文殊師利所說摩訶般若波羅蜜經 義疏通講

One 「如是我聞」— “Thus Have I Heard” — First Settles What Was Heard

After the sūtra title and the translator’s byline, the text opens with 「如是我聞」— “Thus have I heard.” It does not begin by teaching an abstract principle. It first makes clear that what follows has a place in the transmission of hearing. The Buddha, the time, Prince Jeta’s Grove and Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, and the assembly gathered together then appear one by one, so the conditions for the teaching do not unfold in empty space.

The Assembly Has Not Only Numbers but Qualities

One thousand great bhikṣus and ten thousand bodhisattvas gather together: this is the scale of the accomplished assembly. The bodhisattvas also adorn themselves with the great adornment and all abide on the ground of non-retrogression; four bodhisattvas — Maitreya, Mañjuśrī, Unobstructed Eloquence, and Unforsaking the Burden — are named one by one. The numbers make the Dharma seat complete; the qualities let the reader see that this is no accidental gathering, but an assembly that has already found a place of abiding on the bodhisattva path.

As the Sky Begins to Brighten, Mañjuśrī Arrives First

The sūtra places Mañjuśrī’s arrival at 「明相現時」— “when the first light appeared.” The night is passing and the morning light has begun: Mañjuśrī leaves his dwelling, comes to the Buddha, and stands outside the gate; Śāriputra and the other great śrāvakas also arrive from their respective dwellings. First of all, this is an event narrated by the sūtra. Read as an image within the movement of the text, the morning light appearing at the same moment as their approach also gives the first dialogue of the sūtra the sense of a beginning that moves from darkness toward light and draws near the Dharma seat.

Only When the Whole Assembly Has Gathered Does the Buddha Emerge and Arrange His Seat

Knowing that everyone has arrived, the Buddha then comes out from his dwelling, arranges his seat, and sits. The Dharma seat does not open as the isolated speech of a lone person; it opens once the full convergence of conditions is present. The Buddha next asks Śāriputra why he is standing outside the gate in the early morning. The question remains at the end of the prologue, while the reply is continued in the next unit. The prologue does not answer the main text in advance. It completes the people, time, place, and Dharma seat, allowing the exchange to arise naturally.

---

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

He Has Already Arrived — Why Ask About “Seeing”?

Śāriputra first explains to the Buddha that Mañjuśrī arrived long before him and is standing outside the gate, while he himself came later. The Buddha then asks Mañjuśrī: ‘You truly came first. Was it because you wished to 「見如來」— “see the Tathāgata”?’ The question does more than confirm the order of arrival. The person has already reached the Buddha’s dwelling, yet the sūtra still raises 「見」— “seeing” — as a question. The question turns bodily arrival toward the right contemplation, ‘What, ultimately, is seen?’

No ancient master’s phrase-by-phrase citation of this passage has been found to supply another cutting edge. We can only let the sūtra’s own question cut in: arriving before the Tathāgata does not mean the sūtra has already answered what 「見如來」— “seeing the Tathāgata” — is.

Mañjuśrī Says He Has Come to See — Why Does He Then Speak a Whole Series of Negations?

Mañjuśrī does not evade the Buddha’s question. He first states plainly: I truly came here because I wished to see the Tathāgata. Then he gives the reason: he delights in right contemplation for 「利益眾生」— “the benefit of sentient beings.” Only then does the sūtra unfold the content of this right contemplation: suchness without difference; unmoving and unmade; without arising and without ceasing; falling into neither existence nor nonexistence; neither confined to a direction nor apart from direction; neither the three times nor apart from the three times; neither falling into duality nor setting up nonduality as something else to grasp; neither a defiled mark nor a pure mark.

This series is easily read as a list of 「不」— “nots.” Yet neither the opening nor the close of the passage departs from “benefiting sentient beings”: Mañjuśrī first says he delights in right contemplation for the benefit of sentient beings, and after listing these marks says once again that by this right contemplation he benefits sentient beings. These 「不」— “nots” — therefore do not turn seeing the Tathāgata into a blank unrelated to sentient beings. In the very midst of benefiting sentient beings, they prevent what is seen from being fixed as the mark of either side.

The three Chinese translations each speak in their own way here. One translation first says that the Tathāgata’s Dharma-body is fundamentally invisible, and then speaks of it as inconceivable and the reality-limit of suchness. The later composite translation says that contemplating the Tathāgata through the mark of suchness is named truly seeing the Buddha. Their doctrinal equivalence is not assumed. Yet all three move the question away from seeing a form before the eyes and toward such language of right contemplation as unmoving and unmade, neither existent nor nonexistent, without arising and without ceasing.

Can “Nothing Grasped” Become One More Thing to Grasp?

The Buddha’s response to Mañjuśrī is brief: if one can see the Tathāgata in this way, the mind is 「無所取」— “with nothing grasped” — yet does not grasp at non-grasping; it is neither an accumulation nor a non-accumulation. The sharpness of this line lies in its releasing not only 「取」— “grasping” — but also the position ‘I am one who does not grasp.’ If non-grasping is accumulated into a state one can possess and defend, one still falls back into the two sides the sūtra loosens.

Thus the text does not first establish an object and then command the mind not to take it. It places both grasping and non-grasping, both accumulation and non-accumulation, back within right contemplation. As the wording of this passage stands, the Buddha answers Mañjuśrī only with this short sentence and does not construct a new mark for the reader to hold.

If One Does Not Grasp the Mark of Sentient Beings, Why Still Bring Forth the Great Adornment for Them?

Śāriputra brings the question into action. He says that one who can see the Tathāgata in this way is exceedingly rare: for the sake of all sentient beings one sees the Tathāgata, yet the mind does not grasp the mark of sentient beings; one teaches all sentient beings to go toward nirvāṇa, yet does not grasp the mark of going toward nirvāṇa; one brings forth the great adornment for all sentient beings, yet the mind sees no mark of adornment.

Read only 「不取」— “does not grasp” — and it is easy to suppose that nothing need be done. Śāriputra instead names three things actively being done: seeing the Tathāgata, transforming sentient beings toward nirvāṇa, and bringing forth the great adornment for them. Each is carried out, and in each its mark is not grasped. Mañjuśrī replies ‘So it is’ and takes the point further: even if immeasurable Buddhas taught the Dharma day and night over long aeons and brought immeasurable sentient beings into nirvāṇa, the realm of sentient beings would still neither increase nor decrease, because no fixed and unchanging mark of sentient beings can be found.

This chapter has no simile of its own, nor an ancient master’s line-by-line explanation that can pass judgment for the sūtra. Its pedagogical sequence is to state the action in full and then loosen each mark that might be grasped. It is not that because the mark of sentient beings cannot be found, one therefore does not benefit them; nor is it that because one benefits sentient beings, one must grasp sentient beings, nirvāṇa, and adornment as fixed entities.

Onward Transmission

The upper scroll continues by questioning the statement that the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases: if so, why does the bodhisattva seek awakening and constantly teach the Dharma? The tension left at the end of this chapter is not sealed shut within a single sentence. It becomes the entrance to the dialogue that follows. Further on in the lower scroll, the sūtra speaks of the single-practice samādhi through 「法界一相，繫緣法界」— “the single mark of the dharma-realm; bind the attention to the dharma-realm”〔T08 0731a〕— bringing prajñā’s right contemplation into an explicit sequence of practice. That chapter has been established as a separate unit; its citation network is not folded into this one.

The onward transmission of this chapter therefore does not establish a conclusion for “seeing the Tathāgata.” It lets the question continue to work: when a person comes before the Buddha, what is seeing? When benefiting sentient beings, what is non-grasping? How can bringing forth the great adornment without seeing a mark of adornment avoid becoming empty talk? The scroll pursues these questions round after round. Here we preserve only the door first opened by them.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Seeing the Tathāgata · Exposition · Summer 2026

If the Realm of Sentient Beings Neither Increases nor Decreases, Why Still Seek Awakening and Constantly Teach the Dharma?

The chapter begins with a further question from Śāriputra. Since the realm of sentient beings neither increases nor decreases, why do bodhisattvas still seek unsurpassed perfect awakening for sentient beings, and why do they constantly teach the Dharma? The question does not ask about emptiness in the abstract; it asks about practice. If liberating immeasurable sentient beings causes no increase or decrease in their realm, do the bodhisattva’s seeking and teaching still have any footing?

Mañjuśrī does not answer that bodhisattvas need not seek or teach. He first says that if sentient beings are entirely of the mark of emptiness, there is no attainable bodhisattva seeking awakening and no attainable sentient being for whom the Dharma is taught. His reason is 「我說法中無有一法當可得故」— “within the Dharma I teach there is not a single dharma that can be attained.” The sūtra places seeking awakening and constantly teaching the Dharma plainly before the reader, while refusing to let the answer settle upon an attainable bodhisattva, sentient being, or Dharma.

