文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經 文殊般若 · 卷下 · 地動因緣

Ānanda asks why the great earth quakes, and the Buddha connects the auspicious sign back to the mark of the field of merit as being without difference. Śāriputra praises Mañjuśrī as inconceivable, but Mañjuśrī says that the natures of both the conceivable and the inconceivable cannot be spoken. The Buddha asks whether he has entered the inconceivable samādhi. Mañjuśrī sees no mind that can enter, yet he does not abolish cultivation: at first one binds the mind to a single object, and only after long practice does one become like an archer whose every released arrow hits, no longer producing a separate mental conception but remaining constantly together with concentration. Concentration cannot be attained, and every mark of mind is itself not mind; therefore the marks of sentient beings and the mark of samādhi are equal and without distinction. When the Buddha says that Mañjuśrī abides in prajñā, Mañjuśrī releases even this place of abiding. Abiding in being or in nonbeing remains a conception of self; one must leave both places and abide in non-abiding. Prajñā, the inconceivable, the dharma-realm, the signless, and no arising and no ceasing are thus identified layer by layer. At the end, the Buddha names such knowing non-retrogressive wisdom, and Mañjuśrī names it wisdom without fabrication, yet the simile of the gold ingot that must be hammered before its quality can be known reminds the practitioner: no mind does not mean never having practiced for a long time, and no fabrication does not mean never entering the sphere. Only by actually entering while neither recollecting nor becoming attached does wisdom become manifest.

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Causes and Conditions of the Earthquake · Heart-Essence · Summer 2026

At that time Ānanda rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, placed his right knee on the ground, and asked the Buddha, ‘World-Honored One, what are the causes and conditions that make the great earth quake in these six ways?’

The Buddha told Ānanda, ‘Because I have just explained that the field of merit has no differentiated mark, this auspicious sign appeared. Buddhas of the past also taught the mark of the field of merit in the same way at this very place, benefiting sentient beings; at those times all worlds likewise quaked in six ways.’

Śāriputra said to the Buddha, ‘World-Honored One, Mañjuśrī is truly inconceivable. Why? Because the marks of all dharmas that he teaches are inconceivable.’

The Buddha told Mañjuśrī, ‘So it is, so it is! Just as Śāriputra says, the Dharma you teach is truly inconceivable.’

Mañjuśrī said to the Buddha, ‘World-Honored One, what is inconceivable cannot be expressed in words; what is conceivable likewise cannot be expressed in words. In this way, the natures of the conceivable and the inconceivable are both inexpressible. The marks of all sounds are neither conceivable nor inconceivable.’

The Buddha asked, ‘Have you entered the inconceivable samādhi?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘No, World-Honored One. I myself am inconceivable, and I do not see any mind that can be the one who conceives. How, then, can it be said that I have entered the inconceivable samādhi? When I first aroused the aspiration, I wished to enter this concentration. Reflecting now, however, in truth there is no mark of a mind that could enter samādhi.

‘It is like a person learning archery. After practicing for a long time, the person becomes thoroughly skillful. Later, even without deliberately forming the thought to aim, because the practice has been long, every arrow released hits the mark. I am likewise. When I first trained in the inconceivable samādhi, I bound the mind to a single object. If one practices for a long time until accomplishment, one no longer forms a separate, deliberate mental conception and can remain constantly together with concentration.’

Śāriputra asked Mañjuśrī, ‘Is there another concentration that is even more excellent, subtle, and quiescent?’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘If there truly were an inconceivable concentration that could be obtained, only then could you ask, “Is there another quiescent concentration?” As I understand it, even the inconceivable concentration itself cannot be obtained. How, then, can you go on to ask whether there is another quiescent concentration?’

Śāriputra asked again, ‘Can the inconceivable concentration not be obtained?’

Mañjuśrī said, ‘A conceivable concentration has a mark that can be obtained; an inconceivable concentration has a mark that cannot be obtained. All sentient beings in truth accomplish the inconceivable concentration. Why? Because every mark of mind is originally not mind; therefore this is named the inconceivable concentration. Thus, the marks of all sentient beings and the mark of the inconceivable samādhi are equal and without distinction.’

The Buddha praised Mañjuśrī: ‘Excellent, excellent! For a long time in the presence of past Buddhas, you have planted roots of goodness and cultivated pure conduct. Only thus are you able to expound such a profound samādhi. You now abide within prajñā-pāramitā in this way.’

Mañjuśrī replied, ‘If I abide within prajñā-pāramitā and can give such an explanation, then a conception has arisen, and I abide in a conception of self. If one abides in conception and in a conception of self, prajñā-pāramitā then has a fixed place. Even if one says that prajñā-pāramitā abides in nonbeing, that remains my conception and still establishes a place for it.

‘Apart from these two places of being and nonbeing, abide in non-abiding, just as the Buddhas abide, settled in the quiescent and inconceivable realm. Such inconceivability is named the abiding place of prajñā-pāramitā. At the place of prajñā-pāramitā, all dharmas are without fixed marks and all dharmas are without fabrication.

