Explanation of the Intermediate Teaching

Brief teaching

4.1Then the elder Śāriputra, for the sake of those who understand when there is an elaboration, starts the intermediate teaching with this question:

“How then, Lord, should bodhisattva great beings who want to fully awaken to all dharmas in all forms make an effort at the perfection of wisdom?”

4.2This is a fourfold question about the Dharma: What are “bodhisattva great beings”? What is “want to fully awaken to all dharmas in all forms”? What is “should make an effort at”? And what is “the perfection of wisdom”? Again, there will be an explanation of the four below in their appropriate context.

Venerable Śāriputra having thus inquired, the Lord,

in his explanation, then gives a twofold exposition, brief and detailed. From,

“Śāriputra, here bodhisattva great beings, having stood in the perfection of wisdom by way of not taking their stand on it,” [F.42.b]

up to

“should cultivate… great love, great compassion, great joy, and great equanimity,”

brings together all dharmas and teaches by way of a brief exposition. Then, starting from just those dharmas, it gives a detailed exposition.

“Śāriputra, here bodhisattva great beings, having stood in the perfection of wisdom by way of not taking their stand on it,”

and so on, teaches four practices, which is to say, the four practices taught by this:

“should… make an effort at the perfection of wisdom.”

4.6They are

the practice of the nonconceptual perfections;

practice in harmony with the dharmas on the side of awakening without the secondary afflictions;

practice without harming that brings beings to maturity; and

practice without stains that brings the buddhadharmas to maturity.

4.7Among these, the practice of the perfections is accomplished with skillful means; the practice of the dharmas on the side of awakening is accomplished through knowledge of mastery; the practice of bringing beings to maturity is accomplished through compassion; and the practice of fully developing the buddhadharmas is accomplished with wisdom.

4.8There, “having stood in the perfection of wisdom by way of not taking their stand on it” and so on teaches the practice of the perfections . From,

“Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings, having stood in the perfection of wisdom, should perfect the four applications of mindfulness,”

and so on, up until

“they should perfect… the wishlessness meditative stabilization,”

teaches the practice of the dharmas on the side of awakening that is the absence of afflictions . From

“the four concentrations”

up until

“the nine abodes of beings”

teaches the practice without harming that brings beings to maturity. From

“they should perfect… the ten tathāgata [F.43.a] powers,”

and so on, up until

“great equanimity”

teaches the practice without stains that brings the buddhadharmas to maturity.

Practice of the perfections

4.11There,

“having stood in the perfection of wisdom by way of not taking their stand on it,”

and so on, teaches the practice of the perfections. It teaches the practice of the perfections in three parts: standing, achieving, and the purity of the three spheres, just like “the stand” that has to be taken, “the achieving” that has to be done, and “the state of mind” one has to be in that is taught in the Triśatikā .

4.12When bodhisattvas have given up wanting a special result other than that; when, through the force of compassion, they intend to establish benefit and happiness for all beings; and when, through the force of wisdom, they stand nowhere at all in the three realms or in any dharma, bodhisattvas have “stood in the perfection of wisdom.” Hence it says bodhisattvas have “stood in the perfection of wisdom by way of not taking their stand on it.” It means “with the correct method of not taking a stand anywhere.” This intends that just not taking a stand anywhere is standing in the perfection of wisdom. Here it has taught that the “perfection of wisdom” is also the knowledge of all aspects, or nonconceptual wisdom, or the Great Vehicle.

4.13The practice through the force of habit in harmony with the path to awakening is the achieving. Therefore it says a bodhisattva

“should complete the perfection of giving.”

4.14Ultimately, when dharmas have been sought, they are the purity of the three spheres; therefore, it says

“by way of not giving up anything, because a gift, a giver, and a recipient are not apprehended.”

4.15When bodhisattvas moved by compassion [F.43.b] give to all beings everything they want, it is simply called giving , but it is not the perfection of giving. When after giving, or after the giving of a gift, having made an investigation with the four ways of investigating and having comprehended properly with the four comprehensions they cause it to be cleansed with wisdom, at that time it has been well cleansed and it gets the name perfection . Bodhisattvas first do everything out of compassion and later clean it with wisdom, hence they practice with compassion and purify with wisdom‍—they purify intention with compassion and purify the endeavor with wisdom; they stand in the conventional and achieve with compassion, and endeavor, standing in the ultimate, with wisdom. With compassion all things are done for the sake of beings, so they are counted in the merit collection; with wisdom they are done for the sake of awakening, so they are counted in the wisdom collection. Therefore it says that bodhisattvas

“should complete the perfection of giving by way of not giving up anything.”

In this regard, taking as the point of departure the fact that bodhisattvas standing on the first level realize suchness, ultimately abiding in suchness is by a direct vision when an investigation has been carried out, not otherwise.

4.16Furthermore, no one can give or receive that suchness when a gift is given, so ultimately there is no “giving away” at all. Whatever food, drink, bedding, and so on are given away, they stand as falsely imagined dharmas, so, like a dream and like an illusion they do not exist. Hence this state, which is ultimately separated from the defining mark of giving, is called the “way of not giving up anything.” [F.44.a]

4.17In this “way of not giving up anything” these three “are not apprehended”: the thing as “a gift,” I as a “giver,” and the one taking as a “recipient.” They are without the intrinsic nature of something that could be apprehended. The “because” is because the perfection of giving should be completed based on that, having taken that as its point of departure.

4.18First, through the force of compassion they remain in the conventional mode by means of an ordinary course of practice and engage in giving. Then they remain in the ultimate mode governed by wisdom. When by means of an extraordinary course of practice all that has been investigated with wisdom cannot be apprehended, at that time the perfection of giving is named completed. Therefore, because they have not forsaken the two‍—first, the beings (sattva) who are the objective support of the production of the thought, and then awakening (bodhi)‍—they are endowed with all that the name bodhisattva signifies.

4.19In that case, since when a gift, a giver, and a recipient are not apprehended it totally precludes giving, how can this not be a contradiction?

It is because of the force of the perfection of skillful means. The perfection of skillful means is both compassion that grasps the conventional and wisdom that grasps the ultimate. They are companions that achieve and operate simultaneously, like the movement on dry land and movement in water engaged in by an amphibian. They totally preclude each other as different things it does but do not preclude each other as aspects of what it does. This teaches that up until awakening the practice achieving all the merit accumulations and wisdom accumulations is the “supreme benefit of awakening and beings.” These two will be explained again just as they are in the appropriate contexts.

“Should complete the perfection of morality because no downfall is incurred and no compounded downfall is incurred”‍—

when bodhisattva householders [F.44.b] take up and follow the training to do with the bodhisattva code of conduct, and those gone forth to homelessness take up and follow the trainings to do with both codes of conduct, they incur no downfall. Even if they do incur a downfall, they do not compound it by letting time pass; they very quickly reveal it. Hence it says, “no downfall is incurred and no compounded downfall is incurred.” “Having stood in the perfection of wisdom” comes right after this as well so it should be understood that on account of not apprehending the three conceptualizations‍—“I am moral,” “this is morality,” “this is immorality”‍—it is the purity of the three spheres. Thus, below it will say,

“They do not falsely project ‘I am moral, this is morality, this is immorality.’ ”

“Because there is no disturbance”‍—

this teaches the nature of the perfection of patience. Furthermore, governed by compassion they are not disturbed by beings, and governed by wisdom they realize there is no self in the volitional factors. Here also the purity of the three spheres on account of not apprehending patience, an object of patience, or malice will be explained again in the appropriate contexts.

“Because there is no relaxing of physical or mental effort”‍—

this teaches engagement in the perfection of perseverance. It means bodhisattvas

“should complete… the perfection of perseverance”

with the perseverance that causes them not to relax from any physical or mental effort at persisting, respecting, and trying hard. Not giving up, furthermore, is from wisdom and compassion. Here also the state of perfection is accomplished on account of not apprehending someone who has perseverence, perseverance, or laziness.

“Because there is no experience”‍—

if they enter into a concentration for their own sake [F.45.a] it becomes the “experience” of a concentration. So, given that bodhisattvas spurn all practice done only for their own sake as a sin, how could they ever pay attention to the experience of a concentration? What it means to say is that of the three concentrations‍—defiled, purified, and without outflows‍—they become absorbed in purified concentrations and concentrations without outflows, not in defiled ones. Here also, on account of not apprehending someone in the concentration, the concentration, or distraction, the perfection becomes complete.

“Because all phenomena are not apprehended”‍—

when they see just reality, they do not apprehend any ordinary, falsely imagined phenomena, and they do not even conceive of the extraordinary ones either, whereby they

“should complete the perfection of wisdom.”

4.25How, standing in the perfection of wisdom, can they complete the perfection of wisdom?

When “the perfection of wisdom” is work at the knowledge of all aspects and the Great Vehicle there is no fault. Still, when bodhisattvas are working on the perfection of nonconceptual wisdom, thinking “ultimately there is no perfection of wisdom dharma whatsoever,” they stand in the perfection of nonconceptual wisdom, the nature of which is the absence of the conceptualization of the perfection of wisdom. At that point, the wisdom produced in a conventional form, which thinks “the three realms and so on are simply just suchness,” is conceptual in nature, but as the path of preparation realization, since it is informed by the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom, it is called the perfection of wisdom . Therefore there is no fault, because the intention is that bodhisattvas, standing in the perfection of wisdom, cultivate the perfection of wisdom. Here [F.45.b] too it should be understood that on account of not apprehending someone who has wisdom, wisdom, or intellectual confusion, it is the purity of the three spheres.

Practice of the dharmas on the side of awakening

4.26Then,

“Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings, having stood in the perfection of wisdom, should perfect the four applications of mindfulness,”

and so on, teaches the practice of the dharmas on the side of awakening.

4.27Qualm: The cultivation of the thirty-seven dharmas on the side of awakening is appropriate for those in the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles who strive for nirvāṇa but is not appropriate for bodhisattvas.

4.28Response: There is no fault here. Bodhisattvas want to realize all dharmas in all forms and are intent on not apprehending all dharmas, so, because they investigate whether the awakening dharmas do or do not exist ultimately, it is appropriate.

4.29Qualm: Nevertheless, in that case, having cultivated the dharmas on the side of awakening they become a cause for their actualizing nirvāṇa. Bodhisattvas therefore will become stream enterers, up to worthy ones.

4.30Response: They are accomplished because of the power of the force of an earlier endeavor, so there is no fault in it.

4.31Still, those who see faults in saṃsāra and feel repulsion, and strive for and accomplish nirvāṇa having seen its good qualities, effortlessly actualize nirvāṇa because of the force of an earlier endeavor, on account of the cause‍—their meditation on the applications of mindfulness. Bodhisattvas, however, regard saṃsāra and nirvāṇa equally. They are intent on producing benefit and happiness for all beings, so they see good qualities in saṃsāra because it is the cause for the benefit of beings, like nirvāṇa; and they see nirvāṇa as disagreeable, like saṃsāra, because it is not a place to stand to be of benefit to beings. They see them as equal [F.46.a] because they are both merely the true nature of dharmas. So they have meditated on the dharmas on the side of awakening in order to understand analytically that they cannot be apprehended. They do it simply to actualize the dharmas on the side of awakening. They do not work on them in order to realize the result of stream enterer and so on, or nirvāṇa. Just that is “knowledge of mastery.” It will also be explained like this in the teaching on the knowledge of mastery where it will say that

“they remain with the dharmas on the side of awakening, understanding that it is thus the time for mastery, and it is not the time for actualization.”

4.32There are four objects to which mindfulness is applied: body, feelings, mind, and dharmas. The four observations of those four are “the four applications of mindfulness.” Having come to know them previously, when bodhisattvas then search for them as they really are, they comprehend that body, feelings, mind, and dharmas, the mindfulness and wisdom focused on them, as well as the mental factor dharmas associated with them, are marked as falsely imagined, and they understand that they are not in fact real. Since the inexpressible ultimate is not within the range of either mindfulness or wisdom, the bodhisattvas realize that ultimately there are no defining marks of the applications of mindfulness, and thus stand in the perfection of wisdom and

“perfect the four applications of mindfulness.”

4.33Therefore the One Hundred Thousand also says

“because the applications of mindfulness cannot be apprehended.”

4.34I will give a detailed explanation of meditation on the dharmas on the side of awakening later as part of the exposition of the Great Vehicle.

4.35Construe the right efforts like this as well. It is saying that the defining marks [F.46.b] of the right efforts and so on are simply mere conventions, but ultimately the defining marks of the right efforts and so on have nonexistence for their intrinsic nature. Hence, understanding that the right efforts and so on have an intrinsic nature that cannot be apprehended, they, “having stood in the perfection of wisdom, … perfect” the dharmas on the side of awakening.

“They should cultivate the emptiness meditative stabilization.”

The three doors to liberation cause the attainment of nirvāṇa so they are in harmony with the cultivation of the dharmas on the side of awakening and are counted among the dharmas on the side of awakening. These are included in the bodhisattva stage so they are called “the three meditative stabilizations.”

4.37Among them, in regard to “the emptiness meditative stabilization,” that which is marked as the thoroughly established is empty of that which is marked as the falsely imagined. When it is cultivated as the empty aspect, “it is empty of those falsely imagined aspects,” and the mind has become single-pointed; this is “the emptiness meditative stabilization.”

4.38Just that inexpressible ultimate, like space, separated from all the causal signs of form and so on, marked as the nonexistence of any aspect of a causal sign is the calming of all elaborations. When it is cultivated as the calm aspect, and the mind has become single-pointed, it is

“the signlessness meditative stabilization.”

4.39Similarly, on account of seeing the three realms in their nonexistent intrinsic nature aspect, all dharmas come to be perceived as discordant. When the insight that they do not serve as a basis for anything to be wished for in the future has become a single-pointed mind, it is

“the wishlessness meditative stabilization.”

Practice without harming that brings beings to maturity

4.40Then the practice that brings beings to maturity is taught with

“they should cultivate the four concentrations,”

and so on. Those beings who are to be brought to maturity, furthermore, are ordinary beings and extraordinary beings, and the maturing has to be done with the dharmas in the concentration and meditative stabilization class, the clairvoyance class, [F.47.a] and the knowledge class, so it includes all three classes. That is presented as the practice that brings being to maturity because bodhisattvas first conventionally take up all the concentration dharmas, and so on, to work for the benefit of beings, then afterward, having searched for the ultimate, without settling down on the intrinsic nature of the concentrations, and so on, again with both compassion and skillful means take the conventional as their objective support and work for the benefit of beings.

4.41There, in regard to the

“mindfulness of disgust,”

having taken birth, decay, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, depression, and grief; the impermanent, the empty, and the selfless and so on‍—the grounds for repulsion‍—as the objective support, seeing them as faults and paying attention to the feeling of disgust is “mindfulness of disgust.” As for a bodhisattva’s mindfulness of disgust, having seen that the foolish generate an awareness of all phenomena as having essences and engage with those even though they are selfless and are the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, the attention preceded by the thought that they may quickly come to know that is “mindfulness of disgust.”

“Mindfulness of death”

is spoken of earlier governed by “mindfulness” as paying attention. Later, based on special insight, the vision of death in its true dharmic nature is said to be

“the perception of death.”

4.43The pleasure of not trusting any ordinary knowledge or craftsmanship, or the sixty-four arts and so on, is

“the perception that there is no delight in the entire world.”

4.44Not wanting anything in the three realms on account of not seeing any reason to be attached to them is

“the perception that there is nothing to trust in the entire world.”

“They should cultivate knowledge of suffering.”

Having made known that all dharmas such as the aggregates and so on are, from a conventional perspective, just suffering, [F.47.b] then, even while knowing that they are ultimately utterly nonexistent things, in order to bring beings to maturity, knowing them conventionally in just the aspect of suffering and knowing how to make others understand them like that as well is the knowledge of suffering. Construe all the other noble truths similarly.

4.46The knowledge that just those aggregates, constituents, sense fields, and so on are products, the knowledge of how to make that understood, and the knowledge that all are in agreement is

“the knowledge of origination.”

4.47The knowledge that all their own and others’ afflictions, secondary afflictions, suffering, and existence are extinguished, and the knowledge of what causes them to be completely extinguished, is the bodhisattvas’

“knowledge of extinction.”

“[The] knowledge of not arising”

of bodhisattvas is the knowledge of all the arising in their own and others’ births in existence, and the knowledge of what causes them not to arise.

“Knowledge of dharmas”

is direct knowledge of all dharmas as conventions, and, governed by the ultimate, knowledge as suchness.

“Subsequent realization knowledge”

is the inferential knowledge of all dharmas as conventions, the knowledge that even though they were not directly perceptible as impermanent, and so on, they are so, and the subsequent knowledge bodhisattvas have that all dharmas are in accord with emptiness.

4.51All the nobles’ knowledge of beings and pots and so on, and the bodhisattvas’ knowledge that observes all falsely imagined dharmas such as form and so on, is

“conventional knowledge.”

“Knowledge of mastery”‍—

the knowledge with which bodhisattvas cultivate the three gateways to liberation‍—emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness,‍—and the dharmas on the side of awakening, without actualizing nirvāṇa, [F.48.a] the knowledge that causes only the habituation to and purification of them, is “knowledge of mastery.” Were they to actualize nirvāṇa they would become stream enterers and so on, but because they fear that, they do not touch the very limit of reality. With that knowledge they cultivate them as mere dharmas.