Nor can this answer be read backward to mean that nothing is practiced. Śāriputra’s question about the bodhisattva seeking awakening and constantly teaching still remains in the sentence. What Mañjuśrī cuts off is treating the practitioner, the sentient beings transformed, and the Dharma taught as attainable things. The doctrinal determination of this boundary remains uncertain; here the exposition only preserves the sequence in which the sūtra retains both practice and non-attainment.

If There Are No Sentient Beings, Why Speak of the Realm of Sentient Beings?

The Buddha immediately presses the point: if there are no sentient beings, why speak of sentient beings and their realm? This question does not allow “sentient beings are empty” to become a sentence one can easily pass over. Mañjuśrī must answer, in turn, concerning the realm’s mark, measure, location, and abiding.

The first reply is 「眾生界相，如諸佛界」— “the mark of the realm of sentient beings is like the realm of all Buddhas.” The second is 「眾生界量，如佛界量」— “the measure of the realm of sentient beings is like the measure of the Buddha-realm.” The sūtra supplies no separate number and does not say that the realm of sentient beings is greater or smaller than the Buddha-realm; it answers its mark and measure by means of the Buddha-realm. When the third question asks whether this measure has a location, Mañjuśrī replies that it is inconceivable. The fourth asks whether the mark of the realm of sentient beings has an abiding, and he replies, 「眾生無住，猶如空住」— “sentient beings have no abiding, just as space abides.”

The simile of space is this chapter’s own blade. The sūtra says only “just as space abides” and does not then establish a fixed place where space itself abides. The simile therefore first answers the question of abiding and non-abiding: if one tries to point out a location for the realm of sentient beings, the sūtra responds with the abiding of space. It neither erases the realm of sentient beings nor places it in a location that can be indicated.

How Is Not Abiding in Any Dharma Called Abiding in Prajñā?

From the non-abiding of sentient beings, the Buddha turns to ask: when cultivating prajñā in this way, how should one abide in prajñā? Mañjuśrī replies, 「以不住法為住般若波羅蜜」— “One abides in the prajñā-pāramitā by not abiding in any dharma.” The Buddha does not let this sentence remain on the surface, but asks again: why is not abiding in any dharma called abiding in prajñā? Mañjuśrī’s second answer is 「以無住相，即住般若波羅蜜」— “To be without a mark of abiding is itself to abide in the prajñā-pāramitā.”

The sequence of the two replies is tight. The first does not abide in any dharma; the second does not separately establish even a graspable mark of non-abiding. If one guards “non-abiding” as a fixed state, one contradicts the second reply. If one says that because there is no abiding there is no practice, one has stepped past the Buddha’s question about abiding in prajñā. The sūtra places abiding and non-abiding within the same exchange and requires the reader not to omit either side.

The Ming compilation of Honglian, the Annotated Explanation of the Diamond Sūtra, records Chen Xiong citing these two replies to explain abiding without anywhere abiding. This later lay citation at least establishes that when later readers explained abiding in the Diamond Sūtra, they indeed used this chapter’s own sentence as a blade. Yet that interpretation is a later use and cannot replace the two rounds of questioning within this chapter itself.

If Roots of Goodness Grow, Why Is the Answer Neither Increase nor Decrease?

The Buddha then asks: when one abides in prajñā in this way, how do roots of goodness increase, and how do they diminish? Mañjuśrī does not separately list the conditions of increase and diminution. He first says that roots of goodness neither increase nor decrease, then that all dharmas neither increase nor decrease, and finally that the nature and marks of prajñā likewise neither increase nor decrease. The question begins with roots of goodness, but the answer expands step by step to all dharmas and prajñā itself.

The long answer that follows makes this absence of increase and decrease concrete. Ordinary dharmas are not abandoned, and noble dharmas are not taken up; nirvāṇa is not treated as delightful, and saṃsāra is not treated as repellent; afflictive defilements are not seen as something to abandon, nor merit as something to acquire. The sūtra does not merely repeat the word “no.” Pair by pair, it points to the places where the mind most readily takes and rejects.

Mañjuśrī then names several ways of cultivating prajñā: not seeing dharmas as arising or ceasing, not seeing them as increasing or decreasing, not longing to grasp anything, and not seeing within the marks of dharmas anything that can be sought; not seeing beauty or ugliness, not giving rise to high or low, and not performing taking or abandoning. The final three sentences give their reasons: dharmas are apart from all marks and therefore have neither beauty nor ugliness; dharma-nature is equal and therefore has neither high nor low; dharmas abide at the reality-limit and therefore have neither taking nor abandoning. All these reasons stand within the chapter’s source text. The exposition does not add a higher system of terms.

Onward Transmission

This passage was later incorporated in full into the “Mañjuśrī Teaching of Prajñā Assembly” of the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra. From the questions about the realm of sentient beings through not taking ordinary and noble, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, it continues in the same sequence. Its reincorporation within the canon preserves the complete shape in which the short exchanges lead into the long answer: first the realm of sentient beings, then abiding in prajñā, and finally the release of increase, decrease, taking, and abandoning item by item.

Later still, the Annotated Explanation of the Diamond Sūtra compiled by Honglian explicitly cited this chapter’s two sentences on not abiding in any dharma and the absence of a mark of abiding when explaining “abiding.” From the questions and answers of this sūtra, through canonical reincorporation in the Mahāratnakūṭa, to a later lay reader using its actual words to explain abiding, a line of onward transmission can be verified. How the respective sūtras and commentaries are doctrinally integrated remains a matter for neutral record, not adjudication here.

Nor does this chapter close the question. It begins by asking why practice still remains, passes through the non-abiding of the realm of sentient beings, and arrives at abiding in prajñā without taking or abandoning. The next exchange turns to ask whether the dharmas of all Buddhas are supreme. Onward movement here first means allowing this chain of questions to continue, rather than turning non-abiding into an answer that stops inquiry.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Realm of Sentient Beings · Exposition · 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

What Is Disclosed by Hearing Without Alarm or Fear?

At the opening, Śāriputra, Maitreya, Mañjuśrī, and the upāsikā Without Marks speak in succession. They all seize upon one point: when hearing profound prajñā, the mind is neither alarmed nor afraid, neither sinks back nor regrets. Yet their conclusions differ. Śāriputra says that one who truly understands this meaning and becomes certain is called a bodhisattva-mahāsattva. Maitreya says that hearing the Dharma and becoming complete in the marks of dharmas is drawing near the Buddha’s seat. Mañjuśrī says that hearing without fear is seeing the Buddha. The upāsikā Without Marks places the reason in all dharmas originally being without marks.

These four statements do not repeat one verdict four times. They place the hearer, in turn, at the name bodhisattva, nearness to the Buddha’s seat, the meaning of seeing the Buddha, and the reason of all dharmas being without marks. The sūtra lets distinct voices follow one another without compressing them into an undifferentiated statement. The first discipline in reading here is to preserve each speaker’s own sentence.

Why Does the Buddha Connect Trust in Hearing with the Six Perfections?

The Buddha next tells Śāriputra that one who hears profound prajñā and becomes certain, without alarm, fear, sinking back, or regret, abides on the ground of non-retrogression. If one also trusts and delights in hearing and receiving, rejoicing without weariness, one is complete in the six perfections of giving, ethical discipline, patience, diligent effort, meditation, and prajñā. One can also disclose and distinguish the Dharma for others and practice in accordance with what has been taught.

Hearing in this chapter is therefore not merely sound entering the ear, and delight in hearing is not a momentary pleasure. The sūtra connects it in two directions: inwardly, with being complete in the six perfections; outwardly, with explaining the Dharma for others; and in one’s own conduct, with practicing as taught. If one takes only “hearing without fear” and deletes the practice that follows, the sūtra is shortened. If one speaks only of practice and does not see it arising from hearing and trusting profound prajñā, the sequence of the chapter is likewise lost.

If One Draws Near and Sees the Buddha, Why Does Mañjuśrī Then Speak of Non-Attainment and Non-Abiding?

Maitreya has said that one draws near the Buddha’s seat, and Mañjuśrī that one sees the Buddha. The Buddha immediately turns to ask Mañjuśrī: through what meaning does one attain and abide in unsurpassed perfect awakening? Mañjuśrī replies that he has not attained it and does not abide in the Buddha vehicle. This turn prevents the reader from grasping “drawing near the Buddha” or “seeing the Buddha” as a position one can possess.

The Buddha praises Mañjuśrī’s skillful explanation within the profound Dharma and says that he long planted roots of goodness and cultivated pure conduct through the Dharma without marks. Mañjuśrī still does not stop at the words “without marks.” If one first saw marks, one could then speak of their absence; but since he sees neither marks nor their absence, how could another Dharma without marks be established as a place in which he dwells? The sūtra does not move from marks to their absence and then stop. It prevents even this pair of terms from becoming something fixed.

Why Does Seeing the Ethical Discipline of Śrāvakas End with Neither Seeing nor Not Seeing?