‘Prajñā-pāramitā is itself the inconceivable; the inconceivable is itself the dharma-realm; the dharma-realm is itself the signless; the signless is itself the inconceivable; and the inconceivable is itself prajñā-pāramitā. Prajñā-pāramitā and the dharma-realm are not two and have no difference. What is nondual and without difference is the dharma-realm; the dharma-realm is the signless; the signless is the realm of prajñā-pāramitā. The realm of prajñā-pāramitā is the inconceivable realm; the inconceivable realm is the realm without arising and ceasing; and the realm without arising and ceasing is the inconceivable realm.’

Mañjuśrī continued, ‘The realm of the Tathāgata and the realm of self bear no two separate marks. One who cultivates prajñā-pāramitā in this way does not seek awakening. Why? Because awakening is free from every fixed mark, and that itself is prajñā-pāramitā.

‘World-Honored One, if one knows the mark of self without becoming attached to it, such not-knowing and nonattachment are what the Buddha knows. Inconceivable not-knowing and nonattachment are likewise what the Buddha knows. Why? Because the inherent nature of the knowing essence has no truly existent mark. How, then, could it turn the dharma-realm? If one knows that inherent nature has no fixed essence and is unattached, this is named “no thing.” Since there is no thing, there is no fixed place and nothing on which one can depend or in which one can abide.

‘No dependence and no abiding are no arising and no ceasing; no arising and no ceasing are the merits of the conditioned and the unconditioned. If one knows in this way, there is no mental conception. Since there is no mental conception, how could the merits of the conditioned and the unconditioned be established as objects of knowledge? Not-knowing is inconceivable, and the inconceivable is what the Buddha knows. Within it there is neither grasping nor any non-grasping that can be obtained. One does not see marks of the three times — past, future, and the like — as going and coming; one does not grasp arising, ceasing, or the many productions and activities; and one falls into neither annihilation nor permanence. Knowing in this way is named right wisdom.

‘Inconceivable wisdom is like empty space. It has neither this side nor that side and no comparable class. It has neither good nor bad, neither equality nor inequality, and neither fixed mark nor fixed appearance.’

The Buddha told Mañjuśrī, ‘If one knows in this way, it is named non-retrogressive wisdom.’

Mañjuśrī said, ‘Wisdom without fabrication is named non-retrogressive wisdom. It is like an ingot of gold: only after it has first been struck with a hammer can the quality of the material be known. If it has not been worked and struck, no one can discern it. The mark of non-retrogressive wisdom is likewise. One must actually enter its sphere, neither recollecting nor becoming attached, with neither arising nor fabrication, complete in immovability, neither arising nor ceasing; only then does it become manifest.’

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Causes and Conditions of the Earthquake · Vernacular · Summer 2026

Why Does the Great Earth Quake?

The lower scroll begins with Ānanda’s question: ‘What are the causes and conditions that make the great earth quake in six ways?’ The Buddha does not place the answer in a mysterious cause removed from the scene of teaching. He points back to the mark of the field of merit as being without difference, which has just been taught. Buddhas of the past also taught the mark of the field of merit here and benefited sentient beings, and all worlds likewise quaked at those times.

This makes the earthquake the doorway to the whole passage. Śāriputra moves from the auspicious sign to praise Mañjuśrī as inconceivable, and the Buddha confirms that Mañjuśrī’s teaching is truly inconceivable. Mañjuśrī, however, does not seize upon the praise and turn “inconceivable” into his own special title. He immediately questions the limits of language: the inconceivable cannot be spoken, the conceivable also cannot be spoken, the natures of the conceivable and the inconceivable both cannot be spoken, and the marks of all sounds fall into neither category.

Both the Saṅghabhara recension and Xuanzang’s recension preserve the scene in which Ānanda rises and asks about the earthquake, and both connect the earthquake back to the causes and conditions of teaching at this place. The length and emphasis of the replies differ among the three recensions, but all bring the reader from the auspicious sign back to the meaning of the Dharma. The earth is moving, yet the question is not merely how the earth moves; it is what has been spoken when this world responds by quaking.

If No Mind Enters Concentration, Why Speak of Beginning and Long Practice?

The Buddha next asks, ‘Have you entered the inconceivable samādhi?’ Mañjuśrī replies that he does not see any mind capable of conceiving; how, then, could it be said that a self enters the inconceivable samādhi? If one reads only this far, it is easy to hear the passage as saying, ‘Since there is no mind, there is no need to cultivate concentration.’ Mañjuśrī’s next statement directly blocks that misreading.

He says that when he first aroused the aspiration, he did indeed wish to enter this concentration. When first learning the inconceivable samādhi, he also truly bound the mind to a single object. Only after long practice was accomplished did he cease to form a separate, deliberate mental conception and remain constantly together with concentration. The sūtra’s own archery simile is especially clear: a beginner practices archery repeatedly; after long practice has brought skill, every arrow released hits the mark. Not producing another deliberate thought does not mean that no earlier training occurred. Spontaneous accord is not the same as never having applied effort.