4.53Qualm: But how could they have cultivated dharmas that cause them to reach nirvāṇa and yet still not have actualized the very limit of reality?

As explained earlier, it is because they do not “pay attention to the feeling of disgust.” Furthermore, the precursor to the actualization of the very limit of reality is the cultivation of calm abiding and special insight. Bodhisattvas, however, do not practice a cultivation of such calm abiding and special insight that would cause them to reach the very limit of reality. Since theirs is only the vast cultivation of all dharmas without apprehending them, when they observe the dharmas on the side of awakening they understand them, unabsorbed, with an ordinary knowledge. Therefore, since they do not have the conditions for that calm abiding and special insight, they do not actualize the very limit of reality. Thus, later the Lord will again say,

“Subhūti, when bodhisattva great beings contemplate emptiness furnished with the best of all aspects, they do not contemplate that they should actualize it; rather, they contemplate that they should master it. They contemplate that it is not the time it should be actualized, but rather it is the time it should be mastered. When not in actual meditative equipoise, bodhisattva great beings attach their minds to an objective support and without letting the dharmas on the side of awakening lessen, in the meantime do not actualize the extinction of outflows,”

and so on.

“Knowledge in accord with sound”‍—

any language whatsoever is “in accord with sound.” Knowledge of that is “knowledge in accord with sound.” So, knowledge in accord with sound is the knowledge [F.48.b] with which bodhisattvas have an understanding and knowledge of all the languages and speech of hell beings, animals, ghosts, gods, humans, and Brahmās.

4.56All of these are taken together with “having stood in the perfection of wisdom,” so understand that all are cultivated without taking any as a real basis. Therefore, the One Hundred Thousand and so on spell it out like that in every case.

“The five undiminished clairvoyances”‍—

because they are in possession of the five clairvoyances in all deaths and births in all forms of life, they have clairvoyances that do not decline, so they are “undiminished.”

“The six perfections”‍—

it is true that the six perfections have already been spoken about before, nevertheless here it speaks about them again in the context of bringing beings to maturity.

“The six principles of being liked”‍—

these six principles are in the One Hundred Thousand. They are kindly physical action, kindly verbal action, kindly mental action, a balanced morality, a balanced view, and a balanced livelihood.

“The seven riches”

are faith, morality, learning, giving away, wisdom, a sense of shame, and a sense of compunction.

“The eight ways great persons think”‍—

the ways śrāvakas think are as explained in the Subcommentary. As for the way bodhisattvas think, they think, “At some point may I be able to eliminate all the suffering of all beings”; they think, “At some point may I be able to establish in prosperity those who are suffering from poverty”; they think, “At some point may I be able to look after the needs of beings with the flesh and blood of my own body”; they think, “Even if I live long among the denizens of the hells may I at some point [F.49.a] only be of benefit to those beings”; they think, “With the ordinary and extraordinary endowments may I at some point come to see the hopes of the whole world fulfilled”; they think, “At some point, having become a buddha, may I deliver all beings from all the sufferings of saṃsāra”; they think, “In lifetime after lifetime may I never have a birth in which I am of no use to beings, a thought that is unconnected with the welfare of beings, a taste for the ultimate alone, meaningless words that do not satisfy all beings, a livelihood that does not benefit others, a body incapable of benefiting others, an awareness that does not illuminate what is of aid to others, wealth that is not used for the benefit of others, a position of importance in society that is not held for the sake of others, and a liking for causing harm to others”; and they think, “May all the results of evil deeds done by all other creatures come to fruition in me, and may all the results of my good conduct come to fruition in all beings.” These are “the eight ways great persons think.”

4.62When thinking in that way, they should meditate on

“the nine places beings live”

so that those eight ways of thinking will bear fruit; so that, having viewed the world with compassion, they will bring about a benefit for others; so that, with wisdom, they will develop attention to not apprehending anything; and so that they will thoroughly understand the container world and its inhabitants.

4.63Some say, “the nine things that cause anguish to beings.” Bodhisattvas are totally without “the nine things that cause anguish,” so they become the opposite, the nine things that cause no anguish at all. [F.49.b] Construe them this way: They are not caused anguish by the thought, “That one hurt me.” They are not caused anguish by the thought, “That one is hurting me.” They are not caused anguish by the thought, “That one will hurt me,” and so on.

Practice that brings the buddhadharmas to maturity

4.64After that, with

“the ten tathāgata powers,”

and so on, it teaches the practice that brings the buddhadharmas to maturity.

4.65Since it has taught the four immeasurables before in the context of bringing beings to maturity, in the context of the practices that bring the buddhadharmas to maturity it teaches them with the different names‍—

“great compassion,”

and so on.

Detailed Teaching

4.66Having thus brought together all the dharmas and taught them in a brief exposition, now they have to be explained in detail. Earlier, by speaking about what has to be known by those “who want to fully awaken to all dharmas in all forms,” it indicated the intention of bodhisattvas. Now, wanting to give a detailed teaching of the cause and result of that same intention, together with those who have the intention and so on, the Lord again, with those

“who want to fully awaken to the knowledge, furnished with the best of all aspects, of a knower of all aspects,”

and so on, gives a detailed teaching about the intention.

Why bodhisattvas endeavor

4.67Now the “why” taught previously, where it says in the exposition in eight parts “why bodhisattvas endeavor”‍—that “why” has to be explained.

4.68What stages does it have? The wanting of bodhisattvas refers to three things:

they want to make themselves familiar with the three vehicles,

they want the greatnesses of bodhisattvas, and

they want the greatnesses of buddhas.

4.69The five parts of the statement, from

“who want to fully awaken to the knowledge, furnished with the best of all aspects, of a knower of all,”

up to

“who want to perfect all-knowledge,”

teach the three vehicles and the result. From [F.50.a]

“who want to enter into the secure state of a bodhisattva,”

up to

“bodhisattva great beings who want to establish them in the result of stream enterer, the result of once-returner, the result of non-returner, the state of a worthy one, in a pratyekabuddha’s awakening, and in unsurpassed, perfect awakening should train in the perfection of wisdom,”

teaches the greatnesses of bodhisattvas. Then, from

“who want to train in the tathāgatas’ way of carrying themselves,”

up to

“make use of those five sorts of sense objects,”

teaches the greatnesses of buddhas.

They want to make themselves familiar with the three vehicles

4.72In regard to those [five], the “three knowledges” are the knowledge of all aspects, the knowledge of path aspects, and all-knowledge.

4.73Among them, the extraordinary, nonconceptual knowledge included in the vajra-like meditative stabilization when there is a lord buddha’s transformation of the basis is called

“the knowledge of all aspects.”

4.74Knowledge in the form of the bodhisattva’s path‍—the practice of the perfections and so on‍—that emerges in a series of ten levels, bringing the bodhisattvas to accomplishment, is called

“the knowledge of path aspects.”

4.75The extraordinary path knowledge of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas that is caused by meditating on “everything compounded is impermanent,” “everything with outflows is suffering,” and “every dharma is selfless,” engaged with the aspects of impermanence and so on, is called

“all-knowledge.”

4.76The statement “who want to fully awaken to the knowledge, furnished with the best of all aspects, of a knower of all” teaches that they want to fully awaken to the knowledge of all aspects;

“want to destroy all residual impressions, connections, [F.50.b] and afflictions”

teaches its result.

4.77Qualm: But just that “want to fully awaken to all dharmas in all forms” has already taught the knowledge of all aspects, so why is it teaching it again?

There is no fault, because the earlier “want to fully awaken to all dharmas” was teaching all the dharmas that have to be realized, but here, with “want to fully awaken to the knowledge of a knower of all,” it is teaching the full awakening to just that knowledge of a knower of all.

4.78Qualm: What is its purpose in qualifying it with “furnished with the best of all aspects”?

There, the knowledge of a knower of all is threefold: the all-knowledge of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and the all-knowing knowledge of buddhas with all dharmas as its objective support. The nonconceptual all-knowing knowledge of buddhas is also called “the knowledge of a knower of all.” Were it just to have said “wants to fully awaken to the knowledge of a knower of all,” there would have been uncertainty about which knowledge it is referring to. Hence, it qualifies it with “furnished with the best of all aspects.” With that it teaches the “knowledge of a knower of all aspects.”

4.79As for all the aspects, they are the nonarising unproduced aspect, the unceasing, the primordially calm, the naturally in nirvāṇa, the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, emptiness, signlessness, wishlessness, and so on. The best of all of those aspects, the principal one, is the emptiness aspect because it is the root of the other aspects. Therefore, it is taught that the entry into the sameness where the entities of apprehended and apprehender are the same, furnished with the best of all aspects and without conceptualization, [F.51.a] is the knowledge of a knower of all aspects.

4.80Alternatively, the knowledge of a knower of all itself is being taught. All the aspects are then those aspects included in the collection of the wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral, as well as those included in the collection of those destined for what is right, destined for error, and those of uncertain destiny. In this case, a buddha’s knowledge of a knower of all is furnished with all aspects because it comprehends what is included in the collections of the unwholesome and neutral, as well as those destined for error and those of uncertain destiny. It is said to be “furnished with the best of all aspects” because it comprehends what is included in the collections of the wholesome and those destined for what is right. Those who want such an awakening are said to “want to fully awaken to the knowledge, furnished with the best of all aspects, of a knower of all”;

“want to destroy all residual impressions, connections, and afflictions”

teaches its result. Residual impressions of action, residual impressions of affliction, and residual impressions of birth are the three sorts of residual impressions; connections of action, connections of affliction, and connections of birth are the three sorts of connections, because the connections of dependent origination are three. The meaning is that they “want to destroy” all “residual impressions,” all “connections, and all “afflictions.”

4.81Then the two‍—

“want to perfect the knowledge of path aspects”

and

“want to perfect the knowledge of the aspects of the thought activity of all beings”‍—

teach the knowledge of path aspects and its result, [F.51.b] because bodhisattvas perfect the knowledge of the aspects of the paths and realize the thought and activity of beings, whereby they accomplish the welfare of beings.

4.82Then, “[they] want to perfect all-knowledge” teaches the knowledge of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, because, even though bodhisattvas have not actualized all-knowledge, for the sake of beings they know the nature of all-knowledge and the causes for attaining all-knowledge, and they establish beings in their respective results of stream enterer and so on. With that, therefore, they will have perfected all-knowledge. The conditions that aid all-knowledge are not taught because bodhisattvas will know what they are from just this, so it is unnecessary.

[B5]

They want the greatnesses of bodhisattvas

4.83Then,

“want to enter into the secure state of a bodhisattva”

and so on teaches the desire for the greatnesses of bodhisattvas. Furthermore, it teaches four qualities of bodhisattvas: qualities of the impure levels, qualities of the pure levels, qualities of the level of detailed and thorough knowledge, and qualities when standing on the final level.

4.84From the first to the seventh level are the impure levels because bodhisattvas make an active effort to pay attention there. There you should know their qualities are from “want to enter into the secure state of a bodhisattva” up to

“want to thoroughly establish a buddha’s body.”

4.85The qualities of the eighth level are from “want to thoroughly establish a buddha’s body” up to

“comprehend the suchness of all dharmas.”

4.86The qualities of the level of detailed and thorough knowledge, on the ninth level, are from

“tiny particles”

up to the perfecting of the six perfections, [F.52.a] and the qualities when standing on the final tenth level are from

“want to acquire the buddha qualities of the past, future, and present lord buddhas”

up to the establishing of beings in their respective results of stream enterer and so on.

4.88Among these is

“want to enter into the secure state of a bodhisattva”‍—

turning away from the state of a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha is called “the secure state of a bodhisattva.” Others say to take “flawlessness” as the tathāgata­garbha . In regard to that there are three periods: flawlessness that is the absence of defilement, the secure state of a bodhisattva, and the certification of dharmas. As for the tathāgata­garbha , there are also three periods for that tathatā (“suchness”): the impure period in ordinary foolish beings, the period on the pure and impure bodhisattva levels, and the pure period on the Tathāgata level. There, the impure suchness is called “a being” (sattva). It is also called “the fixed state of defilement.” In the pure and impure period it is called “awakening and being” ( bodhisattva ) because the awakening (bodhi) period is pure, and the being (sattva) period impure. Just that is called “the secure state of a bodhisattva.” In the pure period it is called the tathāgata because it said,

“ Tathāgata , Subhūti, is a word for perfect suchness.”

Just that is called “the certification of dharmas.”

4.89The period when a bodhisattva has forsaken the impure, fixed state of defilement period (when the tathāgata­garbha is called “being”), and reached the pure and impure [F.52.b] “secure state of a bodhisattva” period (when it is called “awakening and being”), is “the secure state of a bodhisattva.” Hence it means they “want” to reach the period of “the secure state of” reality called bodhisattva (“awakening and being”).

“Who want to pass beyond the level of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas”‍—

this is because the qualities are superior, because a bodhisattva who has set out for the knowledge on the bodhisattva levels passes beyond the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha levels on account of four qualities: special faculties, special accomplishment, special knowledge, and special result.

4.91There a śrāvaka has naturally dull faculties, a pratyekabuddha middling faculties, and a bodhisattva sharp faculties. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas naturally seek their own welfare, accomplish their own welfare, and complete benefits only for themselves. Bodhisattvas naturally seek their own and others’ welfare, accomplish their own and others’ welfare, and complete benefits for themselves and others. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas realize that dharmas are impermanent, suffering, empty, and selfless, while bodhisattvas who have set out to benefit themselves and others are skilled in all fields of knowledge, and, having established the many dispositions, aims, and mental states of beings, make them realize that all dharmas are characterized by being unfindable. Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas gain the purification of afflicted obscurations and reach a nirvāṇa with no remaining aggregates, while bodhisattvas eliminate both afflicted obscurations and knowledge obscurations and establish themselves in a nonabiding nirvāṇa, looking after the welfare of beings until the end of saṃsāra. [F.53.a]

“Who want to stand on the irreversible level”‍—

there are four reasons why those who have produced the thought of awakening later turn back from the thought of awakening: because they are no longer in the lineage, or have gotten into the clutches of bad friends, or have weak compassion, or are scared of the extremely long and unbearable sufferings of saṃsāra. All four of those causes, furthermore, are absent from bodhisattvas who have entered onto the bodhisattva levels. Therefore, the levels of Pramuditā and so on are called the irreversible levels.

“Who want to surpass gift-giving to all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas by producing a single thought with associated rejoicing”‍—

the thought of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas when engaged in charity is not pure because it has craving, has conceptualization, and results in existence or in functioning for one’s own welfare. The bodhisattvas’ rejoicing thought is without craving, without conceptualization, does not have causal signs within its range, and is of benefit to self and others, so it is superior because of those qualities and hence is surpassing.

4.94Construe

“the aggregate of morality”

and so on in the same way as well.

4.95In

“for the sake of all beings… giving even a little gift,”

“for the sake of all beings” says that it is for all beings; “a little gift” is because of not having many things. It becomes immeasurable and incalculable because of turning it over for the sake of all beings, because of turning it over to all-knowledge, and because of the purity of the three spheres.

“Bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of giving should train in the perfection of wisdom”‍—

giving and so on without having trained in the Great Vehicle achievement is not the ultimate perfection.

“Who want to thoroughly establish a buddha’s body”‍—

on the seventh level [F.53.b] they know the form of the body of a buddha but at that time cannot achieve it. Having understood the form of the body of a buddha on that level they generate the desire to achieve it. Thus, it is saying that they enter into the intrinsic nature dharma body of all the buddhas from the tenth level; they also achieve the fine ornaments (the major marks and minor signs adorning the form body); and they cause the admiration of the tathāgata who is separated from speech, sound, and language, inexpressible, and naturally calm. Hence it teaches the three bodies.

“Who want to be born in the buddha’s lineage”‍—

here, take the tathāgata’s lineage to be the thoroughly established suchness, because at the eighth level all conceptualization, all exertion, and all causal signs are cut off, and there has been the transformation into the nature of purified suchness. This is called being “born in the tathāgata’s lineage.”

“The heir apparent’s level”

is just that very eighth level. Thus it says, “because it is totally without basic immorality it is called the heir apparent’s level.”

4.100Take

“a world as vast as the dharma-constituent”

as the world in the sense of beings, because the world as beings is also without an end. It has the tathāgata­garbha as its terminus. The world that is

“as far-reaching as the space element”

is the world as container.

“Want to make a single wholesome thought of awakening inexhaustible”‍—

it is inexhaustible just like a single drop of water poured into the ocean that does not run out because, dedicated to the knowledge of all aspects, it works for the welfare of beings until the end of saṃsāra. Also understand the inexhaustible as it is explained in The Teaching of Akṣayamati.

“Want to ensure the line of buddhas will be unbroken”

means to ensure the progeny necessary to continue the unbroken line, so that the line of buddhas [F.54.a] will remain unbroken.

“[They] want to stand in inner emptiness”

and so on teaches the sixteen emptinesses. It is true that emptiness, as an entity, is simply one. Nevertheless, it is divided into many types because of the different minds and interests of bodhisattvas.