The Buddha asks whether Mañjuśrī sees the ethical discipline of śrāvakas, and Mañjuśrī answers that he does. Yet when the Buddha asks how he sees, Mañjuśrī excludes, one by one, a view of ordinary beings and noble ones, trainees and those beyond training, great and small, disciplined and undisciplined. He ends with neither seeing nor not seeing.

This answer does not cancel the initial “I see,” nor does it allow seeing to settle into a fixed classification. Mañjuśrī first answers affirmatively and then loosens the two sides readily attached to seeing. This prepares Śāriputra’s next question: if the śrāvaka vehicle is contemplated in this way, how is the Buddha vehicle contemplated? Mañjuśrī replies that he sees neither a dharma of awakening, the cultivation of awakening, nor one who realizes it. What is contemplated does not simply change from the śrāvaka vehicle into a higher, attainable mark of the Buddha vehicle.

If Buddha Has Only a Name, How Can One Contemplate the Buddha?

Śāriputra finally asks directly: what is called Buddha, and how does one contemplate the Buddha? Mañjuśrī does not immediately define Buddha, but asks what is called “I.” Śāriputra replies that “I” has only a name and the mark of the name is empty. Mañjuśrī takes up this answer: “I” has only a name, Buddha likewise has only a name, and the emptiness of the mark of names is awakening. One cannot seek awakening by relying on a name.

The sūtra concludes by saying that neither arising nor ceasing, neither coming nor going, neither name nor mark is called Buddha, and that one contemplates the Buddha just as one contemplates the true mark of one’s own body. This does not say names have no function: Śāriputra and Mañjuśrī continue to ask and answer through names. It refuses, rather, to let a name become a Buddha to be grasped or speech itself become awakening. From hearing prajñā without fear, through attaining and abiding in awakening, to the name Buddha and contemplating the Buddha, the chapter continually loosens the positions, dharmas, seers, practitioners, and names that a hearer might seize.

Onward Transmission

No verified word-for-word citation by a later master is presently available for this chapter, so no later genealogy can be fabricated from similar meanings. The established ancient Chinese parallel is that the Saṅghabhara recension likewise proceeds through Śāriputra, Maitreya, and a third female speaker into the Buddha’s reply concerning the result of hearing profound Dharma without fear. Yet the third speaker, questions, and reply differ. It remains an alternate-translation passage-level parallel, not a later commentary.

The chapter’s continuation within the sūtra itself is clear. It follows the exchange on the view of a self in the body and the reality-limit; it begins with the four speakers’ statements on hearing and trust, moves through the Buddha’s question about attaining and abiding in awakening, and then through Śāriputra’s question about the name Buddha and contemplating the Buddha. The next unit begins by saying that such prajñā cannot be understood by beginning bodhisattvas and again asks about its profundity. Onward transmission here first means that the sūtra’s questions continue, rather than “Assurance” being fixed as a single conclusion.

---

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

Profound Prajñā — Who, Ultimately, Cannot Know It?

Śāriputra first says that the prajñā spoken by Mañjuśrī cannot be understood by beginning bodhisattvas. Mañjuśrī presses the statement one step further: it is not only beginners; even those of the two vehicles whose task has been accomplished are still unable to know it. Why? The question is not who possesses more knowledge, but that within the mark of awakening there is originally no dharma available to be known.

The sūtra sets out several layers of negation in succession: no seeing and no hearing, no attaining and no thinking, no arising and no ceasing, no speaking and no listening. It then says that the nature and mark of awakening are empty and quiescent, with no realization and no knowing, no form and no mark. This does not establish another supremely profound thing waiting to be obtained by the cleverest person. Mañjuśrī’s question is: if even a fixed subject who realizes and knows cannot be found, how could one establish ‘a person who has obtained awakening’?

In the same sense unit, Xuanzang’s recension likewise has Śāriputra say that beginners cannot understand, after which Mañjuśrī says that even arhats and the rest cannot know, and directly states that the nature and mark of awakening are empty and quiescent. The clusters of sentences differ in length, but both lead the reader away from ‘Who is qualified to know?’ and back to ‘Is awakening something that cognition can cognize?’ Their finer doctrinal ranges are recorded without harmonization.

If the Buddha Does Not Realize the Dharma-Realm, Can One Still Speak of Buddhahood?

Śāriputra immediately raises the sharpest question: did the Buddha not realize unsurpassed perfect awakening within the dharma-realm? Mañjuśrī answers: the World-Honored One is precisely the dharma-realm. If one then says that the dharma-realm takes the dharma-realm as what it realizes, this becomes disputation.

This answer does not delete the Buddha or awakening. The sūtra immediately continues: the mark of the dharma-realm is precisely awakening, and the emptiness of all dharmas is precisely awakening. Because there is no duality and no discrimination, there is no knower within discrimination; without a knower, there is no speech. The question proceeds from ‘Does the Buddha realize?’ all the way to ‘Are the realizer and the realized truly two things?’

The Saṅghabhara recension also says that the dharma-realm is precisely awakening and awakening precisely the dharma-realm, and further says that the dharma-realm and a Buddha’s sphere are without difference. This parallel can help show where the two translations place their words, but it does not establish that every term has an entirely equivalent meaning. The actual wording of the two texts is placed side by side, and their agreements and differences are not doctrinally harmonized.

Why Are Heinous Offenses, Karmic Result, and Equality Placed in the Same Passage?

The sentences that follow most easily make a reader stop. From the dharma-realm’s non-discrimination, the sūtra moves to the absence of a fixed nature in heinous offenses. It then says that all karmic conditions abide in the reality-limit, neither coming nor going, neither cause nor result; it goes on to say that a bhikṣu who has committed a grave offense does not fall into the hells and that one who practices purity does not enter nirvāṇa, and finally answers through abiding in equality.

If a single sentence is extracted from the sequence, it is easy to read the passage as a simple judgment reallocating results between transgression and observance. Yet the chapter’s own order does not first redistribute consequences between the two. It first says that the dharma-realm is awakening, that all dharmas are empty, and that there is neither duality nor discrimination. It then says that the real mark of dharmas cannot be destroyed and that the dharma-realm is boundless, with no before or after. Only then does it arrive at the pairing of grave transgression and purity. What the sūtra asks the reader to see is this entire sequence of questions and answers, from the dharma-realm through the reality-limit to equality.

This chapter has no simile of its own that could take away the force of these difficult sentences, nor would it be fitting to invent a comparison merely to make them easy. The most honest reading neither deletes the sensitive sentences nor steps beyond the sūtra to impose a separate judgment: karmic conditions, the reality-limit, and equality are read together according to this chapter’s sequence.

Why Is an Arhat Whose Outflows Are Exhausted Called “One with Nothing Left to Tame”?

Śāriputra next asks about two names. The first is non-retrogressive acceptance of dharmas. Mañjuśrī’s definition is exceedingly short: seeing no slightest dharma bearing a mark of arising or ceasing is called non-retrogressive acceptance of dharmas. The second is the bhikṣu with nothing left to tame. Mañjuśrī says that an arhat whose outflows are exhausted is called one with nothing left to tame — not because he refuses discipline, but because all his bonds are exhausted and nothing remains to be tamed.

This explains through completed practice a term that appears disparaging on its surface. ‘Nothing left to tame’ does not mean a lack of restraint; it means there is nothing further to discipline. By contrast, the ordinary being’s mental conduct transgresses and does not accord with the dharma-realm, and therefore is called at fault. Śāriputra hears this and praises it. Mañjuśrī then describes himself as a true arhat whose outflows are exhausted because he has cut off the desire to seek the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha vehicles. Here the sūtra turns a cryptic term through its own explanation. The exposition follows only the reason the text itself supplies and adds no judgment about Mañjuśrī’s identity.

Why Is There No Awakening to Realize While Sitting at the Seat of Awakening?

The Buddha finally asks whether bodhisattvas awaken to unsurpassed perfect awakening when sitting at the seat of awakening. Mañjuśrī continues along the line of the preceding exchange about the dharma-realm: within the mark of awakening there is no slightest dharma that can be attained. Therefore, in markless awakening, there is no fixed person who sits and no fixed person who rises; one sees neither a bodhisattva sitting at the seat of awakening nor an awakening being realized.

At this point the chapter advances from its opening question, ‘Who can know?’ to ‘Who can realize?’ If awakening is set up as something that can be taken away and possessed, the opening statement that there is no knower and no speech is forgotten. If the seat of awakening and the bodhisattva are simply deleted, there would have been no need for the sūtra to ask about sitting there. The sūtra preserves the scene of practice in its question and answer, yet does not allow sitter, seat, and attainment to congeal into three fixed entities.

The final passage says that awakening and the five heinous acts have no dual mark, and then speaks one by one of the non-trainee state and the one possessing it, seeing and the seer, knowing and the knower, discrimination and the discriminator. These sensitive sentences are kept within the sequence of the sūtra. The sūtra’s own warning is clear: if one says that one sees an awakening and grasps it for realization, this is conceit-of-attainment. The exposition therefore does not turn the sentence into a new slogan. It places it back within the route of the entire chapter: from awakening as unknowable, to the dharma-realm not realizing the dharma-realm, and then to markless awakening as not graspable for realization.

