘Further, when cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā, one does not see a Buddha-Dharma that can be taken up and does not see an ordinary being’s dharma that can be abandoned. This is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā.

‘Further, when cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā, one does not see an ordinary being’s dharma that can be extinguished, nor does one see a Buddha-Dharma that the mind personally realizes and knows. This is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā.’

The Buddha told Mañjuśrī, ‘Excellent, excellent! You can skillfully explain in this way the mark of the profound prajñā-pāramitā. This is the Dharma-seal studied by bodhisattva-mahāsattvas. Even śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, those still in training and those beyond training, should cultivate their respective paths and fruits without departing from this Dharma-seal.’

The Buddha again told Mañjuśrī, ‘If someone hears this Dharma without alarm or fear, it is not merely by having planted roots of goodness in the presence of one thousand Buddhas. Only after long planting the root of merit in the presence of hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of Buddhas can one remain without alarm or fear before this profound prajñā-pāramitā.’

Mañjuśrī said to the Buddha, ‘World-Honored One! I will now further explain the meaning of the prajñā-pāramitā.’

The Buddha said, ‘Then speak.’

Mañjuśrī said, ‘World-Honored One! When cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā, one does not see that one dharma should be abided in or that another should not be abided in. Likewise, one does not see within any realm a mark that can be taken up or abandoned. Why? No Tathāgata sees a fixed mark of the realm of any dharma. They do not even see a realm of all Buddhas, much less grasp at the realms of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, or ordinary beings.

‘One who cultivates the prajñā-pāramitā grasps neither a conceivable mark nor an inconceivable mark and does not see among dharmas manifold fixed marks. Personally realizing the dharma of emptiness is inconceivable. Bodhisattva-mahāsattvas such as these have all already made offerings to immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of Buddhas and planted many roots of goodness. Only then can they hear this profound prajñā-pāramitā without alarm or fear.

‘Further, when cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā, one sees neither bondage nor liberation. From ordinary beings through the people of the three vehicles, one sees no fixed differentiated marks. This is cultivating the prajñā-pāramitā.’

The Buddha asked Mañjuśrī, ‘To how many Buddhas have you already made offerings?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘I and all Buddhas are like magical illusions. I see neither offerings nor anyone who receives them.’

The Buddha again asked Mañjuśrī, ‘Do you now not abide in the Buddha vehicle?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘As I observe it, I do not see even a single dharma. How could it be said that I abide in the Buddha vehicle?’

The Buddha said, ‘Mañjuśrī! Have you not attained the Buddha vehicle?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘What is called the Buddha vehicle has only a name. It can neither be attained nor seen. How could I attain it?’

The Buddha said, ‘Mañjuśrī! Have you attained unobstructed knowledge?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘I am myself unobstructed. How could I use the unobstructed to attain another unobstructed state?’

The Buddha said, ‘Do you sit at the seat of awakening?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘No Tathāgata sits at the seat of awakening. How could I alone sit there now? Why? Because I presently see all dharmas abiding at the reality-limit.’

The Buddha asked, ‘What is called the reality-limit?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘The view of a self in the body and the rest are the reality-limit.’

The Buddha asked again, ‘How is the view of a self in the body the reality-limit?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘The suchness-mark of the view of a self in the body is neither real nor unreal. It neither comes from elsewhere nor goes elsewhere. It is both body and not body. This is called the reality-limit.’

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Anuttara · Vernacular · Summer 2026

If the Dharmas of All Buddhas Have No Mark of Superiority or Sameness, Why Does the Buddha Still Ask Whether They Are Supreme?

The Buddha opens by asking: are the dharmas of all Buddhas not wondrously supreme? Mañjuśrī does not follow superiority and non-superiority into a hierarchy. Instead, he says, 「我不見諸法有勝如相」— “I do not see among dharmas any mark of superiority or sameness.” This does not erase the Tathāgata’s perfect awakening. The same sentence immediately says that the Tathāgata personally awakens to the emptiness of all dharmas and personally realizes and knows it. The blade of the sūtra is clear: perfect awakening and personal realization remain, while attainable marks of superiority and sameness among dharmas are not established.

Mañjuśrī therefore asks in return whether, within the dharma of emptiness, any mark superior to or the same as another can be found. The Buddha first affirms him, then turns the question toward the chapter’s name: is “anuttara” called the Buddha-Dharma? “Anuttara” is the ancient transmitted transliteration for “unsurpassed.” If it is called unsurpassed, does this not again establish a highest dharma for someone to attain?

Mañjuśrī’s reply preserves both the name and non-attainment: as the Buddha has taught, anuttara is called the Buddha-Dharma, yet it is called anuttara precisely because no dharma can be attained. The sūtra neither cancels the name nor lets the name become something graspable. In this chapter, “unsurpassed” does not raise one dharma above the ten thousand dharmas. It loosens the hand that seeks to seize a highest dharma at the point where no dharma can be attained. This exposition follows the sequence of the exchange.

Does 「無上佛法」— “the Unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma” — Mean Not Studying the Buddha-Dharma?

The Buddha next asks: ‘Do you not conceptually consider even the Buddha-Dharma?’ Read alone, this question can easily sound as if hearing and cultivation were unnecessary. Mañjuśrī’s reply, however, does not reject the Buddha-Dharma. It says that he does not see a fixed Buddha-Dharma that can be discriminated and does not separate the dharmas of ordinary beings, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas into determined classes. The sūtra instead calls this the “unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma.”

The repeated sentences that follow are the chapter’s own blade. When cultivating prajñā, one does not see the marks of ordinary beings, the Buddha-Dharma, or fixed determinations; one does not see the desire realm, form realm, formless realm, or realm of quiescence; one does not see a Buddha-Dharma to take up or an ordinary being’s dharma to abandon or extinguish. The text does not fabricate a new view that “nothing exists.” At each category to which grasping readily adheres, it asks whether this dharma can truly be discriminated, acquired, abandoned, or extinguished.