4.104Here, when bodhisattvas endeavor to pay attention to emptiness, they think, “If all dharmas are empty‍—that is, unreal‍—how does the ‘self’ in ‘Monks, I am my own master’; ‘The actions I did myself ripen in me’; ‘Stay by yourself in the form of an island’ and so on exist?” Having reflected on that, when they first take up in their mind these forms, feelings, and so on that are their own self’s inner dharmas and reflect on them, they perfectly review the fact that there is nothing that can be set forth as a “self” that ultimately exists. These are simply things set forth just conventionally; they are names plucked out of thin air. Hence, it says “inner emptiness.” This is teaching the aggregates as emptiness.

4.105Then the bodhisattvas reflect, “If there is no self, does anything else exist or not?” They do not see any other things that can be set forth as “something else,” but see them simply as mere sense fields. Hence, it says

“outer emptiness.”

This teaches that the sense fields are emptiness.

4.106Then, again in order to determine just that meaning well, they take up in their mind the inner and outer dharmas as one and meditate on them, viewing them simply as just the eighteen constituents. Therefore, it says

“inner and outer emptiness,”

which teaches that the constituents are emptiness.

4.107Alternatively, tīrthikas say, “The enjoyer is the soul,” so it is necessary to teach the absence of a self of persons. And still those who have set out in this Dharma say, “The enjoyer is the inner sense fields,” [F.54.b] so it is necessary to teach that the sense fields are not real things. Hence it makes a presentation of inner and outer emptiness for both of those.

4.108There it teaches inner emptiness based on the person not having a self, with “the eyes are empty of self and what belongs to self, and the ears… are empty of self and what belongs to self,” and so on; and it teaches inner emptiness based on the selflessness of dharmas with “the eyes are empty of eyes…, the ears are empty of ears,” and so on. Both explanations are given.

4.109In this regard, there are also four possibilities to do with the eye: “my eyes are me”; “I have eyes”; “I am where my eyes are”; “my eyes are where I am.” This is similar to considering, “form is me”; “I have form”; “I am where form is”; and “form is where I am.” Among these, “my eyes are me” is grasping at the eyes as the self. “I have eyes”; “I am where my eyes are”; and “my eyes are where I am” is grasping at the eyes as belonging to the self. There, the understanding in accord with the reality of the eyes in a form that cannot be apprehended eliminates those four ways of grasping and perfectly sees in accord with the reality that the eyes are empty of self and what belongs to self. Similarly, connect this with the ears and so on as well. This is instruction in emptiness based on the selflessness of persons.

4.110Based on the selflessness of dharmas, eyes have the three aspects of the falsely imagined eyes, the conceptualized eyes, and the true dharmic nature of the eyes. Among these, the falsely imagined eyes are the things taken to be the eyes that are in the form of expressed and expressor. The conceptualized eyes are the appearance of eyes in the specific form in which they exist as a subject and object entity. [F.55.a] The true dharmic nature of the eyes is the nature free from expressed and expressor, that is inexpressible, that is free from becoming something with an appearance, and is a thoroughly established private introspective knowledge.

4.111There, in “the eyes are empty of eyes,” “the eyes” are the true dharmic nature of the eyes; they are “empty,” separated from “eyes,” the falsely imagined and the conceptualized eyes. That is the meaning. Similarly, connect this with “the ears are empty of ears” and so on.

4.112Qualm: The inexpressible ultimate is not an intrinsic nature of the eyes. Were it an intrinsic nature of the eyes it would be expressible, so why is it called the “true dharmic nature of the eyes”?

That is true, but still, even though any compounded phenomena whatsoever‍—eyes and so on, a shape or a sound and so on‍—in the way they are when transformed, in their thoroughly established form, are not differentiated as separate and are in the same form, nevertheless, when you want to talk about them you have no choice except to make distinctions in order to give an explanation. They are merely indicated by specifically distinguishing them with words like “the shape’s suchness,” “the sound’s suchness,” “the smell’s suchness,” and so on. But that suchness is not in those forms and does not become expressible as them. Thus, all the true dharmic natures of the eyes and so on are devoid of intrinsic natures of the inner eye sense field and so on, and hence it says “inner emptiness.”

4.113Having thus stopped grasping at an inner entity as an enjoyer, to stop grasping at outer entities as the enjoyed there is a presentation of outer emptiness. Tīrthikas grasp shapes and so on as the enjoyed, viewing them as what belongs to self; followers of this Dharma grasp them conceptually as just objects. To stop the former of these it says “a form is empty of self and what belongs to self,” “a sound is empty of self and what belongs to self,” and so on. [F.55.b] To stop the other of the two it says “a form is empty of a form,” “a sound is empty of a sound,” and so on. Again, you should construe that as above. Similarly, about outer objects devoid of self and what belongs to self, devoid of those falsely imagined dharma aspects, it says “outer emptiness.”

4.114Having thus given an explanation of the conceptualizations of inner and outer enjoyer and enjoyed, now, to eliminate from the bodies of assembled inner and outer sense fields the view of “I” and “mine,” and the conceptualization of them as a body, it collects them both together and teaches

“inner and outer emptiness.”

4.115In order to eliminate views, bodhisattvas correctly view those assemblages of inner and outer sense fields as empty of a real “I” and “mine.” The presentation of the elimination of the conceptualization, furthermore, is based on there being no collections of the assemblages, because, contingent one on the other, they are empty of functioning. This means that the eyes are empty of a shape, so ultimately they do not perform the action of seeing and so on, having connected with it. Similarly, a shape is empty of the eyes in the sense that it does not perform a function together with them. Similarly, the ears are empty of a sound, and a sound is empty of the ears. Therefore, because the collection does not function, the conceptualization of the assemblage as a body is eliminated.

4.116In the section explaining the emptinesses, therefore, the inner dharmas are empty of the outer dharmas, and the outer dharmas are empty of the inner dharmas.

4.117What does inner dharmas empty of outer dharmas mean? It means that the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the thinking mind are empty of shapes, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings, and dharmas. Thus there is no “I” and “mine” in the assemblage of inner and outer dharmas. And the inner dharmas are devoid of the outer dharmas, [F.56.a] and the outer dharmas are devoid of the inner dharmas, so, because in the absence of an assemblage they are ultimately empty of functioning, it says “inner and outer emptiness.”

4.118After perfectly setting forth the three emptinesses, bodhisattvas reflect, “Does ‘emptiness’ exist as an aspect of a phenomenon or not? If an ‘emptiness’ exists then emptiness exists, and the state of not being empty will come to exist as well, because the existence of an antidote without the existence of its opposition is untenable. And if there is a nonempty state, then that will be the nonempty state that all dharmas are in.” Having reflected thus, bodhisattvas then decide, “There is no ‘emptiness’ at all. Were some other ‘empty’ dharma to exist, then a nonempty dharma would exist, so there is no other ‘empty’ dharma at all.”

4.119To illustrate, someone “sees” the city of the gandharvas and thinks they have seen it. Then, afterward, when they have really explored and looked for just that city and do not see it, they no longer think that they have seen it. But it is not suitable to say, when they see its emptiness, because they think it is empty that there is some other, different entity‍—the “emptiness” of the city they were thinking about. Similarly, taking a falsely imagined shape and so on as a real shape, they think they have seen a constituent element of reality. Then when they look into what it really is, because the knowledge of it as it really is does not see that constituent of reality when it is looked for, it is simply that the nonexistence of the intellectually active awareness of the constituent of reality and an intellectually active awareness of the empty is born. But it is not suitable to say that when they see it is empty that there is some other, different constituent of reality‍—“the empty”‍—there. Therefore, because emptiness does not exist, the nonempty state does not exist either; because the nonempty state does not exist, emptiness does not exist either. This is the correct explanation here. What you should not say is, “There is no emptiness,” [F.56.b] because all dharmas are empty. And you should not say, “Emptiness exists!” because when you investigate, there is no other dharma‍—“emptiness”‍—at all. So this is the

“emptiness of emptiness.”

4.120Again, bodhisattvas think, “If all dharmas are empty, why are all these moving and unmoving states of existence called ‘dependent origination.’ If they do not exist, they cannot be a dependent origination. And if a dependently originated phenomenon does exist, in that case all the moving and unmoving states of existence exist.” Having thought that, they determine there are no “dependently originated phenomena” at all, but even though they are thus totally nonexistent, still, from a time without beginning, for as long as they are not perfectly seen and directly realized they remain as existent causes and effects in the form of action, affliction, and maturation. And yet those actions, afflictions and maturations are emptinesses in each and every way. Those empty phenomena that exist as emptinesses in the form of causes and effects are dependent originations .

4.121To illustrate, a certain magician, having deceived the eyes of beings with an abracadabra, conjures up the appearance of a real elephant, horse, chariot, small troop of soldiers, mountain, waterfall, ocean, and so on.

4.122That becomes the condition that produces in a being whose eyes have been deceived by the abracadabra a consciousness of an elephant and so on appearing as that object, and those with those consciousnesses see those magically produced elephants and so on. Such a cause-and-effect reality existing as the magically produced elephant and so on, along with the consciousness, [F.57.a] is the dependent origination . The dependent origination that is those magically produced elephants and so on, and those consciousnesses, cannot possibly exist ultimately.

4.123Similarly, all fools whose sight has been deceived by ignorance see karmically constructed, falsely imagined phenomena that are like the magically produced elephants and so on. Those falsely imagined phenomena become the condition that generates a consciousness that they are appearing as they are, and those with those consciousnesses see those phenomena. Those grasped-object phenomena and grasper-subject phenomena imagined like that, existing in the form of causes and effects, are dependent originations . Those grasped-grasper dependent originations cannot possibly exist ultimately, therefore

“all dharmas have no intrinsic nature.”

4.124Were phenomena to have any unfabricated essential identity in the form of an intrinsic nature, they would not come forth, contingent on something else, in a form that arises under the power of causes and conditions. But phenomena do come forth as dependent phenomena, dependent on other conditions; they do not come forth through an intrinsic nature that is their own unfabricated being. Hence it should be known that they are not things with their own intrinsic nature. Because their own intrinsic nature is thus nonexistent, therefore they “lack an intrinsic nature.” Just because they lack an intrinsic nature, they are emptiness. Hence, “the meaning of no intrinsic nature is the meaning of dependent origination, and the meaning of emptiness is the meaning of dependent origination.”

4.125When the perfect sight of reality has been produced and has overcome the force of abracadabra-like ignorance, falsely imagined dharmas like the magically produced elephant and so on, and the consciousness-dharmas that grasp them [F.57.b] in the form of a dependent origination marked as a cause-and-effect reality, stop appearing and disappear. This is the

“great emptiness.”

4.126Again, the bodhisattvas think, “If all dharmas are empty, the ultimate dharma is empty too. If it is empty, how is it ultimate? How does the vajropama meditative stabilization of the buddhas apprehend it? If that dharma does exist, then all dharmas will similarly exist as well.” They then determine as follows: No “ultimate” dharma exists at all. The tathāgata­garbha in its established state is not the nature of the dharmas, because you cannot say it “exists” or “does not exist.” You cannot say this thoroughly established state “exists” because it is presented as being characterized by the nonexistence of both the falsely imagined grasped-object and grasper-subject, and you cannot say of something characterized by nonexistence that it “exists.” You cannot say it is “nonexistent” either, because it exists as an intrinsic nature separated from duality. If you say that in such a form it “exists,” it comes to exist as a real thing and becomes the extreme of over-reification; and if you say it does not exist as a substantial reality, it becomes nonexistent like a rabbit’s horns and so on and becomes the extreme of over-negation. So, since it is inexpressible as either, it should not be conceived of like that.

4.127And the statement that the vajropama meditative stabilization apprehends it is an ill-considered statement, because the extraordinary nonconceptual knowledge of the buddhas does not apprehend anything. At that time it has no grasped-object and grasper-subject aspects, so there has been a transformation into an absolutely pure state and hence it does not apprehend anything. But still, because of the earlier [F.58.a] habituation to being a grasper-subject in a saṃsāra that has no beginning, even though at that time it is not in the nature of a consciousness and has no grasped-object of its own, still it is labeled as itself operating like a grasper-subject. It is said to be “equal” because it is equally an apprehended and apprehender entity. It is said to be “equal to the equal” because it is just that apprehended and apprehender as well. Ultimate reality in such a form, not existing in the form of some other phenomenon, is the

“emptiness of ultimate reality.”

4.128Again, the bodhisattvas think, “If all phenomena are emptiness, compounded phenomena and uncompounded phenomena would not exist, but it is not right to say that they ‘do not exist’ because they are expressed as the compounded and uncompounded, and also from time to time in the scriptures they are impure appearance.” They then determine as follows: No transformed “compounded” phenomenon exists at all. Were it to exist, it would not be correct that it is in fact “compounded,” because the compounded is taken to be something made from a collection of causes and conditions that come together. If some compounded phenomenon were to exist ultimately, it would have been made by something else, and nothing can make an ultimate dharma. Since such a “compounded” phenomenon does not exist at all, it is fools using such names, because of a falsely imagined transformation. The arising, lasting, and perishing that are the characteristic marks of compounded things also have an imagined existence. Since the characteristic marks are said to have an imagined existence, the bearer of the marks definitely has to be taken as having an imagined existence as well. It is not right to characterize an ultimate dharma as imaginary. And even if a “compounded phenomenon” ultimately exists, it is not right for one phenomenon to have the three characteristic marks. Therefore [F.58.b] this is the

“emptiness of the compounded.”

4.129Again, the bodhisattvas think, “Those uncompounded phenomena that are empty on account of the compounded being compounded are not compounded things. They are therefore the ultimate nature.” They then determine as follows: No transformed “uncompounded” phenomenon exists at all. The “uncompounded” is taken to be the nonexistence of something compounded. It does not ultimately exist. It is similar to space, which is taken to be marked by the nonexistence of anything compounded. It does not exist marked as a discrete entity absolutely other than that. An analytic cessation is also marked just by the nonexistence of any compounded phenomenon. Similarly, a nonanalytic cessation is also marked by the destruction of compounded phenomena. If even in the śrāvaka system they do not ultimately exist, it goes without saying that they do not do so in the emptiness system. This realization that they are emptiness is the

“emptiness of the uncompounded.”

4.130Again, the bodhisattvas think, “If all dharmas are empty, is it right that we find in the scriptures statements that the lord buddhas are omniscient because they know those ‘past dharmas’ at the prior limit, ‘future dharmas’ at the later limit, and ‘present dharmas’ at the midpoint; that those lord buddhas’ knowledge of ‘the past free from unobstruction’ and so on is ‘a distinct attribute of a buddha’; and that the ‘divine eye’ and so on cover the three time periods?” They then determine as follows: It is not right that “prior limit, later limit, and the midpoint” dharmas exist at all, because [F.59.a] one single dharma cannot be said to be three, “future, present, and past.” If it is an ultimate dharma it is said to be just one. How could it be tenable that it is also at three times? The description of it in terms of three times is not right because then, whereas it is just one, at the later limit it would have to be the future, in between it would be the present, and at the prior limit it would be the past. So, since that is the case, it is just one.

4.131To illustrate, the first month Citrā, which has gone into a mansion and has emerged from a mansion, is still one. This happens without it changing.

4.132Furthermore, is this time contingently established or is it established in and of itself?

It is not right to say that it is established in and of itself, because it is feasible that things that stand still are established in and of themselves, but it is not feasible if they do not stand still. Time does not stand still. Its mode of operating is as something that is an instant, half a second, a second, a day and night, a fortnight, a month, the days in a month marking changes in constellation, a season, a yearly cycle, a time period, and so on. So time does not stand still even for an instant. It is labeled a half second when a bit of the past and a bit of the future are combined into one. Similarly, past and future combined together into one are labeled a day and a night. Therefore, a time “established in and of itself” does not exist in the past, the future, or the present, which are things that do not stand still.

4.133Even if you say that time is contingently established, and contingent on the past there is a future and present, and similarly, contingent on the present there are the other two times, and so on, if the two times‍—the present and the future‍—exist contingent on the past, then, when it is the past, the present and the future will be there as well. [F.59.b] If both the present and the future are not there in the past, they are not contingent on it. If both present and future are there in the past, since they are both there, they are both the past. Similarly, if the two‍—the present and the past‍—are contingent on the future, both the present and the past will be there in the future, and if they are not there they will not be contingent on it. If those two are there in the future, then they both become the future as well. Similarly, if the two‍—the past and the future‍—are contingent on the present, both the past and the future will be here in the present, and if they are not here, they will not be contingent on it. And if those two, the past and the future, are here at the present time, then they are both here and are therefore both the present as well.

Therefore, time is still just one.

4.134So, they think in these and other ways that ultimately no “prior limit, later limit, or the midpoint” dharmas exist at all. The Lord teaches that they are ordinary conventions. This is the

“emptiness of what transcends limits.”

4.135Again, the bodhisattvas think, “If all dharmas are empty, how could the Lord have said saṃsāra does exist: ‘Saṃsāra is long for fools’; ‘Bhikṣus, this saṃsāra has no beginning or end’? Thus, he did say it exists, and since it does, those who are in saṃsāra exist, and based on that, therefore, all dharmas exist as well.” They then determine as follows: There is no dharma called saṃsāra at all. And why? Because it “has no beginning or end.” Were there to be a dharma called saṃsāra , its beginning [F.60.a] would exist and its end would exist. No dharma with a beginning and end is to be seen at all. And the lord has said, “No prior limit appears.”

4.136If you say both a beginning and an end have been refuted but a middle has not been refuted, so a middle exists, that is not right, because how could there be a middle of something that does not have a beginning or an end? A “middle” exists contingent on a beginning and an end.