Onward Transmission

Both the Saṅghabhara recension and Xuanzang’s Seventh Assembly, Mañjuśrī Division, preserve sense units that can be read in parallel with this profound exchange. A beginner’s inability to know, the emptiness and quiescence of awakening’s nature and mark, the identity of the dharma-realm and awakening, and the language of not entering nirvāṇa can all be found in the locally aligned texts. They are first of all witnesses to alternate and later translations preserved within the canon; they are not commentaries that decide the base text.

No verified ancient-master verbatim citation of this unit has presently been found. The known citation network for single-practice samādhi belongs to another chapter in the lower scroll and cannot be moved here to serve as this chapter’s onward transmission. Although the forty-sixth assembly of the Mahāratnakūṭa-sūtra is a transmission witness incorporated as a canonical parallel, the corresponding wording for this unit has not yet been separately extracted word for word. Onward transmission therefore stops here at the verified parallel sūtra texts and does not fabricate a later explanatory chain where no actual citation has been found.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · The Profundity of Prajñā · Exposition · Summer 2026

If the Tathāgata Has Only a Name, Does This Empty Away the Tathāgata?

The chapter does not begin with the field of merit. It begins with the name Tathāgata. The Buddha asks Mañjuśrī: you call me the Tathāgata; do you recognize me as the Tathāgata? Mañjuśrī replies that there is no fixed mark of suchness that can be named “such,” nor any knowledge separate from suchness that can know it. Tathāgata and knowledge are nondual; emptiness as the Tathāgata likewise has only a name.

Two opposed readings easily arise here. One hears “only a name” as meaning nothing whatsoever exists. The other solidifies “Tathāgata” into an object that consciousness can identify. Mañjuśrī’s answer falls into neither side. He does not deny the name Tathāgata, yet he does not admit a fixed mark of suchness that can be taken up. Nor does he say that knowledge does not exist; he says that Tathāgata and knowledge are not two separate things.

Mañjuśrī therefore says that he has no doubt about the Tathāgata, not because he has grasped a definite form, but because he contemplates the Tathāgata as having no fixed nature, neither arising nor ceasing. This is the scriptural opening of the chapter. It first loosens grasping at name and mark, so that the passages on appearing in the world, nirvāṇa, inconceivability, and the field of merit can be read.

If the Buddha Clearly Abides in the World, Why Say That All Buddhas Have One Mark?

The Buddha next asks whether the Tathāgata appears in the world and whether Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges enter nirvāṇa. Mañjuśrī answers through all Buddhas having a single inconceivable mark. When the Buddha acknowledges that He presently abides in the world, Mañjuśrī says that if this Buddha abides, Buddhas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges should likewise abide; and if future Buddhas appear, all Buddhas likewise appear. Why? Within the inconceivable, there are no marks by which past, future, and present can be fixed and cut apart.

This does not instruct the reader to delete the sūtra’s narratives of appearing, abiding, and passing into extinction. Mañjuśrī himself immediately says that sentient beings, because they grasp and cling, speak of appearing in the world and passing into extinction. His question concerns “grasping.” It does not erase the traces of the Buddha’s teaching activity. Xuanzang’s later translation also says, in the same passage-level sequence, that if the present Buddha abides, all Buddhas should abide, explaining that all Tathāgatas share one inconceivable realm-mark. Both recensions move attention from the temporal location of one Buddha to the single inconceivable mark shared by all Buddhas. Their detailed differences remain without doctrinal harmonization.

If Ordinary Beings Are Also Inconceivable, Is Cultivation in Vain?

The sūtra’s next turn is sharper. The Buddha says that the Tathāgata is inconceivable and ordinary beings are likewise inconceivable; all marks of mind are inconceivable. Mañjuśrī immediately says that if this is so, countless Buddhas seeking nirvāṇa merely weary themselves in vain, because the inconceivable Dharma is itself nirvāṇa, equal and without difference.

If “weary themselves in vain” is extracted by itself, it readily becomes a slogan for not cultivating. Yet the same passage immediately continues that good men and good women can understand only by long cultivating roots of goodness and drawing near good spiritual friends. The sūtra does not empty cultivation. It simultaneously refuses to solidify ordinary beings and Buddhas, the inconceivable and nirvāṇa, into two separate blocks. It says on one side that they are equal and without difference and on the other that roots of goodness must be cultivated over a long time and good spiritual friends must be approached.

Xuanzang’s recension adds a blade here: Buddha, the minds of sentient beings, and all dharmas are equal and inconceivable, and only then asks whether seeking nirvāṇa is in vain. This makes the joint clearer. The question is how to understand the fixed difference “this is an ordinary being, that is a noble one” within the equality of dharma-nature. It does not deny drawing near good friends or diligent cultivation itself.

Why Are Supremacy, Teaching, and Transformation Loosened as Soon as They Are Raised?

The Buddha asks at three levels in succession: do you wish the Tathāgata to be supreme among sentient beings? Do you wish the Tathāgata to attain inconceivable Dharma? Do you wish the Tathāgata to teach and transform? Mañjuśrī first answers “I wish it” in each case and then loosens the opposition that can be grasped.

The Tathāgata may be called supreme, yet the mark of sentient beings cannot be attained. One may say He attains inconceivable Dharma, yet among dharmas there is no fixed one who accomplishes it. One may say He teaches and transforms, yet speaker and hearers are both unattainable because the dharma-realm and sentient beings have no differentiated marks. These three replies do not delete supremacy, accomplishment, and transformation one by one. They let each stand without depending upon fixed sentient beings, an attainer, a speaker, or hearers.

If the Field of Merit Neither Increases nor Decreases, Must Goodness Still Be Cultivated?

At the end, the Buddha asks whether the Tathāgata is the unsurpassed field of merit. Mañjuśrī says that the Tathāgata is the inexhaustible field of merit, that the inexhaustible mark is the unsurpassed field of merit, and that neither a field of merit nor not a field of merit is still called a field of merit. If one reads only the first half, one may seize the field of merit as an inexhaustible source of merit. If one reads only the second, one may mistake it as saying there is no field of merit at all. The sūtra places both halves in one sentence: it is named a field of merit, yet it has none of the fixed opposed marks of light and darkness, arising and ceasing.

Then must goodness still be cultivated? Mañjuśrī answers directly. If someone cultivates goodness in accordance with the Dharma within the inconceivable field of merit, this cultivation is likewise inconceivable. Planting in this way is called neither increase nor decrease. Cultivating goodness is not canceled, and planting wholesome seeds is not canceled. What is loosened is treating merit as a fixed quantity that can be seized, accumulated, and compared.

Xuanzang’s recension unfolds this joint more directly. Fields of merit are truly unattainable, so all Buddhas are neither fields of merit nor not fields of merit, because merit, non-merit, and the nature of all dharmas are equal. It then says that although the field of merit of all Buddhas is truly unsurpassed, planting merit neither decreases nor increases. The later translation does not adjudicate the base text; it is another ancient transmitted mirror that makes the coexistence of “unsurpassed” and “neither increase nor decrease” easier to see.

At the end of the upper scroll, through the Buddha’s spiritual power the earth quakes in six ways and manifests impermanence. Some in the assembly attain acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, while bhikṣus, male and female lay followers, and devas attain the purified Dharma-eye. The sūtra does not leave the field of merit as a conceptual explanation, but closes the scroll with the earthquake and the attainments arising from hearing the Dharma. The closing title of the upper scroll then appears, followed by the opening title of the lower scroll and Mandrasena’s translator byline. This scroll boundary is preserved in full in the source-text layer.

Onward Transmission

Only two densely grouped clues establish the Saṅghabhara parallel weakly for this chapter. It likewise records the Tathāgata as the unsurpassed field of merit, the earth quaking in six ways, and the attainments of the fourfold assembly and devas, but the numbers and attainments of the groups differ markedly. The two texts can therefore be read side by side without moving the wording of one into the other.

Xuanzang’s Seventh Assembly Mañjuśrī Division, by contrast, strongly establishes the passage-level parallel through six densely grouped clues. It preserves the connected exchanges on the Tathāgata neither arising nor ceasing, all Buddhas sharing a single inconceivable mark, Buddha and the minds of sentient beings being equally inconceivable, and the field of merit being unattainable while planting merit neither increases nor decreases. This later transmitted recension helps readers see the joints in the base text but does not replace Mandrasena’s wording.

No phrase-by-phrase citation by a later master has presently been verified for this unit. The known citation network concerning the single-practice samādhi belongs to a later chapter of the lower scroll, and the wording of this unit in the forty-sixth assembly of the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra has not separately been extracted and verified. Onward transmission therefore stops at the two verified parallel canonical recensions; unverified material is not used to fabricate a commentarial chain.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · End of Upper Scroll to Opening of Lower Scroll · Field of Merit · Exposition · 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

Who Can Trust the Wisdom Proclaimed by the Tathāgatas Themselves?