Xuanzang’s recension unfolds this sequence through the coarse target, the tip of a hair, and an arrow that immediately hits: at first, one fixes the mind on a large target; after long practice, one can strike even the tip of a hair and no longer keeps the mind on the coarse target. The Saṅghabhara recension is nearly identical with the base text. Read together, the wording of the three ancient translations is like a sharp blade that cuts away two common errors at once: on one side, clinging to a mind that enters concentration; on the other, using “no mind” to skip beginning, binding to an object, and long practice.

If Concentration Cannot Be Attained, Why Say That All Sentient Beings Accomplish It?

Śāriputra asks further: is there another concentration, more excellent, subtle, and quiescent? Mañjuśrī first points out that only if the inconceivable concentration could truly be attained would it make sense to compare it with another concentration. Since even the inconceivable concentration cannot be attained, how can one ask which other concentration is more quiescent?

An even more arresting statement follows: all sentient beings in truth accomplish the inconceivable concentration. Mañjuśrī’s reason is not that every sentient being has already had a particular meditative experience. It is that 「一切心相即非心」— “every mark of mind is itself not mind.” Precisely because the mark of mind is not an attainable mind, it is named the inconceivable concentration, and the marks of sentient beings and the mark of samādhi are equal and without distinction.

Here one must follow the order of the sūtra’s exchange and should not extract “all accomplish it” as an easily misunderstood promise. The text first says that a conceivable concentration has an attainable mark and an inconceivable concentration has an unattainable mark; only then does it say that all sentient beings in truth accomplish it. The emphasis remains upon the unattainable mark. The sūtra does not establish sentient beings and samādhi as two fixed entities and then declare them united.

How Does Abiding in Prajñā Become a Conception of Self?

The Buddha praises Mañjuśrī for long planting roots of goodness and cultivating pure conduct, and says that he abides in prajñā-pāramitā. Mañjuśrī refuses to grasp even this praise. If there is a self that abides in prajñā and can speak in this way, then there is already a conception, and one abides in a conception of self; prajñā is thereby placed in a fixed location. Even calling that location “nonbeing” remains my conception.

The sūtra therefore says to leave the two places of being and nonbeing and 「住無所住」— “abide in non-abiding.” This is not the search for a third, more hidden place. It is no longer placing prajñā on either side, being or nonbeing. The following repeated identifications of prajñā, the inconceivable, the dharma-realm, the signless, and no arising and no ceasing are likewise not a string of terms arranged as a slogan. Each removes once more the fixed position that the reader wishes to leave for prajñā.

In this sense-unit, Xuanzang’s recension says that profound prajñā is free from a conception of self and from conception, abides in non-abiding, and then speaks successively of the inconceivable realm and the dharma-realm. The Saṅghabhara recension is highly continuous with the base text over a long passage. Together the two parallel sūtra recensions illuminate the cutting edge of the exchange: if “abiding in prajñā” is seized by a self and made into a place, the abiding has already lost the non-abiding taught by the sūtra.

If Wisdom Is Without Fabrication, Why Must It Still Be Hammered?

At the end of the passage, the issue comes down to wisdom. Mañjuśrī says that the realm of the Tathāgata and the realm of self have no dual mark. The inherent nature of knowing has no existence; there is no fixed thing, place, dependence, or abiding. Such knowing does not grasp arising, ceasing, or the many activities, and falls into neither annihilation nor permanence. This is named right wisdom. Inconceivable wisdom is like empty space: it has neither this side nor that and cannot be compared with anything of its kind.

The Buddha names it non-retrogressive wisdom, and Mañjuśrī further names it wisdom without fabrication. If it is without fabrication, is simply doing nothing enough? The gold-ingot simile again brings the reader back to practice. An ingot of gold must be hammered and worked before its quality can be discerned. Non-retrogressive wisdom likewise becomes manifest only when one enters its sphere, neither recollecting nor becoming attached, with neither arising nor fabrication, complete in immovability, neither arising nor ceasing.

The archery and gold-ingot similes answer one another at the beginning and end. The first says that after long practice every arrow spontaneously hits the mark; the second says that only after actually undergoing hammering can the quality be discerned. Neither lets “no mind” or “without fabrication” become an excuse for never cultivating, and neither lets cultivation recreate a fixed cultivator. The distinction between these two sides is precisely what this passage asks the reader to hold with care.

Onward Transmission

Within this unit, the Saṅghabhara recension preserves highly continuous ancient wording from the earthquake dialogue through the inconceivable samādhi, the archery simile, abiding in non-abiding, non-retrogressive wisdom, and the gold-ingot simile. Xuanzang’s Seventh Assembly, Mañjuśrī Division, extends from the earthquake, archery, and unattainability of concentration into the successive identification of prajñā and the inconceivable realm. They are first of all canonical parallel sūtra texts. They help the reader see how the same sense-units are unfolded by different ancient translations without deciding the doctrine of the base text on its behalf.

No directly verifiable quotation by an ancient master has presently been found for these 1,195 characters. This section therefore stops with the actual wording of the three parallel sūtra texts. It does not move the already verified citations of Daoxin, Zhiyi, or the Awakening of Faith commentarial lineage from the later “Single-Practice Samādhi” chapter into this unit. Where there is no verified quotation, leaving the place unfilled is itself the boundary of honest transmission.

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Causes and Conditions of the Earthquake · Exposition · Summer 2026