4.137But why, if there is no dharma called saṃsāra in some other form in which beings are going through life after life, did the Lord say, “Bhikṣus! This saṃsāra has no beginning and no end because no beginning limit appears. Beings obscured by ignorance and bound by craving wander in saṃsāra”?

4.138Again, the response is as follows: Being in saṃsāra is itself ultimately not tenable. If somebody is in saṃsāra, is the saṃsāra to be counted as permanent or impermanent? If it is permanent, it is not feasible that somebody is in saṃsāra, because it would be unchanging. Even if it is impermanent, it is not feasible that somebody is in saṃsāra, because each of the instants have perished and are no longer what they were, and the second instant arises as something quite other, so how could there be a saṃsāra there? Hence saṃsāra is the label given to the unbroken flow of compounded phenomena existing as an extended series of productions and cessations. This is the

“emptiness of no beginning and no end.”

4.139Again, the bodhisattvas think, “Even though saṃsāra cannot be apprehended, when dharmas have been transformed, ‘nirvāṇa’ exists. You cannot say the truth of cessation does not exist because the Lord has explicitly taught it with, ‘Bhikṣus, the unproduced, unmade, unoriginated, uncompounded exists,’ and so on. Hence nonrepudiation exists.” Take “the repudiated” [F.60.b] as the five aggregates, because they are to be repudiated and they are to be made nonexistent. In the sacred words of the Tathāgata Kāśyapa the label the repudiated is given to the five aggregates. And now as well “the one suffering existence to be repudiated” and “the five suffering existences to be repudiated” are explained. The thing to be repudiated not being there is called nonrepudiation . Where the aggregates will have stopped is called nonrepudiation . Hence it is cessation.

4.140The bodhisattvas then determine as follows: It is not correct that there is any “nonrepudiation” phenomenon at all. The nonexistence of the aggregates is nonrepudiation , and that nonexistence of the aggregates is the nirvāṇa without any aggregates remaining, characterized as the nonexistence of everything. So you cannot make a presentation of it in any way in the form of some other phenomenon. Hence the expression nonexistent thing is an expression synonymous with nirvāṇa , cessation, all compounded phenomena at peace, nonrepudiation , and so on.

4.141But if nirvāṇa does not exist how will compounded phenomena not arise? Therefore, the dharma that counteracts the recurrence of compounded phenomena is nirvāṇa.

4.142That is not tenable either. How could there ever be compounded phenomena that have passed into nirvāṇa? If compounded phenomena do pass into nirvāṇa, it must be reckoned some permanent or impermanent thing is passing into nirvāṇa. If you say “something permanent is passing into nirvāṇa,” that is untenable. Something permanent never changes, and there is no need for it to pass into nirvāṇa.

4.143If you say “something impermanent is passing into nirvāṇa,” it would be impermanent; therefore, since it would have been destroyed it would not arise again. And passing into nirvāṇa does nothing to an entity that does not arise. And even if you say that nirvāṇa acts to counteract the other compounded phenomena that are the cause of its arising, they are also not there. [F.61.a] It is the fire of the extraordinary path that burns the seed of the tree of ignorance into an entity that will not arise again. Not arising in its nature‍—that is labeled nirvāṇa . And if even in the śrāvaka system there is no “nirvāṇa” at all in the form of some other dharma, it goes without saying there is none in the emptiness system. This realization is the

“emptiness of nonrepudiation.”

4.144Again, the bodhisattvas think, “If all attributes are empty it is untenable that, based on the behaviors and thoughts, instincts, interests, dispositions, and personality types‍— needy and so on‍—constituting the basic nature of beings, the knowledge of various dispositions, the knowledge of various interests, the knowledge of various basic personalities and so on that are the special attributes of a buddha become operational attributes. Therefore, those attributes of a basic nature ultimately exist.”

4.145The bodhisattvas then determine as follows: It is not right to describe them as attributes like that in the form of something quite other, because they are particular periods in a being’s continuum. They cannot be established as different or not different from the beings. Therefore this‍—thinking that such hypostatized attributes do not exist‍—is the

“emptiness of a basic nature.”

4.146Again, the bodhisattvas think, “If all things are nonexistent, how can those attributes of them‍—impermanence, suffering, selflessness, and so on‍—exist? It is impossible to have an attribute without an attribute possessor. Thus, all compounded things are impermanent; all things with outflows are suffering; all things are selfless, and when that perfect knowledge of reality is seen and attained, [F.61.b] freedom from the suffering of all existences is established.”

4.147The bodhisattvas then determine as follows: The impermanence attribute and so on cannot be the ultimate attribute. How could an ultimate attribute be impermanent, arise, and be destroyed? An attribute that changes and transforms cannot be an “ultimate.” Just that which is true, that which is unmistaken, is their ultimate. Therefore the ultimate does not change and nothing inheres in it.

4.148Similarly, if an attribute in the form of suffering that serves as an ultimate were to exist then suffering would be permanent. And in that case, because the permanent suffering would always be there, ordinary or extraordinary happiness would never arise again.

4.149Similarly, if a “selfless” attribute existed as the ultimate then selflessness would inhere in all things and they would become permanent. And were they to have become so, “liberation” would not be a state to be accomplished. Therefore, these basic natures of imaginary phenomena are just imaginary. The emptiness of all dharmas is not something that can be examined. Hence this is the

“emptiness of all dharmas.”

4.150Again, the bodhisattvas think, “Even if, for the time being, impermanence and so on do not, as general characterizing marks, exist, still those marks particular to something‍—‘easily breakable,’ ‘seeable’ that is the mark of a form or physical object, ‘experience’ that is the mark of feeling, and so on‍—do exist. Since they exist, form and so on also exist.”

4.151They then determine as follows: Are these marks different from the bases of the marks or not different? If they are not different, it is not correct that “just that is the mark, and just that is the basis of the marks,” because if the basis of a mark is not established, [F.62.a] the mark is not different than that and hence is not established. How could it be established as its mark?

4.152If they are different, then the following investigation has to be pursued: Does the mark exist before the basis of the mark, or does it come about afterward, or are they there at the same time?

4.153If the mark is there before the basis of the mark, then of what, in the absence of the basis of the mark, is it the mark? If just a mark without a basis exists there before, then later on it will be without a basis as well.

4.154If the basis of the mark is there before and the mark comes about later, in that case the basis of the mark comes about without a mark before the mark is there, so why would it not be without a mark afterward as well? If the basis of the mark without a mark is already there before, later when it gets the mark, having come about without cause that mark will serve no function at all.

4.155If the basis of the mark and the mark have come about at the same time, then that is a new discovery indeed‍—a basis of the mark that is different from the mark, and a mark that is different from the basis of the mark. So how could the bifurcation “this is the mark; this is the basis of the mark” be right? Therefore, the marks of imaginary dharmas are just falsely imagined, and hence unable to bear ultimate scrutiny. This is the

“emptiness of its own mark.”

4.156Again, the bodhisattvas think, “If all attributes cannot be apprehended, in that case an attribute that cannot be apprehended in the form of something quite other would exist. If that which cannot be apprehended is taken to be nonexistent then all attributes can be apprehended. Therefore, what cannot be apprehended does exist.”

4.157They then determine as follows: It is not correct that an attribute that cannot be apprehended in the form of something quite other exists. If the attribute called “cannot be apprehended” in the form of something quite other exists, [F.62.b] an apprehending apart from that which cannot be apprehended would also exist. On account of that, that which cannot be apprehended would become an apprehended entity. And that is unsuitable because it stands negated‍—to be itself apprehended and to be itself something that cannot be apprehended is a contradiction. And even if it is thought, in regard to what cannot be apprehended, that apprehending is not there, in that case what cannot be apprehended also, because it cannot be apprehended, is just nonexistent. Therefore there is no apprehending of “an attribute that ‘cannot be apprehended’ in the form of something quite other exists”; rather, given the fact that attributes cannot be apprehended, that is merely labeling “it cannot be apprehended” onto this or that. Therefore, this is the

“emptiness of not apprehending.”

4.158Again, the bodhisattvas think, “It has been explained that

“all dharmas are in their intrinsic nature nonexistent things,”

so the intrinsic nature of a ‘nonexistent thing’ as it pertains to every dharma has to be searched for. Therefore, because it is established as being in its intrinsic nature a nonexistent thing, a dharma ‘in its intrinsic nature a nonexistent thing’ exists. But if it is thought, ‘If dharmas are things that are nonexistent in their nature, then one would be saying “dharmas do not exist,” and what gain would there be in that?’ it is not so. There is a great gain because, when it has been accepted that ‘all falsely imagined dharmas are nonexistent in each and every way,’ it is being said that just those falsely imagined dharmas are there as the intrinsic nature of nonexistent things, so it becomes an explanation of the existence of one side of dharmas.”

4.159They then determine as follows: What is the meaning of this statement, “all dharmas are in their intrinsic nature nonexistent things” ? This “all dharmas” teaches falsely imagined dharmas and thoroughly established dharmas. Among these, falsely imagined dharmas do not exist, so it is said they are “in their intrinsic nature absolutely nonexistent things.” [F.63.a] Thoroughly established dharmas are suchness in the aspect of existent things when they have been stopped. So, taking “nonexistent thing” in this sense, it says “in its intrinsic nature a nonexistent thing.”

4.160An “existent thing” is so called because it has come into being. Hence a compounded phenomenon is called an “existent thing.” When it has stopped, that which is the inexpressible aspect of private self-awareness is called “the intrinsic nature when there is no existent thing,” taught as “suchness.”

4.161In that way, with just this, the existence and the nonexistence of all dharmas have been explained. And because the Lord has said,

“They see perfectly that that in which something does not exist is empty of it, they know perfectly about that which is still left over in it, that ‘it is here,’ ”

therefore the characteristic mark of all dharmas‍—that they are in their intrinsic nature nonexistent‍—is absolutely not realized. This is

“the emptiness of the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.”

“The suchness of all dharmas, the suchness of the dharma-constituent, and the suchness of the very limit of reality”‍—

it is true that suchness is always one. Nevertheless, it is presented as three in reference to its different bases: at the level of the knowledge of path aspects, at the level of the knowledge of all aspects, and at the all-knowledge level. The thoroughly established nature of any outer or inner dharma is “the suchness of all dharmas,” for example the suchness of a shape, the suchness of a sound, the suchness of a smell, and so on. The dharma body of all buddhas, the transformed tathāgata­garbha , is the second “suchness of the dharma-constituent” because it is the basis of all the buddhadharmas. The śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha nirvāṇa without remaining aggregates is “the suchness that is the very limit of reality.” That is what is being talked about where it says [F.63.b]

“ ‘I should not actualize the very limit of reality,’ ”

“or ‘do not appropriate’ a life in saṃsāra,”

and

“but still do not actualize the very limit of reality.”

4.163Furthermore, it speaks about the earlier “suchness of all dharmas” to teach that it is comprehended at the eighth level as effortlessly without conceptualization. As for this, it should be understood as being spoken about to teach the level when the end has been reached.

“Want to know how many tiny particles of earth there are”

teaches, according to The Ten Bhūmis, the special qualities of the operation of knowledge on the tiny particles and so on.

“Want to blunt with the tip of one finger”‍—

just like walls and so on that have blunted the force of the wind, the single tip of a finger blunts the shaking wind that pervades all world regions as does a wall and so on.

“Want their single cross-legged posture to expand into and fill up…”‍—

they want their posture to cover space, expanding into it and filling it up.

“With a single alms bowl”

means with what they eat at one time, with what they eat at the proper time.

“How, Lord… when bodhisattva great beings are giving a gift?”

“How do they complete the six perfections with the perfection of giving alone?”

“The perfection of concentration… because of not being distracted and not constructing any ideas”‍—

because they are not distracted when they give a gift and then do not construct any idea about it they therefore complete the perfection of concentration.

“The perfection of wisdom… by way of not apprehending the knowledge of all dharmas”

is saying that they know all phenomena with wisdom so they do not apprehend.

“The flesh eye, divine eye,”

and so on‍—the flesh eye is the form body eye. The divine eye knows all meditative stabilizations, absorptions, and clairvoyances. [F.64.a] The wisdom eye knows the knowledge of a knower of all. The Dharma eye knows the path wherever it goes, higher and lower faculties, various dispositions, and various constituents. The knowledge of a worthy one’s path included in the vajropama meditative stabilization is the buddha eye.

“Moreover, Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings who want to hear the entire doctrine that the lord buddhas in all world systems in all ten directions explain, and having heard it take it up perfectly by applying the power of memory uninterruptedly, and who do not want any to be lost up until they awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening should train in the perfection of wisdom.”

This passage is self-explanatory.

“Blinding darkness”‍—

the regions between worlds are “blinding.”

They want the greatnesses of buddhas

“Want to train in the tathāgatas’ way of carrying themselves”‍—

it says this because the secrets of the body are within the range of those who have attained the tenth level.

“Look down as an elephant looks”‍—

this is the gaze of holy beings. They do not look up at what is above, look down at what is below, look to the sides at what is to the right or left, twist their neck to look at what is behind, concentrate to look at what is far off, or look without concentrating at what is close by. This says that however they are carrying themselves and however they are looking, they “look down as an elephant looks” because they look at all beings and all dharmas in all world systems.

4.176It is said that

“walk, stand, sit”

are the three ways they carry themselves when at the site of awakening; and

“lie down”

is when they pass into the great complete nirvāṇa. At both those times the ordinary earth cannot shake.

4.177What would the fault be if all the earth [F.64.b] on which the Tathāgata trod were to have

“become all diamond?”

4.178It is because the five sorts of sense objects would not come about:

“in order to brings beings to maturity… taking to the five sorts of sense objects.”

4.179It is true that bodhisattvas on the eighth level, like worthy ones, are totally

“without afflictions,”

and hence without even the faintest habituation to afflictive emotion, so they could never

“make use of”

the five sorts of sense objects. Nevertheless, our Bodhisattva,

“skilled”

in the ways of gathering a retinue, in order to gather beings through the consistency between his words and deeds magically produces duplicates of himself for each of twenty-four thousand women and thrills them all. Hence, he made a show of Yaśodharā and the other twenty-four thousand women and the nine thousand dancers together with their many attendants, and he made a show of old age, sickness, and death‍—there is nothing he did not do among the gods and Brahmās, bringing them to maturity in the three vehicles. Therefore, he made a show of using sense objects in order to bring beings to maturity. Thus, it says,

“Then the Bodhisattva had this thought:

4.182“But still, having made an analysis and realized the skillful means, looking to bring beings to maturity he felt great compassion and at that time pronounced this verse:

4.184Qualm: If his enjoyment of sexual pleasure is not true, then it is a lie to say Rāhula is his son.

It is not a lie, because “son” is said not only of someone born from a womb on account of the enjoyment of sexual pleasure. There are also those born miraculously. Holy Rāhula, furthermore, was a bodhisattva great being who made a show of gestating in the womb because there was a purpose in doing so.

The second chapter, Production of the Thought.

The “thought” here should be taken as wanting. It says “Production of the Thought chapter” to teach that wanting has arisen for all the qualities of a bodhisattva and all the qualities of a buddha.

[B6]

How bodhisattvas endeavor

4.186Having thus taught, in response to “why bodhisattvas endeavor,” that they have to endeavor to train in this now, in response to “how bodhisattvas endeavor,” in the passage,

Venerable Śāriputra having thus inquired, the Lord said to him, “Śāriputra, here bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not, even while they are bodhisattvas, see a bodhisattva. They do not see even the word bodhisattva . They do not see awakening either, and they do not see the perfection of wisdom. They do not see that ‘they practice,’ and they do not see that ‘they do not practice.’ They also do not see that ‘while practicing they practice and while not practicing do not practice,’ and they also do not see that ‘they do not practice, and do not not practice as well.’ They do not see form. [F.65.b] Similarly, they do not see feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness either,”

and so on, it teaches that they have to endeavor at practicing this. Śāriputra’s question,

“Lord, how then should bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom?”

about the threefold dharma‍—the bodhisattva, the perfection of wisdom, and the practice of it‍—is posed in a mode together with apprehending and with causal signs.

4.188Then, to eliminate those ways of apprehending, the Lord, by teaching three ways of not apprehending a bodhisattva, not apprehending the perfection of wisdom, and four ways of not apprehending practice speaks about the emptiness of not apprehending. The three absences of apprehending of a bodhisattva are not apprehending a bodhisattva , not apprehending a name, and not apprehending awakening.

4.189As for “even while they are bodhisattvas,” this is to stop the extreme of over-negation because there are true-dharmic-nature bodhisattvas. They “do not… see a bodhisattva” because of not apprehending a bodhisattva. “They do not see even the word” that is falsely imagined in nature. “They do not see awakening either,” because, apart from the transformation of the basis, a phenomenon with the name awakening does not exist. “And they do not see the perfection of wisdom,” because, apart from the pure dharma-constituent, a perfection of wisdom dharma does not exist. “They also do not see that ‘they practice’ ” because there is nothing to be done for all the qualities. “And they do not see that ‘they do not practice,’ ” because even though action has been taken as nonexistent, there is a purification of the dharma-constituent. “They also do not see that ‘while practicing they practice and while not practicing they do not practice,’ ” [F.66.a] that is, they do not, having combined them into one, see both, because those exact same two faults occur. “And they also do not see that ‘they do not practice, and do not not practice as well,’ ” because, even though the nonexistence as the two like that has been stated, that mental image of the nonexistence as the two is a mental image that does not exist, so they do not see it.