The exchange about giving and repaying kindness belongs to the same sequence. The sūtra does not advise forgetting kindness. It says that when considering the two marks of benefactor and one who repays, the mind does not discriminate. The context of conduct is not erased, but the two attainable marks are not fixed. The Buddha then calls this teaching the Dharma-seal studied by bodhisattvas and says that śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, trainees and those beyond training, all cultivate path and fruit without departing from this seal. “Not conceptually considering” therefore cannot be read carelessly as ceasing to cultivate the path.

If One Sees Neither What Should nor Should Not Be Abided In, Where Does the Practitioner Stand?

When Mañjuśrī asks to explain prajñā further, his first sentence releases abiding and non-abiding together: one does not see any dharma that should be abided in and does not see any dharma that should not be abided in; one does not see within realms marks that can be taken up or abandoned. Why? The Tathāgatas do not see fixed marks of the realms of any dharma. They do not even see the realm of all Buddhas, much less take up the realms of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, or ordinary beings.

The reader may then ask: if one does not take up conceivable marks, should one instead take up inconceivable marks? The sūtra immediately closes this escape. Conceivable marks are not taken up, and inconceivable marks are not taken up; manifold differentiated marks among dharmas are not seen, and bondage and liberation are not established as two attainable sides. From ordinary beings through the three vehicles, seeing no fixed differentiated marks is cultivating prajñā.

Yet the sūtra also says that those who remain without alarm or fear before this profound prajñā have made offerings to immeasurable Buddhas and planted roots of goodness. “Not taking up” therefore cannot be equated with “having no need to cultivate and gather.” Realms that cannot be grasped and roots of goodness planted over a long time stand together in the same passage. Neither side can be deleted.

If the Buddha Vehicle Has Only a Name, Can One Still Speak of 「得」— “Attaining” It?

The Buddha asks Mañjuśrī how many Buddhas he has served. Mañjuśrī answers through magical illusion: I and all Buddhas are like magical illusions; I see neither offerings nor recipients. The Buddha then asks in succession whether he abides in the Buddha vehicle, has attained the Buddha vehicle, and has attained unobstructed knowledge. Each reply opens up anew the “attainment” within the question.

The Buddha vehicle has only a name. Since it can neither be attained nor seen, how could I have attained it? Nor can the unobstructed be treated as a tool and then used to acquire another unobstructed state. These replies neither turn the Buddha vehicle into a different attainable object nor hide unobstructed knowledge behind language. The sūtra permits the name to continue in use while refusing to let attainment solidify upon it.

The exchanges resemble layers being peeled away from hiding places. First one does not abide in the Buddha vehicle; then one has not attained it; then the unobstructed does not again attain the unobstructed. In each round, the reader sees how the same seeking mind can continue grasping under increasingly subtle names. The sūtra reveals this not through an imported simile but through the questions themselves.

Why Does Not Sitting at the Seat of Awakening End with the View of a Self in the Body as the Reality-Limit?

The Buddha finally asks, ‘Do you sit at the seat of awakening?’ Mañjuśrī replies that no Tathāgata sits there, so how could he alone sit? His reason is that he presently sees all dharmas abiding at the reality-limit. This does not push the seat of awakening somewhere else. The exchange instead places the seat of awakening, all dharmas, and the reality-limit upon the same line.

When explaining the unmoving seat of awakening, the Ming reader Qian Qianyi cited this exchange and explained the seat of awakening as not outside the reality-limit. This later commentarial use acts like a blade: if one rigidly divides sitting from not sitting, one still has not left an attainable mark of the seat of awakening. Yet the later reader was borrowing this passage while explaining another sūtra. His interpretation cannot replace the answer that follows in this sūtra.

When the Buddha asks what is called the reality-limit, Mañjuśrī unexpectedly replies that the view of a self in the body and the rest are the reality-limit. Asked how this view is the reality-limit, he says that its suchness-mark is neither real nor unreal, neither comes nor goes, and is both body and not body. This is the sharpest conclusion of the chapter. The reality-limit is not a separate place away from the view of a self in the body, yet this view is not declared to be a substantially existing reality-limit. The exposition preserves the boundaries given by the sūtra: neither real nor unreal, neither coming nor going, both body and not body.

Onward Transmission

This chapter was later incorporated in full into the “Mañjuśrī Teaching of Prajñā Assembly” of the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra. From whether the dharmas of all Buddhas are supreme and the name anuttara, through not conceptually considering the Buddha-Dharma, the Buddha vehicle having only a name, and the exchanges on the seat of awakening and the reality-limit, the original sequence of questions and answers is broadly preserved. Differences in a small number of characters and sentence order remain for the apparatus layer.

The Ming Subcommentary Clarifying the Commentary on the Śūraṅgama Sūtra later extracted the question about the seat of awakening and placed it within an explanation of the unmoving seat. From canonical reincorporation of the entire exchange to a later reader selecting one sentence for exposition, the chapter’s onward transmission appears in two forms: one preserves the full sequence, while the other brings a sūtra sentence into a later context of explanation. Both show how the chapter was preserved and used. Neither authorizes a doctrinal adjudication beyond its own questions and answers.

The next unit continues with questions from Śāriputra, Maitreya, and the upāsikā Without Marks, turning the focus toward hearing this profound meaning without alarm or fear. The onward movement within the scroll therefore begins with the questions continuing: the non-attainability of anuttara does not stop the teaching, but presses onward to whether one can receive this Dharma-seal.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Anuttara · Exposition · Summer 2026