At the opening of the chapter, the Buddha asks Mañjuśrī: ‘Who can trust the wisdom proclaimed by the Buddhas themselves?’ The question does not first divide people into those who trust and those who do not. It asks instead: what is right faith? Mañjuśrī’s manner of answering precisely prevents a person from turning faith into grasping one side.

He says that this wisdom is neither only a dharma of nirvāṇa nor only a dharma of saṃsāra; it is a course of quiescence and a course without movement. If one therefore says that desire, anger, and delusion have been completely cut off, the sūtra says that they are yet neither not cut off. If one says that it has left saṃsāra, it also says that it is neither apart nor not apart from saṃsāra. If one says that it is precisely the cultivation of the path, the text also says that it does not cultivate the path, yet neither does it not cultivate the path. These paired sentences do not ask the reader to cancel cultivation. They prevent right faith from being reduced to an answer that can be fixed and defended.

Mañjuśrī therefore concludes that only an understanding such as this is called right faith. Here, right faith is first an understanding that does not fall into either extreme: it does not confine the Tathāgata’s wisdom within any box of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, cutting off or not cutting off, cultivating or not cultivating. The Buddha immediately praises him and confirms that Mañjuśrī has deeply understood this meaning.

Why Does Kāśyapa Ask About the Future Rather Than the Present?

Mahākāśyapa pushes the question from the present into the future: if someone in a future age teaches such a profound right Dharma, who will be able to trust and understand it and accept and practice it in accordance with what is heard? The Buddha does not answer with an abstract qualification. He points to the bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, male lay followers, and female lay followers in the Dharma assembly before him. Because they have heard this sūtra today, when they hear it again in the future they will be able to trust and understand, recite, accept and uphold it, and also analyze and explain it for others.

This answer makes transmission concrete. Dharma is not carried into future generations by written scrolls alone; it is also carried forward by those listening today. Hearing, trusting and understanding, reciting, accepting and upholding, and expounding are not interchangeable steps. Merely hearing without accepting and upholding has not yet made the teaching one’s own practice. Merely accepting and upholding without teaching others leaves the circulation of Dharma missing a further dimension. The sūtra lists the entire sequence to preserve the complete path from hearing directly to transmitting the teaching.

Why Does Recovery After Loss Bring Greater Joy Than a First Acquisition?

The Buddha begins with the simile of recovering a lost jewel. A wealthy householder loses a maṇi jewel and so becomes sorrowful and distressed. When he later finds it again, he is filled with joy. The sūtra itself applies the simile: when the fourfold assembly does not hear the Dharma, they are distressed; when they hear it again, they trust, understand, accept, uphold, and delight in reciting it. This joy resembles recovery not only because the Dharma is precious, but because the listeners already have a prior connection with it.

Next come the buds of the heavenly tree. As soon as buds appear on the pārijātaka tree in the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven, the gods rejoice, knowing that it will soon blossom. A bud is not a blossom in full bloom, but it truly points toward blooming. Likewise, hearing prajñā and giving rise to trust and understanding does not mean that all buddha-dharmas have already been completed, but it shows that the buddha-dharmas are about to blossom. The sūtra therefore says that before long all the buddha-dharmas will blossom within one who trusts and understands.

The third simile concerns a bead-stringer who suddenly encounters a genuine maṇi jewel. The person recognizes a genuine jewel and is filled with joy, and the sūtra says that from this one can know that the person has seen one before. What it shows is not a mysterious test of memory, but resonance. Those who have been cultivating other teachings and suddenly feel joy on hearing the profound prajñā respond because they have heard and cultivated it in the past and have drawn near to Buddhas.

The fourth simile brings the matter closer to ordinary experience. Someone who has personally seen a city later hears another person describe its gardens, pools and springs, fruits and flowers, and inhabitants. Every additional description brings further joy, and the listener asks the speaker to continue. The descriptions do not create a new city for the listener; words call forth a place already seen. The sūtra uses this to explain that those who hear prajñā, delight in hearing it without weariness, and repeatedly urge that it be taught have previously heard it from Mañjuśrī.

Is Joy Alone Enough to Prove Everything?

After hearing the similes, Kāśyapa confirms the point again: when good men and good women in a future age hear the profound prajñā and trust, delight in, listen to, and accept it, one can know from this sign that they have previously heard and cultivated in the presence of Buddhas. This does not encourage people to take a passing emotion as proof of realization. The chapter repeatedly lists not joy alone, but an entire group of practices: trusting and understanding, accepting and upholding, reciting, delighting in hearing without weariness, asking that the teaching continue, and circulating it for others.

Xuanzang’s recension preserves the same sense unit by joining the lost jewel recovered and the heavenly tree blossoming to the future fourfold assembly; it likewise says that those who hear the profound prajñā, trust and accept it, and cultivate it will soon bring all buddha-dharmas to blossom. The Saṅghabhara recension preserves Kāśyapa’s question about the future, while its later extended passage on training in prajñā closely agrees with the base text. Together, the two witnesses help the reader see that the future trust and understanding described in this chapter always remain connected with hearing, cultivation, and circulation rather than with an isolated feeling.

Why Does Trust and Understanding Turn into the Repeated 「當學」— “One Should Train”?

Mañjuśrī first raises the nature of the Dharma: dharmas are without fabrication and without marks, supremely quiescent. Only understanding them truly, teaching in accordance with what is heard, and not contradicting the marks of dharmas is the Buddha’s teaching and blazing prajñā. The Buddha does not stop at praise. Again and again he says that one should train in the prajñā-pāramitā. This turn is important: recognizing profound Dharma does not mean that cultivation is complete. The joy of hearing again must enter actual training.

The aspirations listed by the Buddha are broad. If one wishes to abide on the ground of non-retrogression, one must train in prajñā. If one wishes to accomplish unsurpassed perfect awakening, one must train in prajñā. If one wishes to understand the marks of all dharmas and know the equality of sentient beings’ realms of mind, one must train in prajñā. If one wishes to train in all buddha-dharmas without obstruction, or to know the marks, excellent characteristics, deportment, and modes of Dharma of Buddhas accomplishing awakening, one must also train in prajñā. Prajñā here is not one field of knowledge placed beside many aspirations. It is the training through which each aspiration is kept from being distorted by grasping.

This becomes still clearer as the chapter continues. To know the marks of past, future, and present, one must understand that the nature and marks of the dharma-realm are without the three times. To cover all sentient beings with loving-kindness, one must not establish another graspable mark of sentient beings. To remain without disputation, one must not then seize a mark of non-disputation. To realize the Dharma-wheel oneself, one must still not grasp it. Training in prajñā does not remove loving-kindness, the Dharma-wheel, the ten powers, or the fearlessnesses. At each point, however, it prevents the one who trains, what is trained in, and what is attained from congealing into solid things.

Onward Transmission

The transmission of this chapter is first preserved in multiple canonical recensions. The Saṅghabhara recension preserves Kāśyapa’s question about trust in the Dharma in the future and the extended passage repeatedly exhorting one to train in prajñā. Xuanzang’s Seventh Assembly, Mañjuśrī Division, preserves such sense units as the sentence concerning the three poisons, the lost jewel, and the heavenly tree. The forty-sixth assembly of the Mahāratnakūṭa-sūtra incorporates in full the sequence of Kāśyapa’s question, the similes, Mañjuśrī’s statement about the Dharma, and the instruction to train in prajñā. All three are actual wording that has been verified, yet none makes a doctrinal decision on behalf of the base text.

As of the construction of this unit, no ancient master’s phrase-by-phrase explanation of this chapter has been verified. Citations in Chan sources concerning the later single-practice samādhi chapter are therefore not moved here merely to fill the space. Onward transmission in this case stops with the canonical preservation and retransmission of the chapter: those listening in today’s assembly become those who trust and accept in the future, while alternate translations and canonical concordances preserve the same exchange for later generations. The passage from the present assembly into the future age described by the sūtra remains visible through these textual witnesses.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Mahākāśyapa’s Question · Exposition · Summer 2026

Since the Marks of Dharmas Are Like This, Why Ask How One Should Learn?

Mañjuśrī first presses the question to its sharpest point. He contemplates the right Dharma as unconditioned and without marks and does not establish within it a person who obtains some benefit. Arising and ceasing, coming and going, and knower, seer, and agent cannot be grasped as fixed entities. Even prajñā and the realm of prajñā are not separately established as things visible before one’s eyes and obtainable by reaching out one’s hand.

His question is therefore not about lacking a step in a method of practice. It is this: if attainment and non-attainment, realization and non-realization, and activity and non-activity cannot be fixed in place, what can ‘learning prajñā’ still mean? This question is crucial. If one hastily adds a set of methods, one may construct anew a person who learns and a dharma that is learned. Yet if one therefore says there is absolutely nothing to learn, one contradicts the sūtra’s repeated instruction that prajñā should be learned.