4.190Having thus earlier taught that a bodhisattva does not exist on account of the emptiness of a person, now on account of the emptiness of the dharmas it teaches, “They do not see form. Similarly, they do not see feeling,” and so on. Therefore one does not exist in the form of the five aggregates either.

4.191Having taught that such options for practice cannot be apprehended, with

“and why?”

it teaches the reason why. In order to teach that “the name bodhisattva ” and so on cannot be apprehended, and the “emptiness” of that can be apprehended, it says

“the name bodhisattva is empty of the intrinsic nature of a name. The name bodhisattva is not empty because of emptiness,”

and so on. Thus, the name bodhisattva is falsely imagined and they do not exist with that falsely imagined intrinsic nature, but that which is the emptiness that is the nonexistence, that does exist. Therefore, that “name bodhisattva is not empty because of emptiness.” This avoids the extremes of over-reification and over-negation.

Hence, it teaches that the name bodhisattva does not exist on account of the intrinsic nature of the name.

“The perfection of wisdom, too,”

does not exist in the form of a falsely imagined dharma. It does exist in the form of the pure dharma-constituent. The aggregates also do not exist on account of the intrinsic nature of the aggregates, but they do exist on account of the intrinsic nature that is the nonexistence of the aggregates.

4.193Someone might still doubt this, so it says, “And why?” and teaches the reason.

What is the doubt? It is that if all those dharmas do not exist on account of the intrinsic nature of the dharmas, [F.66.b] but do exist on account of the intrinsic nature of the emptinesses, then “the dharmas exist” would become a fact, and since just those that are “the dharmas that exist” would be sufficient, what is the use of saying they are emptinesses or anything else? It says,

“Because the emptiness of the name bodhisattva is not the name bodhisattva …”

4.194What does this teach? You cannot say, “The name bodhisattva is one thing and emptiness is another, so, because emptiness exists, therefore the name bodhisattva exists as well.” Similarly, you cannot say, “A bodhisattva is one thing and emptiness is another, so, because emptiness exists, a bodhisattva exists as well.” Construe the others like that also.

4.195Having taught that, it addresses the doubt of others who think, “If emptiness is one thing and a dharma another, then the true nature of a dharma will be different than the dharma, and the dharma will be different than the true nature of the dharma, and that is not correct.” It says

“and there is no name bodhisattva apart from emptiness.”

This means the emptiness of the name bodhisattva is not something other than the name bodhisattva , so the dharma is not something other than the true nature of the dharma.

4.196Others still doubt this, thinking that if a dharma does not differ from emptiness, and if emptiness exists, in that case the dharma will exist as well. It says

“the name bodhisattva itself is emptiness.”

Just that thoroughly established name bodhisattva , free from a falsely imagined nature, is itself emptiness, and there is no “emptiness” other than that.

“And emptiness is the name bodhisattva as well”

is the conclusion. This means that because the name bodhisattva is to be used for this, the thoroughly established nature, it is not to be used for the imaginary, [F.67.a] so only “emptiness is the name bodhisattva .” Similarly, construe “bodhisattva” and “awakening” with that in the same way as well.

The emptiness of the bodhisattva is not the bodhisattva. There is no bodhisattva apart from emptiness. The bodhisattva is emptiness. Emptiness is the bodhisattva as well.

Thus, in this explanation, earlier it has said that “a bodhisattva is empty of the intrinsic nature of a bodhisattva, but… not empty because of emptiness.” Were it to have said that bodhisattvas exist with emptiness as their intrinsic nature, in that case it would have said that bodhisattvas just exist. So, it says “the emptiness of the bodhisattva is not the bodhisattva.” What it means to say is that the imaginary bodhisattva differs from emptiness so it does not have the fault.

4.199It says this, and then to someone who says that if a dharma and the true nature of a dharma are different, the true nature of a dharma would be something else, it says “there is no bodhisattva apart from emptiness,” which is to say, the thoroughly established bodhisattva is not other than emptiness. With “the bodhisattva is emptiness,” it has taught just that. It means the bodhisattva is emptiness. And again, “emptiness is the bodhisattva as well” is the conclusion. This means the thoroughly established bodhisattva and emptiness are not different.

Construe all similarly.

4.200Having said that others still entertain doubt, so it says

“and why?”

and teaches the reason. To someone who thinks, “If a bodhisattva and emptiness are not even slightly different bodhisattvas would be in their intrinsic nature emptiness, and hence [F.67.b] there would be no bodhisattvas,” it says,

“because this‍—namely, bodhisattva ‍—is just a name,”

and so on. Just that is exactly what we accept.

4.201It means this: When, given that they thus exist, you say that “they exist,” and you can suppose that “they” are the bodhisattva, the name bodhisattva , or the awakening, and so on. They all are nonexistent, which is to say imaginary phenomena are simply

“just names.”

“And because this‍—namely, emptiness ‍—is just a name”‍—

when you think emptiness exists and investigate, even that is just a name; it does not exist in its intrinsic nature.

4.203It is still not possible to be certain about this, so it says

“why?”

and teaches the reason. Someone may think that if those dharmas do not exist how could what does not exist have the appearance of production and stopping? How could terrible forms of life decrease and good forms of life increase? Why would there be defilement before and purification afterward? To them, it says

“because where there is no intrinsic nature there is no production, stopping, decrease, increase, defilement, or purification.”

4.204Given that all dharmas are without an intrinsic nature, if the intrinsic natures of the name bodhisattva and so on, up to those of feeling , perception , volitional factors , and consciousness , ultimately exist, how could they have “production, stopping, decrease, increase, defilement, and purification”?

4.205If there is thus one intrinsic nature, do you suppose it is a falsely imagined intrinsic nature, or is it a thoroughly established intrinsic nature?

Of those, a falsely imagined nature is absolutely nonexistent, like an illusion and so on. Just as there is no production [F.68.a] of illusory forms and so on when they appear, and no stopping when they do not appear, no decrease when they have turned into one, and no increase when they have turned into many, and just as there is not the slightest defilement or purification in them, similarly with imaginary natures. Because they are absolutely nonexistent they have no production, stopping, decrease, increase, defilement, or purification.

4.206Even awakening, the thoroughly established entity, is, moreover, absolutely isolated, and is beyond all imagination and like space, so it too is not produced and it also does not stop. It does not decrease and it does not increase. Because it is absolutely pure it has no defilement, and because it is pure in its intrinsic nature it has no purification.

“And why?”

“ Form is like an illusion, feeling is like an illusion,”

and so on explains. It explains, furthermore, in two parts: the nonexistence of the illusion, and the nonexistence of a grasper-subject consciousness in an illusion.

“And an illusion is just a name that does not reside somewhere, does not reside in a particular place”

teaches that an illusion is imaginary and therefore does not exist.

“The sight of an illusion is mistaken and does not exist”

teaches that consciousness does not exist.

4.210There, “does not reside somewhere” teaches that the illusion is not marked as having form, because dharmas having forms do not reside anywhere. “Does not reside in a particular place” teaches that it is not marked as formless, because dharmas marked as formless such as consciousness and so on do not reside anywhere, but still, because they are designated as residing where there are the eyes and so on, they reside in a particular place. It “is mistaken” teaches that it is not true. It “does not exist” teaches that it is marked as a nonexistent thing. [F.68.b]

“And is devoid of an intrinsic nature”

teaches that it does not exist in its intrinsic nature.

“Bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom like that do not see production,”

and so on,

“in any dharma at all”

teaches that they understand analytically that a bodhisattva is like an illusion. There, in a falsely imagined phenomenon the two‍—

“production… stopping”‍—

do not exist because they are simply just appearance and nonappearance; in a dependent phenomenon the two‍—

“decrease… increase”‍—

do not exist because they are simply just imagined; and in a thoroughly established phenomenon the two‍—

“defilement… purification”‍—

do not exist because they are simply just in their basic nature a state of purity. Thus all phenomena do not exist in their intrinsic nature.

4.214But still, in order to eliminate a doubt, it says,

“And why? Because names are made up.”

Those names and causal signs of the aggregates‍—

“ form , feeling, perception,”

and so on‍—are made up and do not exist on account of their own intrinsic natures. Therefore, it should be understood that all phenomena have no intrinsic nature, because an intrinsic nature would not be made up.

4.215As for a made-up state, that is taught by

“those interdependent dharmas, they are imagined,”

and so on.

4.216This means those phenomena based on conceptualized causes and conceptualized conditions that are imagined like this or like that, which are called dependent originations . Therefore, it is teaching the following: If those phenomena are contingent on something else, then they come about through the power of something else; they do not come about through their own power, in which case how could they be an intrinsic nature? Therefore, since they are without their own existence, they have an existence from something else, so it is established that all dharmas do not have their own intrinsic nature. Therefore, it is said that “the meaning of the absence of an intrinsic nature is the meaning of dependent origination.”

4.217Furthermore, to teach that verbal designations come from imaginary names as causes; [F.69.a] that settling down on those as real happens because of the force of the verbal designations; that the mental construction of the causes of the names happens because of the force of settling down on them as real; that verbal designations again come because of the force of that; and that yet again settling down on those as real happens because of the force of the verbal designations, that is to say, to teach that they come about in such a sequence, it says

“names plucked out of thin air working subsequently as conventional labels,”

and so on. Because they are “plucked out” based not on an intrinsic nature but on “thin air,” they are “subsequently… conventional labels,” expressions from other “names,” conventional terms‍—that is to say, this teaches verbal designations. And again,

“just as they are subsequently conventionally labeled, so too are they settled down on as real”

teaches that they are the cause of settling down on them as real. This means that settling down on “just this is the inherent existence of dharmas” comes about through the force of the ignorance and so on that has come about through the force of the expression having become ingrained.

4.218Having taught the incorrect attention of foolish beings, it teaches the stages of the correct attention of bodhisattvas with,

“when bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom do not see any of those names as inherently existing,”

and so on. “Any… names” are imaginary names and causal signs. Because they are plucked out of thin air, “they do not see” them “as inherently existing”;

“because they do not see them, they do not settle down on them as real”;

and because they have no intrinsic nature, they are simply just mistakes.

4.219After that,

“moreover, Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom think,”

and so on, teaches the correct attention in detail. They understand analytically that the person

“ bodhisattvas ,”

the dharma

“awakening,”

the person

“the awakened one,”

the dharmas

“the perfection of wisdom … form,”

and so on‍—[F.69.b] the names for the dharmas‍—and even the name bodhisattva , are simply just names.

4.220For that there is also an explanation with an example:

“For example, Śāriputra, ‘self’ is said again and again,”

and so on. This means that even though a self can be apprehended conventionally, ultimately it is an emptiness, so it

“cannot be apprehended”

because the mark of something that cannot be apprehended is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature. Then it also sums up what corresponds to the example with,

“Similarly, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom also…,”

and so on. They

“do not see”

the fivefold dharmas of the bodhisattvas, and so on. Because they do not see those, the causes do not exist, so

“they do not see even the names”

and causal signs. Because they do not see those, the causes do not exist, so they do not

“settle down on them as real.”

“Because they do not see what would make them settle down on them as real”

teaches that because settling down on them as real does not exist, they do not apprehend even the cause of settling down on them as real. They do not see the conventional term for a causal sign, or the causal sign on account of which the mind imagining the unreal settles down, or the mind.

4.223Having thus taught the practice that cannot be apprehended, it then teaches what is in harmony with that as its cause, with

“setting aside the wisdom of a tathāgata, [they]… surpass the wisdom of all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.”

4.224Then, to arouse enthusiasm in that retinue of trainees by teaching the greatnesses of bodhisattvas who have set forth into this practice that cannot be apprehended, it teaches their exceptional status with,

“To illustrate, Śāriputra, if this Jambudvīpa were filled with monks similar in worth to Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana,”

and so on.

“A thicket of naḍa reeds, or a thicket of bamboo, or a thicket of sugarcane, or a thicket of rushes, or a thicket of rice, or a thicket of sesame” [F.70.a]

teaches only types that are inferior because they are inferior to trees, creepers, and so on, which are attractive. They are, furthermore, of three types: extremely attractive and extremely tall, middling attractive and middling tall, and least attractive and least tall. Among these, the two‍—naḍa reeds and rushes‍—are extremely attractive and extremely tall. It gives the sugarcane and bamboo in the middle because they are inferior to those and hence middling. It sets forth the rice and sesame last because they are thinner than those, hence inferior. Furthermore, among these, of the two, the rushes and the naḍa reeds, it teaches naḍa reeds first because they are hollow inside and have a lot of thorns and are themselves extremely attractive. “Rushes” teaches the species in general. Furthermore, it teaches the sugarcane before rushes because, of the two, the rushes and the sugarcane, rushes cannot stand up to even just the better and more attractive leaves of the sugarcane. And again, of the two, the rice and the sesame, it mentions rice earlier because it is bigger and more attractive than sesame.

“would not approach … even by a hundredth part, nor by a thousandth part, nor by a hundred thousandth part; it would not stand up to any number, or fraction, or counting, or analogy, or comparison.”

When you conclusively explain these differences, they are of four sorts: part, number, analogy, and something to do with cause and effect. Among these, from “a hundredth part” up to “a hundred thousandth part” teaches that śrāvaka wisdom does not become an object for comparison even when the bodhisattvas’ knowledge has been cut into parts; “any number, or fraction, or counting” teaches that it cannot be counted in numbers; “or analogy” teaches that there is no possible analogy for it; and “or comparison” teaches that it is not suitable to be something to do with cause and effect.

4.227There, in “even one hundredth part,” a “part,” a “bit,” and a “branch” are the same. It means

“the wisdom”

of those monks does not stand up to even a fraction of

“the wisdom of a bodhisattva”

even if it has been divided up into one hundred parts, one thousand parts, or even a hundred thousand parts. [F.70.b]

4.228Again, a numerical counting is of three types.

That which comes within the range of the words one, two, three, up to a hundred thousand, is a number counted in words. “Number” teaches that.

4.229A part is a calculation, a derivation, an addition, or a subtraction, and so on, performed on that which has become an object of the word for a particular number, or a calculation by reduction or by laying out cowrie shells and so on, or by hand. “Part” teaches that.

4.230Those from one hundred million billion, up to a number with no number above it, on which such calculation cannot be carried out and which are counted only through the power of clairvoyance, are a count. “Counting” teaches that.

4.231Similarly, some things are not the same in all essentials, but are roughly similar in some respects. It is suitable to ascertain what it is from that: for example, “a water buffalo is like a bull.” Because nothing like it exists, it says “or analogy.”

4.232It is similar even with something taken as an extremely different thing: because it cannot be inferred like an awareness of fire from seeing smoke, it says it does not bear “comparison.”

4.233The four continents are the four continents, and a thousand of those is the “one thousand.” A thousand of those is the “millionfold.” A thousand of those is the “billionfold.” With its girdle of a hundred ten million mountains, it is the “billionfold.”

“As many… as there are sand particles in the Gaṅgā River”

is said to be a particular number.

4.234Having thus taught the greatness of a bodhisattva’s wisdom,

“venerable Śāriputra,”

knowing how some in the retinue think, asks a question to remove their doubt with,

“Lord, the wisdom of śrāvaka stream enterers,” [F.71.a]

and so on.

“All those wisdoms are not broken apart; they are a detachment, are not produced, and are empty of an intrinsic nature.”

Doubt arises in beings, thinking that the wisdoms of them all, in the form of a fundamental transformation, are nonconceptual and extraordinary. Because they are in the form of a unity they are “not broken apart”; because they are in the form of a purity they are “a detachment”; because they are in the form of an uncompounded phenomenon they are “not produced”; and because they are free from an intrinsic nature that is the imagination of the unreal, they are “empty of an intrinsic nature.”

“Variation”‍—

things that are just plucked out of thin air under the power of causes and conditions are the variety.

“Distinction”

is from having different intrinsic natures.

“So how, Lord, could…”

is asking how, given that the wisdoms have the same intrinsic nature, could it be right that one surpasses another?

4.239With

“what do you think, Śāriputra,”

and so on, the Lord teaches that there are no distinctions in that intrinsic nature, but still, because of the force of an earlier prayer that is a vow there is a different cause and there is a different result. The cause, furthermore, is threefold: intention, practice, and work. The results are two: complete awakening and turning the wheel of the Dharma. There,

“furnished with the best of all aspects”

teaches the greatness of motivation;

“practicing the knowledge of all aspects”

teaches the greatness of practice; and

“working for the welfare of all beings”

teaches the greatness of work.

“Having fully awakened to all dharmas in all forms”

teaches a feature of the result‍—complete awakening;

“lead all beings to complete nirvāṇa”

teaches turning the wheel of the Dharma.

4.241Then [F.71.b] there are three connected sections of teachings: a section to do with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas not having the bodhisattvas’ earlier prayer that is a vow, a section to do with them not having the cause-and-effect prayer that is a vow, and a section to do with a bodhisattva having both.

4.242There, the section teaching not having the earlier prayer is the passage from,

“What do you think, Śāriputra, do all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas think, ‘We must, having fully awakened to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening,’ ”

4.243and so on, up to

“hence it surpasses the wisdom of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.”

4.244The bodhisattvas’ earlier prayer that is a vow is in the form of wisdom and compassion, so, taking hold of complete awakening with wisdom and taking hold of beings with compassion, it operates with the twofold nature in “I must, having become awakened, awaken others too.” Hence in this section to do with the earlier prayer is a teaching about complete awakening and leading beings to complete nirvāṇa.

4.245Then, the section teaching not having the cause-and-effect prayer is the passage from,

“What do you think, Śāriputra, do all these śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas think, ‘We must, having practiced the six perfections,’ ”

and so on, up to

“ ‘lead infinite, countless beings beyond measure to complete nirvāṇa.’ ”

4.246This section teaches six things: four causes‍—the work that brings personal maturity, brings beings to maturity, purifies a buddhafield, and brings the buddhadharmas to maturity‍—and two results: complete awakening and beings who are in complete nirvāṇa. The prayer that is a vow during the time of practice comes next.

4.247The section teaching that bodhisattvas have them both [F.72.a] is the passage from,

“Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being thinks…,”

and so on, up to

“lead infinite, countless beings beyond measure to complete nirvāṇa.”

4.248After that it teaches about śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, using the analogy of

“fireflies,”

and then teaches about bodhisattvas, using the analogy of

“the sun”

dawning. The teaching of the topic in this section of the text with the two analogies is clear, so there is no need to teach what it means. Again, after that, to remove the retinue’s doubts, the venerable Śāriputra asks three questions, beginning with,

“How, Lord, do bodhisattva great beings, having passed…,”

and so on: How do they stand, having passed beyond the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha levels; how do they stand, having reached the irreversible level; and how do they stand while purifying the awakening path? Then the Lord teaches that from

“their first”‍—

on the Pramuditā level‍—

“production of the thought onward”

after passing beyond the first uncountable eon, their conceptualization of

“emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness”

that are the marks of all

“dharmas”

causes them to pass

“beyond the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha level”;

having passed beyond those to reach

“the irreversible”

eighth

“level”;

and with

“the [six] perfections”

that come to maturity, purify the awakening path.

4.251Then the venerable Śāriputra is of two minds about whether the moment they pass beyond the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha level they become worthy of their offerings or whether it is at some other time, so he makes an inquiry with,

“Standing on which level, Lord, do bodhisattva [great beings],”

and so on. Then the Lord, with

“in the interval from their first production of the thought,”

and so on, teaches that they are worthy of their offerings the moment they reach the Pramuditā level. It teaches the reason for that with,

“Because Śāriputra, it is thanks to bodhisattva great beings that all wholesome dharmas appear in the world,”

and so on. [F.72.b]

4.253Then there are three sections that teach those dharmas: the section teaching wholesome dharmas with and without outflows, the section teaching the maturation of the wholesome with outflows, and the section teaching the maturation of the wholesome without outflows. In regard to the section teaching wholesome dharmas with and without outflows there are three sections: teaching the dharmas of householders, male lay practitioners, and female lay practitioners; teaching the dharmas of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; and teaching the dharmas of buddhas.

“The ten wholesome actions, the morality with five branches, the morality with eight branches”‍—

those three dharmas are morality, and the dharmas of male lay practitioners, and female lay practitioners. Those starting with

“the concentrations”

and ending with

“the path”

are the dharmas of śrāvakas. The dharmas starting with

“the perfections”

and ending with the

“distinct attributes of a buddha”

are the dharmas of buddhas.

4.255Then,

“because those wholesome dharmas appear in the world, there are great sāla tree-like royal families in the world,”

and so on, teaches beings included in the desire, form, and formless realms, so it teaches the maturation of the wholesome with outflows.

“stream enterers appear in the world,”

and so on, is a teaching about all the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas and

“the perfectly complete buddhas,”

so it teaches the maturation of the wholesome without outflows. As for

“purifies the offering,”

it says “purifies the offering” about those for whom there is a great and a purified result when they offer to them.

“Because the offering is absolutely pure”

is teaching that this is the true dharmic nature of the bodhisattvas’ offering, because they are

“a giver.”

The defining marks of those who endeavor

4.258It has thus taught how they should endeavor. [F.73.a] To teach “the defining marks of those who endeavor,”

Śāriputra

makes an inquiry about them:

“Lord, how are bodhisattva great beings who engage with the perfection of wisdom ‘engaged’?”

4.259Then

the Lord

brings all dharmas together in seven separate groups‍—aggregates, constituents, sense fields, noble truths, dependent origination, all compounded phenomena, and all uncompounded dharmas ‍—and says,

“You cannot say… that they ‘are engaged’ or ‘are not engaged.’ ”

4.260He does so to teach that

“when”

they

“are practicing with these seven emptinesses,”

you cannot say, first of all, that they “are engaged” because they do not fulfill how they should endeavor just by that; and you cannot say they “are not engaged” because they have started the endeavor.

4.261For those who entertain the doubt about how they would then engage, it says

“and why?”

and then says they engage when they practice a fourfold emptiness:

the intrinsic nature of each‍—of form and so on, separately‍—that cannot be apprehended;

the intrinsic nature of them as a collection that cannot be apprehended;

their defining marks that cannot be apprehended; and

the totality of dharmas that cannot be apprehended.

4.262It teaches this in detail, from

“because they do not see form as qualified by production or qualified by stopping,”

up to

“they do not see a pratyekabuddha’s awakening, a buddha, or awakening.”

The intrinsic nature of each‍—of form and so on, separately‍—that cannot be apprehended

4.263“Because they do not see form as qualified by production or qualified by stopping” means “has production as its intrinsic nature or has stopping as its intrinsic nature.” If form had production as its intrinsic nature, it would not have stopping as its intrinsic nature; if it had stopping as its intrinsic nature, it would not have production as its intrinsic nature, because the existence of two intrinsic natures in one thing is a complete contradiction.

4.264Were a form to have the dharma called production, [F.73.b] there would be four ways to conceive of it: as being produced from itself, produced from other, produced from both, or produced without a cause. Of these, it is not logical that it is produced from itself because at that time it is a dharma that has not been produced, and a nonexistent entity is not suitable to be the cause of production. Were that dharma to exist prior to production that also would be illogical, because the production again of something that already exists is illogical. When you investigate a production from something that exists, the production would happen at all times and there would never be nonproduction. Hence production from self is illogical.

4.265Production from other is illogical too, because if other things were produced from something other, then everything would be produced from everything.

And production from both does not escape those two faults either.

4.266Production without a cause is also illogical because everything would be produced everywhere. When you analyze like that, ultimately there is no production. As it is said,

4.268It is not logical that it has the dharma of stopping either, because it has no production. Thus, something produced stops, and something not produced does not stop. Furthermore, if there were a dharma called stopped, would it be categorized as a dharma that exists or that does not exist? Of these, if it does exist it is not feasible that it stops because both existing and not existing are impossible in one thing. If it does not exist, it is not tenable that it stops because it is nonexistent. Thus, like a rabbit’s horn, to say “it stops” is unsuitable. Again, it is said,

4.272Thus production and stopping are imaginary phenomena, simply just conventions. They do not ultimately exist. Thus, it says, “Because they do not see form as qualified by production or qualified by stopping…”

4.273Similarly, “defilement” or “purification” of form and so on is not feasible. Were something to be defilement in its intrinsic nature, purification would never happen because an intrinsic nature is not something that can be given up. If it were to be qualified by purification, thoroughly pure in its intrinsic nature, defilement would never happen. Furthermore, if dharmas have become a defilement you can suppose it happens to what was a defilement or was pure. If what were defilement became defiled, defilement would be meaningless because you do not have to produce defilement in what is already defiled. And as long as that is the case, defilement would be produced again and again, and purification would never happen.

4.274And it is also not feasible that that which is pure are the defilements because that entails a contradiction.

4.275Similarly, with purification, you can suppose it happens to what was a defilement or was pure. There could be no purification of what was a defilement because those two things exclude each other. And it is also illogical that purification is of that which is pure, because it is pure, so that would be meaningless.

4.276Hence, defilement and purification are ultimately not there, but still, onto the suchness that is pure in its intrinsic nature, during the ordinary person phase, defilement that is just plucked out of thin air is merely labeled as defilement , [F.74.b] and during the pure phase the nonexistence of the defilement that is plucked out of thin air is merely labeled as purification . It is not feasible that they are the true dharmic nature of form and so on. Thus it says,

“They do not see form as qualified by defilement or qualified by purification.”

The intrinsic nature of them as a collection that cannot be apprehended

4.277Thus, how form and so on have no intrinsic nature has been explained. Now, they

“do not see ‘a confluence of form with feeling,’ ”

and so on, teaches that a collection does not have the defining mark of an aggregate. An aggregate means they have aggregated. It would exist were it possible that those that have aggregated are a confluence, but there is no confluence of dharmas. Hence it has taught that “there is not even the defining mark of an aggregate.”

4.278Suppose there were a confluence of dharmas‍—still it would be unmistaken, or it would have one defining mark. As for form , it is not together with feeling and so on and unmistaken. They have different defining marks. Similarly, it is not feasible that feeling and so on is together in a confluence with form. And so too with feeling, perception, volitional factors, and consciousness‍—each has its own particular defining mark, so how could those things that have their own marks and are completely different be in a confluence in an aggregate with a single intrinsic nature?

4.279Furthermore, beside form , feeling and so on, those phenomena that are constituted of form and feeling and so on are imaginary, are like an illusion, empty of a basic nature. Just as things like illusory horses and elephants and so on are not ultimately collected into one, similarly imaginary form and so on are also not collected into one.

4.280Those that are constituted of the suchnesses of form and so on are also just empty of a basic nature. There,

“because they are empty of a basic nature”

teaches [F.75.a] that just as space is not collected together with space, so too with the true dharmic natures of form and so on.

4.281This just teaches the heading. Thus connect this with: form is not collected together with feeling, and feeling and so on are not collected together with form ; feeling is not collected together with perception and so on, and perception and so on are not collected together with feeling; perception is not collected together with volitional factors and so on, and volitional factors and so on are not collected together with perception; and volitional factors are not collected together with consciousness, and consciousness is not collected together with volitional factors.

[B7]

Their defining marks that cannot be apprehended

4.282Now, to eliminate those specific defining marks of form and so on, it teaches

“that emptiness of form is not form,”

and so on. Thus, it teaches that when they have engaged in the correct practice of emptiness, and imaginary form, and so on not appearing as the mark of form and so on, but appearing as the mark of emptiness, at that time “that emptiness of form is not form.”

4.283Thinking,

“And why?”

it says,

“Because, Śāriputra, that emptiness of form is not seeable.”

4.284Form is the word used when there is the defining mark seeable. Thus, in emptiness there is nothing that shows itself, so it is not form; thus there is no

“experience,”

so it is not feeling; thus there is no

“being collected together and knowing,”

so it is not perception; thus there is no

“occasioning anything,”

so it is not volitional factors; thus, in that emptiness there is no

“making conscious,”

so it is not consciousness.

4.285Thus, those specific defining marks of form and so on are eliminated. Having said that, [F.75.b] entertaining the doubt that if the defining mark that is being seeable and so on is not there, the words for form and so on will not refer to anything, it says,

“And why?”

and with,

“Because… form is not one thing and emptiness another; emptiness is not one thing and form another,”

it teaches that the words for form and so on should be taken to refer to the form and so on that is its true dharmic nature, that emptiness and form and so on are not different.

The totality of dharmas that cannot be apprehended

4.286Therefore, with

“form is itself emptiness, and emptiness is form,”

it teaches that all dharmas as a totality, as well as the words for form and so on, should be taken to refer to emptiness, and the word for emptiness should be taken to refer to the form and so on that is its true dharmic nature. The emptiness spoken of earlier teaches all aspects.

4.287As for,

“Śāriputra, that emptiness is not produced and does not stop,”

and so on, because of being produced and stopping, it

“does not decrease and does not increase,”

so it

“is not past, is not future, and is not present.”

4.288Because the mark of form and so on does not exist, the totality of dharmas cannot be apprehended in that, and therefore it teaches,

“In such as that,”

where the totality of dharmas cannot be apprehended,

“there is no form , there is no feeling, there is no perception,”

up to

“there is no buddha; there is no awakening.”

4.289Having thus taught elevenfold the marks of the endeavor, it then teaches that

they have forsaken the idea that they are “engaged” or “not engaged” with self;

they have forsaken the idea that they are “engaged” or “not engaged” with the three gateways to liberation;

they have forsaken the idea that they are “engaged” or “not engaged” with the marks particular to dharmas;

they have forsaken joining dharmas with limits;

they have forsaken joining limits one with the other;

they have forsaken joining dharmas with the three time periods;

they have forsaken joining dharmas with the knowledge of all aspects; [F.76.a]

they have forsaken joining all dharmas with originating and perishing;

they have forsaken joining all dharmas with being permanent and so on;

they have forsaken joining just those with the doors to liberation;

they have forsaken joining dharmas in the various ways;

they have forsaken joining with the clairvoyances;

they have forsaken joining with the objects of the clairvoyances;

they have forsaken the idea of coming together and separating;

they have forsaken the idea of complete awakening; and

they have forsaken the idea of joining with emptiness.

4.290Thus, when they train in the practice of emptiness they endeavor at the perfection of wisdom in sixteen ways.

4.291Among those,

“they do not see the practice of the perfection of wisdom as either ‘engaged’ or ‘not engaged’ with form”

because they do not entertain the idea that the self is an agent and so on, so grasping at “I” is not operating.

“Neither cause emptiness to engage with emptiness”‍—

were they, when they cultivate the emptiness meditative stabilization, to have cultivated it while thinking there is some other dharma “emptiness,” then an emptiness would be joining to an intrinsic nature of emptiness. Since that is the case, even a meditation on the emptiness aspect that is that totality of dharmas that cannot be apprehended is aspectless.

Hence it says they “neither cause emptiness to engage with emptiness.”

4.293In

“the yogic practice of emptiness as well,”

the yogic practice of emptiness is the emptiness meditation stabilization. This means they do not join the yogic practice of emptiness to another inherently existing yogic practice of emptiness.

4.294Similarly connect this with: because they do not entertain the idea of some other dharma,

“signlessness”;

and because they do not entertain the idea there is some other dharma,

“wishlessness.”

4.295Therefore, it says

“emptiness is neither a yogic practice nor not a yogic practice.”

Because emptiness [F.76.b] is separated from the cognitive dimension of a yogic practice of any other imaginary phenomena such as form and so on, it is, therefore, not a yogic practice; and because it is in its nature inexpressible and the intrinsic nature of the signlessness meditative stabilization, it is, therefore, not not a yogic practice.

4.296As for

“they do not engage with nor disengage from form”‍—

they do not engage because they do not see in the true dharmic nature of form and so on their defining marks‍—being seeable and so on‍—because they are empty of their own defining marks. Therefore, it says they

“enter into the emptiness of the marks particular to dharmas.”

4.297It says

“they do not join form with the prior limit,”

and then states as the reason for that:

“because they do not even see the prior limit.”

They do not see the three time periods such as the prior limit and so on, so how, given that they do not see them, could they be engaged with them?

“They do not join the prior limit with the later limit”‍—

when they practice by way of apprehending consequences‍—that this is the sort of later maturation experienced on account of that earlier action‍—it is said that they

“join the prior limit with the later limit and… join the later limit with the prior limit.”

4.299When they practice with the idea that this, the maturation of that earlier action, is in the present, it is said that they join the present with the prior limit, and join the prior limit with the present. When they practice with the idea that this action that has been done in the present will mature in the future, it is said that they join the present to the future, and join the future to the present.

4.300For those seeing the three periods of time as a sameness, there are no different times, because time cannot be apprehended in any form. Therefore, it says

“because of the sameness of the three periods of time.”

It has said “they do not join form with the past,” and with “because they do not even see the past,” has stated the reason for that. [F.77.a] Joining, such as “this sort of form was in the past; this sort of form will be in the future; form is here in the present,” is joining form with the three periods of time.

“[Bodhisattva great beings]… do not join form with the knowledge of all aspects”‍—

when there is the idea that “this form is an object of the knowledge of all aspects,” that it is a real thing that can be apprehended, or thinking, “Giving this form, and so on, transformed into a basis of meritorious action becomes the result, the knowledge of all aspects,” when there is the idea that it is a real cause, it is said that it is joined with the knowledge of all aspects.

“[They]… do not join a buddha with the knowledge of all aspects”:

“the knowledge of all aspects is the cause of a buddha,” and “awakening is by comprehending all dharmas with the knowledge of all aspects”‍—they “do not join” them like that because buddha, awakening, and the knowledge of all aspects have the same characteristic mark and in the form of the dharma body are not different. Therefore, it says

“a buddha is the knowledge of all aspects, and the knowledge of all aspects is the buddha as well,”

and so on.

4.303Where it says,

“Form is not joined with ‘originating.’ Form is not joined with ‘perishing,’ ”

the view of origination and the view of perishing are the view that it is permanent and the view that it is annihilated‍—they do not entertain those.

“[Form] is not joined with ‘permanent,’ ”

based on a view, nor

“with ‘impermanent,’ ”

based on conceptualization. Construe the others like this as well.

“Form is not joined with ‘calm,’ ”

because imaginary form and so on do not have the mark of nirvāṇa.

“Form is not joined with ‘not calm,’ ”

because the true dharmic nature of form does not have the mark of saṃsāra.