The Saṅghabhara recension preserves a long passage in almost the same order. It too begins with Mañjuśrī contemplating the right Dharma as unconditioned and without marks and proceeds all the way to the statement that, since the marks of dharmas are like this, he does not know how to learn prajñā. Both translations preserve the same difficulty: they do not first provide a method, but first ask how cultivation and learning can be established when every graspable foothold has been relinquished.

When the Buddha Answers 「如是知」— “Know in This Way” — Does He Mean Merely Understanding a Principle?

The Buddha’s answer is extremely brief: to know the marks of all dharmas in this way is what it means to learn prajñā. This does not turn practice into memorizing an answer. The 「如是」— “in this way” — just stated by Mañjuśrī includes not fixing arising and ceasing, gain and loss, realization and non-realization, and conceivable and inconceivable into two opposing sides. The Buddha establishes learning within such knowledge and vision of things as they are and does not add another prajñā that can be possessed.

The two ancient translations have one small difference worth noticing here. The Mandrasena recension’s answer contains the character 「當」— “should” — while the Saṅghabhara recension does not. The 「當」 in the Mandrasena recension is itself absent from variant witnesses. This difference returns the reader to the words of the sūtra rather than deciding the sūtra on the reader’s behalf: whether or not 「當」 is retained, both texts directly join 「如是知諸法相」— “knowing the marks of all dharmas in this way” — to 「學般若」— “learning prajñā.” This exposition unfolds only that continuous wording and does not use the variant reading to revise the meaning of the sūtra.

Since There Is No Attainment, Why Learn the Samādhi of Mastery in Awakening?

The Buddha does not stop after “knowing in this way.” He immediately says that if bodhisattvas wish to learn the samādhi of mastery in awakening, they should likewise learn within the prajñā taught by Mañjuśrī. The sūtra also lists the functions that follow attainment of the samādhi: illuminating all profound Buddha-Dharmas, knowing the names of all Buddhas, and comprehending the worlds of all Buddhas without obstruction.

This passage does not permit the preceding teaching of no attainment to be read as saying that nothing whatsoever exists. On one side, the sūtra establishes no graspable realm of prajñā; on the other, it explicitly states that the samādhi can be learned and explicitly states its functions upon attainment. It simply does not construe the samādhi of mastery in awakening as a thing one can claim as one’s possession. Learning and non-attainment stand together within the same answer; neither side can be deleted.

If It Has Neither Name nor Mark, Why Is It Still Called Prajñā-Pāramitā?

Mañjuśrī next asks the reason for the name. The Buddha answers instead with a succession of phrases showing that it cannot be confined by names: without border or limit, without name or mark, not an object of thought, without a refuge or island that can be grasped, without offense or merit that can be grasped, and without darkness or light. He then speaks of prajñā through the dharma-realm’s lack of boundary and numerical limit. The name here does not draw a boundary around it; it directs one to see that it is not confined by boundaries.

The sūtra also calls prajñā the bodhisattva’s sphere of practice, and immediately says 「非處、非不行處」— “neither a fixed place nor a non-place of practice.” It then speaks of everything entering the one vehicle and concludes with the absence of thought and activity. The base text’s 「非處」— “not a place” — is read as 「非行」— “not practice” — in variant witnesses. This textual difference is preserved in the apparatus, and the exposition does not go beyond the textual record to decide the sentence. Only the movement of this chapter itself can be affirmed: as soon as it names a sphere of practice, it prevents the reader from taking that sphere as a fixed location; as soon as it speaks of the one vehicle, it loosens grasping at practice through the absence of thought and activity.

Why Does the Sūtra Not End When the Question Reaches 「當云何行」— “How Should One Practice?”

Mañjuśrī still asks at the end: how should one practice so as swiftly to attain unsurpassed perfect awakening? This question shows that the preceding absence of thought and activity has not closed the door on practice. On the contrary, it has cleared away the manner of reifying dharmas, realms, attainment, and the sphere of practice, and then hands the question of ‘how to practice’ to the next passage.

In the next unit, the Buddha first says that practicing according to what prajñā teaches enables one swiftly to attain awakening, and then introduces the single-practice samādhi. This makes the present unit a threshold: it first asks how learning can be established within non-attainment and then enters the concrete sequence of hearing prajñā, cultivating as taught, and binding the mind to one Buddha. If one skips this threshold, the single-practice samādhi can easily be grasped as another attainment. If one stops at the threshold and does not proceed, the sūtra would have no reason to ask again how one should practice.

Onward Transmission

Among the ancient translations, the Saṅghabhara recension preserves most of the same passage found in this unit, giving a clear parallel for the statement that knowing the marks of all dharmas in this way is learning prajñā and for the exchange on the samādhi of mastery in awakening. The forty-sixth assembly of the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra further preserves this exchange in full, carrying it into the scriptural transmission of the Ratnakūṭa collection. The Qing work compiled by Yinzhen, Imperial Record: A Drop from the Ocean of Sūtras, also includes the samādhi of mastery in awakening and its functions of illuminating the profound Buddha-Dharmas, knowing the names of Buddhas, and comprehending Buddha-worlds.

What these onward transmissions preserve first of all is the sequence of the sūtra: contemplate that the marks of dharmas cannot be grasped; then say that knowing in this way is learning; then say that the samādhi can be learned; and finally ask once more how one should practice. The materials presently available do not provide an ancient master’s line-by-line commentary devoted to these 415 characters. This chapter therefore does not borrow commentary from elsewhere to fill the space, but lets the parallel ancient translation and the citations within the canon preserve the order of the sūtra’s words together.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · How Should One Practice? · Exposition · Summer 2026

How Is 「繫緣法界」— “Binding the Attention to the Dharma-Realm” — a Practice?

Mañjuśrī first asks in the sūtra: ‘What is called the single-practice samādhi?’ The Buddha’s answer is exceedingly short: 「法界一相，繫緣法界，是名一行三昧」— “The dharma-realm has a single mark; bind the attention to the dharma-realm. This is called the single-practice samādhi.” The four characters that truly make one stop are 「繫緣法界」— “bind the attention to the dharma-realm.” The dharma-realm is without marks and has no boundary. To what, ultimately, is the mind to be bound? If one treats it as an invisible thing to be guarded rigidly, one has fabricated another graspable mark. If one says that because it is markless nothing at all should be done, how can that be called practice?

The sūtra does not leave the reader to guess from the definition alone. It immediately lays out the sequence: first hear prajñā and cultivate according to what has been taught; dwell in a secluded place, relinquish thoughts that disturb the mind, and 「不取相貌」— “grasp no physical mark”; then bind the mind to one Buddha, 「專稱名字」— “exclusively invoke that Buddha’s name,” face squarely the direction in which that Buddha dwells, and let the recollection of that one Buddha continue from thought to thought. This is the chapter’s own answer. Binding the attention to the dharma-realm does not mean trying to grasp an abstract “dharma-realm” in empty space. It means first establishing the right view of prajñā as the ground and then letting recollection continue on the name of one Buddha.

Why Does Binding the Mind to One Buddha Lead to Seeing the Buddhas of the Three Times?

A second question then arises. If the mind is bound only to one Buddha, why does the sūtra say that within this one recollection one can see the Buddhas of the past, future, and present?

The reason given by the Buddha is not a calculation of numbers but the nonduality of merit. The merit of recollecting one Buddha is immeasurable and boundless and is no different from the merit of immeasurable Buddhas. All Buddhas ride upon the one suchness and accomplish perfect awakening, complete in immeasurable merit and eloquence. “One” therefore does not narrow the mind until only a single Buddha remains. “One” means that recollection does not scatter, while the one Buddha recollected is not apart from the dharma-realm without difference of all Buddhas. In moving from “bind the mind to one Buddha” to “the Buddhas of the three times,” the sūtra’s own words join the one and the many.

This also explains how 「不取相貌」— “grasping no physical mark” — and 「專稱名字」— “exclusively invoking the name” — can stand together. The sūtra does not teach the practitioner to grasp form as the object, but neither does it erase practice into blankness. The name becomes the point of application through which recollection continues from thought to thought, while prajñā illuminates the nonduality of the Buddhas’ merit and the absence of difference in the dharma-realm. Applying the mind without grasping a mark, being single without separating one from all Buddhas: this is the sequence of practice set out by the wording of the chapter itself.

How Does Merit Grow Without Being Added from Nowhere?

If cultivating the single-practice samādhi can bring such merit, how does that merit become manifest? The chapter first uses Ānanda as a comparison. Ānanda is supreme among the śrāvakas in learning, retention, and eloquence, yet these still have measure and number. One who attains the single-practice samādhi, by contrast, understands each Dharma-gateway in all the sūtras and possesses wisdom and eloquence that do not come to an end. The sūtra immediately draws the reader away from ‘admiring the merit’ and back to ‘how to practice’: constantly recollect the single-practice samādhi, exert diligent effort, do not become negligent, and train gradually in the prescribed sequence.

The simile of the maṇi jewel makes this clearest. The jewel is already beyond price, yet it must still be entrusted to a craftsman and polished according to the proper method. Polishing does not stuff a different light into the jewel; it allows its color and radiance gradually to shine through surface and interior. The sūtra then explains the simile itself: cultivating the single-practice samādhi likewise means that, in the course of learning, one knows the marks of dharmas, understands them clearly without obstruction, and grows in merit. This is neither the claim of complete attainment in a single thought nor the pursuit of a strange effect apart from practice. There is first hearing, cultivation as taught, diligent effort, sequence, and gradual training.

The sun-disk simile illuminates the other side. The sun releases light that pervades everywhere without decrease. The merit of the single-practice samādhi is likewise complete and without deficiency, illuminating the Buddha-Dharma like the sun. The maṇi jewel speaks of gradual polishing and brightening; the disk of the sun speaks of radiance pervading everywhere without diminution. One simile brings the work back to sequence, and the other points the attainment toward illumination. Read together, they keep ‘complete in merit’ from becoming a slogan that omits cultivation.

Why Does the Sūtra Speak of “No Buddha Attained” After Speaking of Swiftly Attaining Awakening?

The chapter repeatedly says that one swiftly attains unsurpassed perfect awakening. Shortly afterward it says that within awakening there is no Buddha attained. Mañjuśrī then asks whether this swift attainment comes through such a cause, and the Buddha answers that it is attained neither through a cause nor through a non-cause. Are these statements opposed to one another?

This reading does not add a system of answers on the sūtra’s behalf. It reads together the two sides stated by the sūtra itself. With respect to the sequence of practice, the sūtra explicitly speaks of first hearing, cultivating, exclusive recollection, diligent effort, and gradual entrance, and it says that all roots of goodness depend upon prajñā for their growth. With respect to the mark of awakening, it does not permit awakening to become a thing fabricated by a fixed cause and finally possessed by a substantial Buddha. Cultivation is not canceled, and what is attained is not made substantial. Mañjuśrī’s question releases once more the “cause” to which the reader might cling.

Onward Transmission

This chapter did not remain only within the scroll of the sūtra. Jingjue records that the method of settling the mind established by Daoxin explicitly relied both on the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra and on the single-practice samādhi of the Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā. It then cites 「法界一相，繫緣法界」— “the dharma-realm has a single mark; bind the attention to the dharma-realm” — together with the instructions on seclusion, binding the mind to one Buddha, exclusively invoking the name, and continuing from thought to thought. This record brings the definition and practice of the chapter into the Chan lineage’s own account. Its ground is the sūtra’s actual sentence; no further doctrinal layer needs to be invented.

Zhiyi, at the opening of his constant-sitting samādhi, likewise directly marks this gate as coming from the two Mañjuśrī prajñā sūtras and names it the single-practice samādhi; only afterward does he distinguish method from encouragement to cultivate. In the Platform Sūtra, the single-practice samādhi appears repeatedly in the contexts of the straightforward mind, walking-standing-sitting-lying, and not clinging to the marks of dharmas. How these masters are to be integrated remains a matter of neutral record rather than adjudication. Yet the sequence of onward transmission can already be seen: this chapter first supplies definition and practice; Daoxin’s method cites it word for word; Tiantai carries it into the constant-sitting gate; and later Chan texts expound it in their own language. From “binding the attention to the dharma-realm” to recollection of one Buddha continuing thought after thought, this sūtra passage continued to be recited in distinct traditions of practice.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Single-Practice Samādhi · Exposition · Summer 2026

Where Should the Prajñā Be Taught?

Mañjuśrī begins with a very practical question: among the many cities, towns, and villages of Jambudvīpa, where should the profound prajñā be expounded? The Buddha does not first draw a map or designate a particular city. He places the answer in those who hear the Dharma. Someone in the present assembly hears the prajñā and vows to accord with it and hear the sūtra again in future lives. Such a person has not come from only a small root of goodness but already possesses the capacity to bear the teaching and rejoice in it.

The “place” spoken of by the sūtra is therefore first disclosed through the capacity to trust, understand, and bear the teaching. A geographical name does not by itself cause the Dharma to circulate. The hearer turns one occasion of hearing into an orientation toward hearing again in the future. When this vow appears among the cities, towns, and villages, the prajñā no longer remains confined to a single Dharma assembly.

If There Is No Contention, Why Speak the Dharma at All?

Mañjuśrī next anticipates a question that the fourfold assembly might ask: how does the Tathāgata expound the prajñā? His answer is: 「一切諸法無諍論相，云何如來當說般若波羅蜜？」— “All dharmas are without the mark of contention. How, then, could the Tathāgata teach the prajñā-pāramitā?” The issue is not whether the Buddha spoke, but whether the listener grasps what is spoken as a thing capable of contending with another dharma. The sūtra then explains that no dharma is seen that can contend with another dharma, nor is there a fixed sentient being’s mind-consciousness that can possess what is known.

In the corresponding sense-passage, Xuanzang’s recension likewise says that dharmas have no mark of conflict or contention, that no dharma can contend with another, and that sentient beings are themselves unobtainable. This takes “non-contention” deeper than merely getting along. It is not that two fixed dharmas first exist and are then advised not to quarrel; rather, neither dharmas nor the one who knows can be grasped as fixed acquisitions. The detailed semantic ranges of the two translations are not adjudicated into identity, but neither reads non-contention as silence or refusal to teach.

Mañjuśrī instead speaks quite concretely. He will teach the ultimate reality-limit and explain that the marks of all dharmas equally enter that reality-limit. He will answer that the dharma of the arhat and the dharma of an ordinary person are neither one nor different, and will not establish a fixed sentient being as attaining nirvāṇa in the past, present, or future. Non-contention is not completed merely by saying less. It means that, while speaking, one does not fix dharmas, sentient beings, and attainment as entities that can conflict with one another.

Does Hearing the Dharma Without Attainment Mean That Nothing Was Heard?

Mañjuśrī tells those who wish to hear the prajñā: 「其有聽者，不念不著，無聞無得，當如幻人無所分別」— “A listener should neither keep it in mind nor cling to it, should have neither hearing nor attainment, and should be like an illusory person without discrimination.” This does not demand that the ears fail to hear or the mind fail to understand. The next step of the sūtra still comforts and establishes the listener and continues to teach in accordance with the marks of dharmas. What it releases is the solidification of “I am hearing,” “this is the Dharma I have heard,” and “I have now attained it” into three fixed things.

The simile of the illusory person prevents this release from becoming an empty instruction. An illusory person appears but cannot be grasped as a substantial entity. In the same way, hearing can occur and teaching can be established without fabricating once more the two marks of the hearer and the heard. Mañjuśrī therefore says that one need not first relinquish every view in order to qualify for cultivating the Buddha-Dharma. One neither grasps a fixed Buddha-Dharma nor relinquishes a fixed dharma of ordinary persons, because 「佛及凡夫，二法相空，無取捨故」— “the two dharmas, Buddha and ordinary person, are empty of marks; there is neither grasping nor relinquishing.”

Why Must Those Who Wish to Become Buddhas and Those Who Do Not Both Train in Prajñā?

After praising Mañjuśrī, the Buddha gives several consecutive pairs of apparently opposed intentions. Those who wish to see the Buddhas, draw near to them, and make offerings should train in prajñā. Those who wish to call the Tathāgata their World-Honored One, and those who do not, should train in prajñā. Those who wish to accomplish awakening, and those who do not, should train. Those who wish to accomplish all samādhis, and those who do not, should likewise train.

If one considers only accomplishment and non-accomplishment, these sentences seem to cancel one another. The sūtra itself gives the reason: the samādhi without fabrication has no other fixed mark, and all dharmas have neither arising nor emergence. Prajñā is not an instrument that serves only one side of an opposition. Those who wish to attain cannot make attainment substantial, while those who say that they do not seek attainment cannot use a fixed “non-seeking” to escape the marks of dharmas.

The following passage sets out this path more closely: know that all dharmas are provisional names; know that sentient beings cultivate the path of awakening without seeking a graspable mark of awakening; know that non-conduct itself is awakening, awakening itself is the dharma-realm, and the dharma-realm itself is the reality-limit; and know that the Tathāgata’s spiritual transformations have no fixed mark, no obstruction, and no fixed location. None stops at negation. In each case, one continues to train without retreating or sinking.

Why Is Retaining Only Four Lines Called a Great Vehicle Dharma-Seal?

The Buddha brings the training down to the smallest possible step: 「一四句偈，受持讀誦，為他解說，隨順實相」— “Even a single four-line verse should be retained and recited, explained to others, and followed in accord with the true mark.” Though four lines are few, the sūtra does not reduce them to words recited only by the mouth. Retention includes reading, recitation, explanation to others, and conformity with the true mark. It remembers inwardly, circulates outwardly, and must not depart from the meaning of what is spoken.