“The knowledge of all aspects does not join with ‘calm,’ ”

because such an idea is not applicable. Similarly, [F.77.b] the idea of emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness does not apply either. Construe the alternatives of

“ ‘practicing,’ ”

and so on like this as well.

“[Bodhisattva great beings]… do not practice the perfection of wisdom for the sake of the perfection of giving”‍—

all dharmas, in their true dharmic nature, are not different, since it is not possible to grasp them as different. All, in the intrinsic nature of the perfection of wisdom, are not different either. Therefore, it says, they

“do not see a difference in any dharma.”

4.309They

“do not even see the perfection of wisdom itself, not to mention a bodhisattva, so however could they apprehend fully all the clairvoyances?”

It says that, because the clairvoyances are in their intrinsic nature imaginary phenomena and are imaginary phenomena apprehending things. Construe the connected sections on the objects of the clairvoyances and the attainment of benefits like that as well.

4.310A defining mark of the endeavor is the attainment of a benefit of it, so it teaches that with,

“Śāriputra, Māra the wicked one does not gain entry to a bodhisattva great being practicing the perfection of wisdom like this,”

and so on.

“Any phenomenon united with”

teaches saṃsāra, and

“separated”

teaches nirvāṇa.

“Come together with or not come together with them”

teaches something other than those two.

“Because the dharma-constituent does not fully awaken by means of the dharma-constituent,”

suchness does not cause suchness to fully awaken.

4.314They

“do not join form to emptiness”‍—

they do not join form with its intrinsic nature, emptiness, and they do not join the name form to the name emptiness ‍—

“and do not join emptiness to form”‍—

they do not join emptiness with the intrinsic nature of form, and they do not join them thinking emptiness is the name of form.

4.315Alternatively, they “do not join form to emptiness” means they do not join them thinking, ‘form is empty’; [F.78.a] they do not break form and emptiness apart.

“Śāriputra, you should bear in mind that bodhisattva great beings engaged like that have been prophesied”‍—

because they have reached the eighth level they have been prophesied,

“or are close to being prophesied,”

because they are worthy of a prophesy.

4.317Forbearance for dharmas that are not produced is attained at the eighth level, and the matured perfections emerge. With the emergence of the matured perfections, they practice the six perfections without having to exert themselves to bring beings to maturity, purify a buddhafield, and, having fully awakened, turn the wheel of the Dharma‍—they accomplish them all effortlessly. Thus it teaches that matured practice works effortlessly

“for the welfare of infinite, countless beings beyond measure, but still it will not occur to them to think, ‘The lord buddhas will make a prophesy about me. I am close to being prophesied,’ ”

and so on. And it states the reason why they stand there effortlessly, with

“because they do not make the dharma-constituent into a causal sign.”

4.318From that point on they do not apply themselves to apprehending anything not included in the dharma-constituent. They do not even make that dharma-constituent itself into a causal sign and apprehend it.

4.319Then it teaches the benefits of the forbearance for dharmas that are not produced, with,

“Because the notion of a being does not occur to bodhisattva great beings… like that. And why? Because a being is absolutely not produced and does not cease, because the true dharmic nature of dharmas is not produced and does not cease.”

“Practices the perfection of wisdom as an unproduced and unceasing being”

teaches that from that point on their practice does not apprehend a being. [F.78.b] Even though conventionally through the force of compassion a consciousness arises, which is to say at that time they complete giving and so on for the welfare of beings, nevertheless they still abide doing everything as beings who are “unproduced and unceasing,” who are

“emptiness… and cannot be apprehended,”

and are

“in an isolated state.”

4.321Then, in order to teach that their abiding is an extremely special one, it says so with,

“Śāriputra, this… is the bodhisattva great beings’ ultimate yogic practice,”

and so on.

4.322Then, even though beings cannot be apprehended, the classifications of the activities for the welfare of beings‍—love and compassion and so on, and giving and morality and so on‍—are taught with

“[they] accomplish… great love, great compassion,”

and so on. The six statements‍—

“they do not practice with a miserly thought,”

and so on‍—teach the absence of the factors opposed to all six perfections.

Those who endeavor

4.323Then, in order to delight the retinue, and in order that the explanation of the doctrine will be bigger than in just that section, the elder [Śāriputra] asks,

“Where did they die… who have taken birth here?”

and so on. Among them, those who are supreme arrive from a buddhafield and go to a buddhafield, the middling arrive from Tuṣita, and the least arrive from among humans. Thus, it teaches them as three types.

4.324Then,

“Śāriputra, there are… bodhisattva great beings without skillful means,”

and so on, teaches about the bodhisattvas included in forty-four types in order to teach that there are even more than those in that section.

4.325[Those with dull faculties .] Of the first two of those who do not have skillful means, the former without skillful means endeavor at the practice of the concentrations and the practice of the perfections but, without skillful means, take birth as long-lived gods, and for that amount of time [F.79.a] do not endeavor at the perfections. Later, when they take human birth through the power of their earlier practice of the perfections, they again endeavor but have dull faculties.

4.326Second are those who endeavor at the practice of the concentrations and the practice of the perfections, reject the results of the concentrations, and do not take birth as gods, but take human birth. Still, without skillful means they are those with dull faculties.

4.327All the ones after these have keen faculties:

First. It teaches the first of them with

“will fully awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening right here in the Fortunate Eon.”

Having trained in the practice of the concentrations and the bodhisattvas’ practice, the force of their compassion stops them being born through the influence of the concentrations. Focused on working for the welfare of beings, and focused on pleasing the buddhas, they fully awaken in just this Fortunate Eon itself.

4.328Second. Endowed with those good qualities they bring to maturity those beings they have not previously brought to maturity.

4.329Third. Endowed with those good qualities they take birth among the six classes of gods living in the desire realm. Abiding in a state endowed with complete strength, they work to bring beings to maturity, purify a buddhafield, and please the buddhas.

4.330Fourth. They take birth in the Brahmaloka, and because they have made a prayer that is a vow that with their miraculous powers they will pass on from buddhafield to buddhafield, listen to the doctrine, focus on pleasing the buddhas, and make requests, they request those who have recently become fully and perfectly awakened to turn the wheel of the Dharma.

4.331Fifth. They are like, for example, our Lord Maitreya.

4.332Sixth. With the strength of their clairvoyances they pass on to all buddhafields and worship all the tathāgatas.

4.333Seventh. They remain with their [F.79.b] clairvoyances in operation and generate the desire to be in just purified buddhafields.

4.334Eighth. Through the force of their clairvoyances they take birth in buddhafields where the lifespan is infinite and, remaining there for as long as their lifespan endures, they endeavor to bring beings and the buddhadharmas to maturity.

4.335Ninth. Through the force of the clairvoyances they proclaim the qualities of the Three Jewels in deficient worlds where beings do not know the qualities of the Three Jewels because there are no words for Buddha, Dharma , or Saṅgha . By explaining the doctrine that has those three words they generate a delight in them, and through the force of that cause them to take birth in a buddhafield.

4.336Tenth. Having taken birth in a purified buddhafield, those who naturally have fewer afflictions reach the first level with little effort; acquire the four concentrations, the meditative stabilizations, and the formless absorptions; cultivate the dharmas on the side of awakening and the buddhadharmas; die in that purified buddhafield; pass on to unpurified world systems; and work for the welfare of beings.

4.337Eleventh. Endowed with just those previously mentioned bodhisattva qualities they take birth in a purified buddhafield, reach the first level, immediately enter into “the secure state” of a bodhisattva and reach the irreversible level.

4.338Twelfth. Endowed with just those qualities, because of the power generated by a buddhafield, their own personal good qualities purify their mindstream and they reach the first level with little effort. Right after that, without having to work hard, they become fully awakened and turn the wheel of the Dharma, causing the teaching to flourish for as long as they exist.

4.339Thirteenth. Endowed with just those qualities they take birth in a purified buddhafield, reach the first level with little effort, and having done so, without taking birth on the higher levels [F.80.a] become absorbed in all the yogic practices of the perfection of wisdom and in order to purify a buddhafield they take birth in buddhafield after buddhafield.

4.340Fourteenth. They dwell in the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom and, having become absorbed in the viṣkandaka absorption, keep dwelling on account of those absorptions.

4.341Fifteenth. Endowed with the dharmas on the side of awakening and endowed with the buddhadharmas, they thoroughly understand the results of stream enterer and so on with their knowledge of mastery, but, without actualizing them, establish others in those paths and results. Just that

“knowledge”

of mastery

“is a bodhisattva [great being’s]”

supreme

“forbearance.”

4.342Sixteenth. They are bodhisattvas of the Fortunate Eon who, having become fully awakened in this very eon, dwell in the nonconceptual perfection of wisdom and purify the Tuṣita abode.

4.343Seventeenth. They are bodhisattvas obstructed by just a single birth who are endowed with all śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and buddha dharmas, and with their knowledge of mastery remain searching for the noble truths.

4.344Eighteenth. They become fully awakened over the course of many hundred thousands of one hundred million incalculable eons and keep on endeavoring at working for the welfare of beings, like, for example, Mañjuśrī Kumārabhūta.

4.345Nineteenth. Similarly, they have strived to fully awaken and remain explaining the doctrine to beings.

4.346Twentieth. Similarly, working for the welfare of beings they dwell in buddhafield after buddhafield.

4.347Twenty-first. They stand in the six perfections, and with their generosity they also satisfy beings and establish beings in generosity.

4.348Twenty-second. [F.80.b] With morality they gather beings together and establish them in morality.

4.349Twenty-third. They establish beings in patience.

4.350Twenty-fourth. They establish beings in perseverance.

4.351Twenty-fifth. They establish beings in concentration.

4.352Twenty-sixth. They establish beings in wisdom.

4.353Twenty-seventh. Disguised as buddhas they bring beings in the eastern direction to maturity, focus on pleasing the buddhas, apprehend the good qualities they see in that buddhafield, and, having purified their own buddhafield, reside there obstructed by just a single birth.

4.354Twenty-eighth. Similarly, they reside establishing the buddhafield in the south.

4.355Twenty-ninth are those in the west.

4.356Thirtieth are those in the north.

4.357Thirty-first are those in the intermediate direction to the northeast.

4.358Thirty-second are those in the intermediate direction to the southeast.

4.359Thirty-third are those in the intermediate direction to the southwest.

4.360Thirty-fourth are those in the intermediate direction to the northwest.

4.361Thirty-fifth are those in the direction below.

4.362Thirty-sixth are those in the direction above.

4.363Thirty-seventh. They bring beings in the ten directions to maturity, please the buddhas of the ten directions, apprehend the special qualities they see in those buddhafields, and, having perfected their own buddhafield, abide there obstructed by just a single birth.

4.364Thirty-eighth. They are endowed with all the buddhadharmas and, through the force of earlier prayers that are vows, disguised as a buddha make many beings feel joy in their great miraculous productions, calm bearing, and refined faculties. Just through the force of that joy and delight they bring beings to maturity, causing them finally to gradually enter into complete nirvāṇa by means of the three vehicles.

4.365Thirty-ninth. Endowed with those same refined faculties, similarly, they work for the welfare of beings but do not praise themselves [F.81.a] and disparage others, staying focused by abiding in equanimity.

4.366Fortieth. They stand on the Pramuditā level, stand in the perfections of giving and morality, do not experience the suffering of destitution or the suffering of terrible forms of life, and until they reach the irreversible stage stay focused on the welfare of others.

4.367Forty-first. Focusing on the perfections of giving and morality, in all their lives they become wheel-turning emperors, and, through the power of their miraculous productions, gather beings together and establish them in giving and morality.

4.368Forty-second. Focusing on the perfections of giving and morality, similarly, in all their lives they become wheel-turning emperors and, endowed with the great force of their miraculous productions, stand pleasing and worshiping the buddhas of the ten directions.

4.369Forty-third. They abide in the six perfections and bring beings to maturity with all

“the light of the buddhadharmas,”

and with this same light of the buddhadharmas cause themselves personally to mature, remaining

“up until they… fully awaken.”

4.370After having thus taught who the bodhisattvas are, it says,

“This, Śāriputra, is the origination of the bodhisattva great beings in the buddhadharmas.”

The meaning is that this is the sequence in the growth of the buddhadharmas that are the shoots of bodhisattvas.

4.371Then, to begin the explanation, the Lord, taking those bodhisattvas as the measure, says,

“Therefore, Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom would provide no opportunity for basic immoral physical, verbal, and mental action.”

4.372Taking his cue from that, to begin the explanation the elder [Śāriputra] himself then asks, [F.81.b]

“What, Lord, is a bodhisattva great being’s basic immoral physical action?”

and so on.

4.373Then the Lord, talking about the perception that apprehends a body, a voice, and a thinking mind, teaches that if it occurs to a bodhisattva to think, “This is the body with which I should undertake physical action, this is the voice, this is the thinking mind with which I should undertake the action,” then there is a fault in their undertaking.

Just those are the physical, verbal, and mental bases of suffering.

4.374Having thus taught that it is this nonapprehending body, voice, and thinking mind itself that cleanses the bases of suffering, it then teaches that also bodhisattvas standing on the Pramuditā level, if, practicing the ten wholesome actions, stop śrāvaka thought and pratyekabuddha thought and constantly attend to a greatly compassionate thought for all beings, then in that case too they would have thoroughly cleansed the bases of suffering.

4.375Śāriputra asks,

“What, Lord, is the bodhisattva great beings’ awakening path?”

because

“cleansing the awakening path”

presented it as not different from the perfections.

4.376Then,

“Śāriputra, when bodhisattva great beings practice the awakening path,”

and so on, teaches that the awakening path is a yogic practice that does not apprehend anything. Then, in a subsection, it teaches the two parts of the awakening path: practice that does not apprehend anything and practice that does not falsely project anything. As for those two connected sections, the earlier practice is the cause of the later practice because, when they do not apprehend anything, they do not falsely project anything.

4.377The elder [Śāriputra], thinking that just a tathāgata has the knowledge of a knower of all aspects, and a bodhisattva does not, asks,

“What, Lord, is the bodhisattva great beings’ knowledge of a knower of all aspects?”

4.378And the Lord, with

“in possession of that knowledge,” [F.82.a]

and so on, says that the type of bodhisattva knowledge produced on the eighth level is a natural knowledge, which is to say, a matured knowledge. The matured knowledge brings all the perfections and so on to completion, but still the attention to making an effort at them is not there. It is therefore called the knowledge of a knower of all aspects, having labeled the cause with the name of the result, because that knowledge is the cause of the knowledge of all aspects.

4.379Then the

“flesh eye”

is the knowledge that engages with all forms; the

“divine eye”

knows all meditative stabilizations and absorptions; the

“wisdom eye”

is knowledge of all-knowledge; the

“dharma eye”

is all nine knowledges with the exception of the knowledge of what can and cannot be; and the

“buddha eye”

is knowledge of the vajropama meditative stabilization. It teaches their division in that way.

4.380Then, in regard to abiding with the clairvoyances, for all the clairvoyances it gives an earlier explanation of abiding with the clairvoyances as conventional knowledge, and afterward, to teach that they are absolutely complete, it teaches that as ultimate knowledge they are nonconceptual. To teach that they are absolute purity, conventional knowledge, having made all the abiding of bodhisattvas complete, afterward ultimately does not apprehend them and on account of that becomes absolutely “perfected” and absolutely “purified.”

4.381Therefore at the end it says,

“Śāriputra, practicing the perfection of wisdom like that the six clairvoyances of bodhisattva great beings are perfected and purified, and those purified clairvoyances cause them to gain the knowledge of all aspects.”

“They do not apprehend a false projection of miraculous power,”

by a miraculous power.

“What they might falsely project,”

a procedure that is the activity of miraculous power,

“or what might be falsely projecting,” [F.82.b]

knowledge of the activity of miraculous power‍—

“they do not apprehend”

those miraculous powers.

“Its intrinsic nature is empty”

is the nonexistence of its intrinsic nature;

“its intrinsic nature is isolated”

is absolute purity; and

“its intrinsic nature is not produced”

is the intrinsic nature of a compounded phenomenon.

“They do not intend miraculous power”

is the intention that thinks, “That is miraculous power”;

“[they] intend to accomplish miraculous power”

is the intention that thinks, “I am going to accomplish these miraculous powers.”

“Therefore, Śāriputra, there are bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom who, standing in the perfection of giving, cleanse the path to the knowledge of all aspects based on not holding on to anything because of the emptiness that transcends limits.”

4.387Whether they abide in all six of the nonconceptual perfections, or whether they abide in any one of the six perfections, they cleanse the awakening path.

“Śāriputra, there are…,”

and so on, teaches their different inclinations.

“Because of the emptiness that transcends limits”‍—

the extreme of over-reification and the extreme of over-negation have stopped.

“Based on not holding on to anything”‍—

they do not settle down on the three spheres of giver, gift, and recipient and so on. Because of not holding on to anything, they therefore,

“standing in the perfection of giving, cleanse the path to”

awakening.

“Based on not having gone, not having come‍—

having in mind those who think, “We have been told, ‘They cleanse the awakening path,’ so, if there is a path there must be coming and going,” it negates them, saying

“based on not…”

4.392The Śrāvaka Vehicle says, “All dharmas are produced, but still they do not come from anywhere; they stop, but still they do not go anywhere.” In the Great Vehicle it is said, “Because there is no production and stopping, [F.83.a] there is liberation from coming and going.”