The Saṅghabhara recension likewise connects the fourfold assembly retaining a four-line verse and teaching it to others with not falling into the lower states, and then says: how much more so if they practice in accord with reality. Xuanzang’s recension, for its part, says that those who retain the Dharma-seal are kept in mind by the Buddhas and guarded by the heavenly beings. The wording of the three texts is not identical, but all connect the retention of a small portion of scripture with practice, teaching others, and protection.

The sūtra adds an inner test: one hears the prajñā without being startled or afraid and gives rise to trust and understanding. Such a person is confirmed by the Buddha and trains in the Great Vehicle Dharma-seal practiced by the Buddha. The “seal” does not add a status that one can display. It is the sūtra’s confirmation of the whole pattern of hearing, trusting, retaining, speaking, and conforming to the true mark. This reading observes only the conditions listed by this chapter and does not separately establish the entire doctrinal scope of the Dharma-seal.

Why Does Śakra’s Offering Finally Lead to Other People Being Able to Hear?

Śakra makes offerings of heavenly flowers, powdered incense, gold, jewels, and music to the prajñā, the Tathāgatas, and Mañjuśrī. After completing the offerings, he does not merely wish for his own merit. He first vows always to hear the Dharma-seal of the prajñā, then vows that all good men and good women of Jambudvīpa will always be able to hear, trust and understand, retain, recite, and expound it to others. All heavenly beings then vow to offer their protection.

This carries the chapter from Mañjuśrī’s question about cities, towns, and villages to Śakra’s vow that everyone will always hear. The beginning asks where the Dharma will go; the ending answers how it remains. Some vow to hear again, some retain and recite, some explain it to others, and some protect this path of circulation. If the offering stopped with flowers, incense, jewels, and music, it would remain a momentary adornment. Śakra turns it toward sentient beings hearing the Dharma and those who teach it receiving protection, and the offering thereby enters the sūtra’s circulation.

Onward Transmission

The Saṅghabhara recension preserves the sense-passage of the fourfold assembly retaining four lines, hearing without fear, the Dharma-seal, and Śakra’s offering. Xuanzang’s Seventh Assembly Mañjuśrī Division preserves the more complete three-chain parallel, extending from not establishing the accomplishment and destruction of dharmas in the sūtra, through teaching without contention and the emptiness of the two dharmas, to retaining four lines, the Dharma-seal’s protection, and Śakra’s vow. Both bear witness to the transmission of this chapter through alternate and later translations.

The Great Ratnakūṭa Sūtra, Assembly Forty-Six, again incorporates this continuous passage from the Mandrasena recension within the canon. As for ancient masters’ treatises and commentaries, no word-for-word citation of this unit has been verified in the present inquiry, so the citation network of the preceding single-practice samādhi chapter cannot be borrowed to fill the gap. The onward transmission therefore stops with the three classes of canonical text that have been verified: the alternate translation of the same sūtra, Xuanzang’s later translation, and the Ratnakūṭa parallel. The claims extend only as far as the evidence.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · Mañjuśrī Prajñāpāramitā · Merit of Retention · Exposition · Summer 2026

At the Sūtra’s End, Why Does It First Return to Those Who Retain It?

The final passage of this sūtra does not begin another new doctrinal topic. Instead, the Buddha first confirms to Śakra Devānām Indra: 「當得決定諸佛菩提」— “They will certainly attain the awakening of the Buddhas.” Mañjuśrī immediately adds that good men and good women who retain it in this way gain great benefit and immeasurable merit. Why does a profound prajñā sūtra not end with its most profound exchange, but return instead to those who will retain it?

The reason is that what the sūtra entrusts is not merely a teaching to be heard. The Buddha speaks of certain awakening, and Mañjuśrī speaks of the benefits of retention. In the final sentence, the great bodhisattvas and the fourfold assembly hear the teaching of the prajñā, rejoice, and respectfully put it into practice. The opening is the Buddha’s confirmation; the ending is the assembly’s practice; between the two, an auspicious sign manifested by the Tathāgata joins them together. Short as it is, this passage transfers the Dharma that has been spoken from the Buddha’s mouth into the practice of those who hear it.

What, Exactly, Do the Shaking Earth and the Buddha’s Radiance Seal?

The sūtra says that, through the Buddha’s spiritual power, the whole earth shook in six ways. The Buddha smiled, released a great radiance, and illuminated the entire trichiliocosm. If the passage ended there, the reader might ask: ‘What do these auspicious signs have to do with retaining the prajñā?’ Mañjuśrī does not leave the answer to conjecture. He immediately points out: 「即是如來印般若波羅蜜相」— “This is precisely the sign by which the Tathāgata seals the prajñā-pāramitā.”

The Buddha then explains that this auspicious sign appears after the teaching of the prajñā-pāramitā in order to seal the prajñā and cause people to retain it. The shaking earth and the radiance are therefore not scenes added apart from the sūtra’s meaning. Their place in this passage is identified by Mañjuśrī and the Buddha themselves as the sign of sealing the prajñā. The light pervades the world, while the Dharma is entrusted to those who will retain it. The point of the auspicious sign is not to watch a strange phenomenon, but to cause people to retain the teaching.

The Saṅghabhara recension unfolds this dimension more fully. Mañjuśrī first asks the Buddha to sustain the prajñā through his spiritual power so that it may long abide in the world. After the shaking earth and the radiance, he asks whether this is the sign of sustaining the prajñā. Xuanzang’s recension likewise has Mañjuśrī ask the Buddha to protect and sustain the prajñā so that it may long abide in the world and benefit all beings, after which the Buddha says that he protects and sustains the unsurpassed Dharma-seal through his spiritual power. Although the wording of the three texts is not identical, all connect the miraculous signs in the same concluding movement with retaining and sustaining the prajñā. Their detailed differences are recorded without adjudicating them into a single meaning.

Why Is the Signless Dharma-Seal Said to Be Beyond Praise and Disparagement?

The Buddha next says: 「無相法印不可讚毀」— “The signless Dharma-seal can neither be praised nor disparaged.” This sentence stands directly between sealing the prajñā and preventing the heavenly māras from finding an opportunity. It reminds the reader that what is sealed is not an object that can be fixed as a mark and then praised or disparaged by someone standing outside it. The sūtra itself calls it the signless Dharma-seal and says that this Dharma-seal prevents the heavenly māras from finding an opportunity.

Here too the limits of the sūtra’s own wording must be observed. “Neither praised nor disparaged” cannot be rewritten as a separate abstract theory. One can only follow the sequence of this passage: the Tathāgata manifests the auspicious sign to seal the prajñā; the prajñā is sealed so that people will retain it; the signless Dharma-seal can neither be praised nor disparaged; and the Dharma-seal prevents the heavenly māras from finding an opportunity. These four statements follow one another. The one who retains the teaching therefore does not grasp a new mark, but respectfully puts the prajñā into practice under the protection of the signless Dharma-seal.

Why Are the Final Words Not Merely “Rejoiced,” but “Put It into Practice”?

At its conclusion, the sūtra says that the assembly heard the teaching of the prajñā-pāramitā, rejoiced, and respectfully put it into practice. Rejoicing is the mind that follows hearing the Dharma; putting it into practice turns that mind into responsibility. If the passage stopped at rejoicing, the Dharma might still remain a single occasion of hearing. Once practice is added, the earlier phrase “cause people to retain it” receives its response in the assembly.

The base text has only the four characters 「歡喜奉行」— “rejoiced and respectfully put it into practice.” Variant witnesses read 「皆大歡」, “all greatly rejoiced,” and 「信受奉行」 or 「頂戴奉行」, “trustfully received and put it into practice” or “reverently received and put it into practice.” The apparatus records them as they stand; the exposition continues to explain the base text without substituting a variant for its wording. In the base text’s own conclusion, joy and practice are inseparable: rejoicing upon hearing the prajñā is precisely to be brought to fulfillment as practice in accordance with the teaching.

Onward Transmission

The corresponding ending in the Saṅghabhara recension develops the entrustment at greater length. The Buddha instructs Śakra to retain and recite the teaching and disseminate it widely, then instructs Ānanda to expound it broadly to others; at the end, the whole assembly greatly rejoices and trustfully receives and retains it. Xuanzang’s Seventh Assembly Mañjuśrī Division explicitly says that the Buddha protects and sustains the unsurpassed Dharma-seal through his spiritual power so that the Dharma may long abide in the world and benefit sentient beings; it concludes with the whole assembly greatly rejoicing, trustfully receiving, and putting the teaching into practice.

No ancient master’s treatise or commentary has yet been verified as citing this unit word for word. Its onward transmission therefore stops with these two parallel sūtras within the canon. All three texts ensure that the sūtra’s ending is not the stopping of a voice, but the Dharma-seal being sustained, hearers coming to trustfully receive it, and the assembly going forth to put it into practice. The detailed semantic ranges of “seal” and “sustain,” and of “put into practice” and “receive and retain,” are recorded without adjudicating them into identity.

---

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