“And not having grasped anything”‍—

settling down on dharmas as dharmas is holding on to something;

“giving is designated based on holding on to things”‍—

miserliness is holding on to something.

4.394What is the intention where it says “giving is designated based on holding on to things” and so on?

In the world miserliness exists and the word giving appears, and given that there is immorality and so on, morality and so on come about as words. This is explaining that since the bodhisattvas have no intellectual awareness of miserliness on the opposing side and so on, therefore they have no intellectual awareness of giving and so on either.

“They do not falsely project ‘they have gotten beyond that.’ They do not falsely project ‘they have not gotten beyond that.’ ”

They do not think they “have gotten beyond” or “have not gotten beyond” miserliness and so on, because neither of those exist.

“They do not falsely project ‘giving and miserliness’ ”

teaches just that, which is to say, they do not think there is either an opposing side or a counteracting side.

“They do not falsely project ‘I have been snubbed.’ They do not falsely project ‘I have been saluted,’ ”

and so on, teach that they do not falsely project the eight worldly dharmas.

“Śāriputra, a nonproduction…”

means the very limit of reality.

“In regard to all beings, that they are the same”

is immeasurable equanimity because of the emptiness of persons;

“that all phenomena are the same”

is the equanimity that is an abiding in the middle way because of the emptiness of dharmas, which is to say, it is “the equanimity free from attachment and hatred.”

4.400After that, the prophesy of those in the retinue who have been brought to maturity, the praise of the perfection of wisdom, the praise of bodhisattvas who have set out in the perfection of wisdom, the diffusion of the light, the assembly of the bodhisattvas, [F.83.b] the array of the offerings, the retinue that has reached the eighth level, the prayer that is a vow, and the prophesy are all topics that are obvious, as found in the Sūtra.

This is how to explain the brief teaching of the first statement.

4.401In respect to the exposition in eight parts of

“Here, Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings who want to fully awaken to all dharmas in all forms should make an effort at the perfection of wisdom,”

the Lord and the elder Śāriputra have expounded in detail

why bodhisattvas endeavor,

how bodhisattvas endeavor,

the defining marks of those who endeavor, and

those who endeavor.

Instructions for the endeavor

4.402Now, of the four parts,

instructions for the endeavor,

the benefits of the endeavor,

and so on that now have to be explained, the elder Subhūti teaches the instructions for the endeavor. But it is actually the Lord teaching in that way, with skillful means to bring trainees to maturity, so it will say below,

“Śāriputra, it is just the Tathāgata who, by skillful means, will expound the perfection of wisdom to the bodhisattva great beings.”

4.403In regard to,

“Will venerable Subhūti instruct… on account of armor in which reposes the power of his own intellect and ready speech?”

śrāvakas know the objects of śrāvakas, so why would śrāvakas have such uncertainty [about his being such a great bodhisattva]?

4.404There is nothing wrong with that, because the elder Subhūti is a bodhisattva great being who for immeasurable eons has accumulated stores of merit and wisdom, and is famous for having gained forbearance for the deep dharmas, so all have become uncertain like that. Therefore, to eliminate the fault which might occur were Subhūti to teach in his own words, which is that they might not be accepted, he emphasizes that they are the words of the Lord, not his own words. [F.84.a]

“Whatever the Lord’s śrāvakas say, teach, and expound”‍—

it indicates those three because, on account of the three types to be disciplined, there is a division into brief, intermediate, and detailed teaching; alternatively, it is because of the threefold surpassing aspiration for themselves, and the temporary, and contextually appropriate, surpassing aspiration for others.

4.406Now, in order to give an exposition of what is taught in the first statement, “bodhisattva great beings… should make an effort at the perfection of wisdom,” taking that as the point of departure, to set the scene,

The Lord… said…, “Subhūti, starting with the perfection of wisdom, be confident in your readiness to give a Dharma discourse to the bodhisattva great beings about how bodhisattva great beings go forth in the perfection of wisdom.”

4.407The elder Subhūti, to himself set the scene for four instructions‍—

instructions for making an effort by using names and conventional terms conventionally,

instructions for making an effort without apprehending beings,

instructions for making an effort by not apprehending words for things, and

instructions for making an effort when all dharmas cannot be apprehended‍—

asks,

“Lord, … [w]hat phenomenon is this, the word bodhisattva great being , for?”

4.408There in the brief teaching, the Lord said “bodhisattva great beings,” but the phenomenon bodhisattva does not exist at all. And he also said “perfection of wisdom,” but the phenomenon perfection of wisdom does not exist at all. So, given that those two phenomena cannot be apprehended, Subhūti asks whom he should be instructing and advising about what.

4.409Do not say that, the Lord says to Subhūti. If you therefore think there is nothing to say because a bodhisattva does not exist and even the perfection of wisdom does not exist, you deprive beings of what they need. It is therefore said, “Even though [F.84.b] those two dharmas do not ultimately exist in their thoroughly established nature, you should take hold of their imaginary marks with skillful means in order to bring beings to maturity and so on, and give advice to beings in the perfection of wisdom in the conventional way. Otherwise, you will deprive beings of what they need.”

4.410First, the teaching instruction about designation is the passage that teaches up to,

“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom should thus understand names and conventional terms.”

4.411Having thus given instructions in designation, ultimately what is designated has to be taught, so the Lord, asking a question, uses the elder [Subhūti’s] words,

“Lord, you say… ‘bodhisattva great being,’”

as his point of departure, framing a series of five questions with,

“What do you think, Subhūti, is the bodhisattva form, or is the bodhisattva other than form?”

and so on. Then the elder Subhūti’s words,

“Lord, when a bodhisattva great being absolutely does not exist and cannot be apprehended, how could that form be a bodhisattva?”

and so on, teaches the instructions without apprehending beings. It is taught in the passage that goes up to,

“Bodhisattvas, Subhūti, should train in the perfection of wisdom like that, without apprehending a being.”

4.414Then the Lord, again taking the words of the question,

“What phenomenon is this, the word bodhisattva , for?”

as his point of departure, asks,

“Subhūti… what do you think, is bodhisattva the word for form?”

and so on, and with,

“Lord, when a form absolutely does not exist [F.85.a] and cannot be apprehended, how could bodhisattva be the word for form?”

and so on, teaches not apprehending a word for the elder Subhūti’s word. Having done so, the passage from,

“Subhūti! … when bodhisattva great beings are practicing the perfection of wisdom like that they should train in the perfection of wisdom without apprehending a word for form,”

up to

“should train in the perfection of wisdom without apprehending a word for wishlessness,”

teaches the instruction in the perfection of wisdom.

4.416Then the Lord, again having taken the words of the inquiry,

“I do not see that‍—namely, the phenomenon with the name bodhisattva ,”

as his point of departure, in the passages from,

“The Lord, Subhūti, does not see the dharma-constituent,”

and so on, up to the end,

“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings should practice the perfection of wisdom like that, without apprehending all dharmas,”

teaches not apprehending all dharmas. Just that is the instruction.

“That is the advice about the perfection of wisdom of bodhisattvas, just that is the instruction”

brings the four instructions to a conclusion.

Instructions for making an effort by using names and conventional terms conventionally

4.418Among these, for the instructions for using names and conventional terms conventionally spoken about first, having taught that a “name” in the form of some other phenomenon does not exist with

“those… are just words,”

with those words

“do not exist inside, do not exist outside, and they cannot be apprehended where both do not exist”

it explains the reason why a name in the form of some other phenomenon does not exist. Were some name in the form of some other phenomenon to exist, you would apprehend it as one from among the three‍—inner, or outer, or as other than those two. But, because when you investigate all three are untenable it therefore does not exist. Here, furthermore, [F.85.b]

“Subhūti, it is like this: the word being is uttered again and again, but you cannot apprehend any being,”

and so on, teaches by analogy.

4.419Then it gives a second reason why a name in the form of some other phenomenon does not exist, with

“and except for being used conventionally as a mere word and conventional term, any phenomenon that is a designation is not produced and does not stop,”

and so on. Were the names of phenomena to exist in the form of some other phenomena, when the phenomena when names are spoken arise, they too would arise, but they do not arise. Thus, because they are suitable to work as conventional labels, through their operation as conventional terms they are later stated to others with, “This is its name.”

4.420Were a name produced when the phenomenon itself is produced, others would then, right when they see it, even without knowing the conventional term, understand that “this is its name.” But they do not have that understanding, so, even though the phenomenon is produced the name is not produced, and even though the phenomenon stops the name does not stop. Even though something that is a name for something might cease, its working as a conventional label does not. Therefore, this teaches that it does not exist in the form of some other phenomenon because its production and stopping do not exist, but like a “self” and a “being” it is there simply as a convention.

4.421Here, furthermore, by way of illustration, it starts with four types of things:

“self, being,”

and so on, known from the śrāvaka system because they exist simply as a convention; the aggregates, constituents, and sense fields, known from the system of the bodhisattvas because they exist simply as imaginary phenomena; the

“body”

and

“grass,”

and so on, that are particular inner and outer objects known from both because they exist simply as the names designated based on something; and a

“dream, echo, mirage,”

and so on, known in all worlds are because they are totally nonexistent.

4.422After that, to bring the instruction in name designation to a conclusion, it says,

“Subhūti, when bodhisattva great beings are practicing the perfection of wisdom [F.86.a] they should train in names and conventional terms that make things known, in advice that makes things known, and in dharmas that make things known.”

4.423This speaks first about designation that is a name and conventional term, in order to avoid the extremes of over-reification and over-negation. It speaks about designation that is advice while remaining in that state, because they explain the doctrine in order to bring beings to maturity. Then, since they both designate the dharmas as conventional terms, it says they are imaginary dharmas.

4.424Then, to teach the benefit of those three designations, it again says,

“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings thus practicing the perfection of wisdom do not view ‘form is permanent,’ ”

and so on. This is explaining that the result of training in things being simply just designated is the elimination of all conceptualizations.

[B8]

4.425Those conceptualizations of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, furthermore, are threefold:

those falling within the province of insight,

those falling within the province of the three gateways to liberation, and

those falling within the province of the perfect analytic understanding of the reality of dharmas.

4.426Among these, those falling within the province of insight are the conceptualizations summarizing the doctrine that serve as the foundation for the four noble truths based on the bright side and the dark side that are accepted and rejected: the conceptualizations of impermanence, suffering, selflessness, and calm, and the conceptualizations of permanence, pleasure, self, and not calm that are the side opposing those.

4.427Those falling within the province of the three gateways to liberation are the conceptualizations of emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness, and the conceptualizations of not being empty, having a sign, and being wished for that have to be eliminated.

4.428All the rest fall within the province of the perfect analytic understanding of the reality of dharmas. These are the ten conceptualizations of the compounded, the arising, the not isolated, the unwholesome, being with basic immorality, being with outflows, the afflicted, the ordinary, defilement, and saṃsāra, and, serving as the side counteracting them, the ten conceptualizations of the uncompounded, the stopping, the isolated, the wholesome, being without basic immorality, [F.86.b] being without outflows, the unafflicted, the extraordinary, purification, and nirvāṇa. All of them, furthermore, fall within the province of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas because bodhisattvas have to eliminate them all totally. It teaches the elimination of those thirty-four conceptualizations as the benefit of training in phenomena just being simply designations.

“They do not view… as existing in the compounded element or as existing in the uncompounded element.”

This is saying that the perfection of wisdom and so on are not counted as being a compounded phenomenon or an uncompounded phenomenon.

4.430To teach that in true reality they do not mentally construct an expression of a bright and dark side as two, it says

“do not mentally construct… any of those dharmas.”

They do not, like the tīrthikas and so on,

“conceptualize,”

in particular, that something is permanent, is a pleasure, or has a self and so on, and they do not, like the śrāvakas and so on, with their insight and so on,

“mentally construct,”

in particular, that something is impermanent, suffering, and selfless and so on.

4.431Thus, to teach that the training of bodhisattvas is in a form that counteracts all such mental construction and conceptualization, it says,

“Standing without mentally constructing any dharma they cultivate the applications of mindfulness,”

up to the end,

“the distinct attributes of a buddha.”

4.432In order to teach the actually real state of dharmas that serves as the object when there is no conceptualization, in a form that counteracts the object of śrāvakas, it says,

“[Bodhisattva great beings] practicing the perfection of wisdom [F.87.a] excellently realize the defining marks of the dharmas. And that defining mark of a dharma, of the dharmas, is not defiled and is not purified.”

4.433This teaches that suchness is naturally pure, so, during the period when there are stains it is not defiled. During the period when there are no stains, there is no purification of what has been plucked out of thin air. Therefore, because it remains always in such a state it is called tathatā .

4.434Therefore, it is saying about those in the above explanation that they are all imaginary phenomena, they are not actually real, are not the truth.

“Subhūti, when bodhisattva great beings are thus practicing the perfection of wisdom they should understand the conventional usage of dharmas that are names and conventional terms.”

4.435When just those mentally constructed dharmas are taught, its result is not settling down on all dharmas, so,

“having understood that they are [just] names and conventional terms that are dharma designations, they do not settle down on form,”

and so on, teaches the second benefit. It means having thus become aware that all dharmas are simply just designations they do not settle on any imaginary phenomenon‍—form and so on, up to, at the end,

“the skillful means”

for the sake of the purification of the buddhadharmas.

“They do not settle down on suchness. They do not settle down on the very limit of reality. They do not settle down on the dharma-constituent.”

In the order spoken about before, what falls within the province of the knowledge of the aspects of the paths incorporated in the levels of bodhisattvas is called suchness ; the nirvāṇa that falls within the province of the all-knowledge of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas is the very limit of reality ; and the dharma body included in the Buddha level that falls within the province of the knowledge of all aspects of the buddhas is the dharma-constituent .[F.87.b]

4.437After that the benefit of cultivating not settling is again taught in the passage from,

“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings thus practicing the perfection of wisdom who do not settle down on all dharmas grow in the perfection of giving,”

and so on, up to the end:

“They will obtain the dhāraṇī gateways. They will obtain the meditative stabilization gateways.”

Instructions for making an effort without apprehending beings

4.438Having thus completed the instruction for designations that are conventional terms, there has to be an explanation of the second, the instruction without apprehending beings. So first, from the elder Subhūti asking,

“Lord, you say… ‘bodhisattva great being,’ ”

there arises, on account of that inquiry, the thought that “something called a bodhisattva exists,” so, in order to remove the doubt of someone who thinks, “Subhūti said that,” the Lord poses a fivefold question:

“What do you think, Subhūti, is the bodhisattva form, or is the bodhisattva other than form, or is the bodhisattva in form, or is form in the bodhisattva, or is the bodhisattva without form?”

4.440Seizing on a bodhisattva as a being and mentally constructing it as different, like a soul and so on, the possibilities are threefold: controller of itself and the other; a residence and resident; something other than those. Thus, when a bodhisattva is settled down on as a being it can be supposed to be just the entity that is the five aggregates as the nihilists have falsely imagined the self to be; or it can be a self that is something quite other, not included in the five aggregates, as the eternalists have falsely imagined the self to be.

4.441There, taking the position that they are the same as its point of departure, it says,

“Is the bodhisattva form … [F.88.a] or is the bodhisattva feeling… or is the bodhisattva perception…?”

and so on.

4.442Second, taking the position that they are different as its point of departure, it says,

“Is the bodhisattva something other that is not form , … is the bodhisattva something other that is not feeling…?”

and so on.

4.443Furthermore, having taken the second possibility of a residence and resident as its point of departure, it says,

“Or is the bodhisattva in form , or is form in the bodhisattva… or is the bodhisattva in feeling, or is feeling in the bodhisattva…?”

and so on. The idea is that form and feeling and so on, and a bodhisattva, are totally unconnected, because a bodhisattva is totally other than them.

4.444Having taken the third possibility as its point of departure, it says,

“Or is the bodhisattva without form … or is the bodhisattva without feeling…?”

and so on.

4.445Thus, when an analysis of this bodhisattva has been made, the bodhisattva does not withstand analysis as being the same or different, or a residence or resident, or as something that is the nonexistence of those. Therefore, intending that the bodhisattva does not exist, it says,

“None of those, Lord.”

4.446Among those who assert a soul, there are some for whom “a discriminating seeing has everything as its object,” who mentally construct a being that is in the nature of an eye sense faculty and so on. Thinking what is called a being has form as its intrinsic nature, they think the soul is

“one who sees.”

Therefore, it says,

“What do you think… is the bodhisattva form?”

and so on.

4.447Similarly, those like cowherds and so on who mentally construct an enjoyer as a being, [F.88.b] and, having taken it as having feeling for its intrinsic nature, think the soul is

“one who feels.”

Therefore, it says,

“What do you think… is the bodhisattva feeling?”

4.448Similarly, those like Jains and so on mentally construct a doer as a being, and, having taken it as having perception and volitional factors for its intrinsic nature, think the soul is

“one who does.”

Therefore, it says,

“What do you think… is the bodhisattva perception… is the bodhisattva volitional factors?”

4.449Similarly, those like the Vaidikas and so on mentally construct one who knows as a being, and, having taken it as having consciousness for its intrinsic nature, think the soul is

“one who knows.”

Therefore, it says,

“What do you think… is the bodhisattva consciousness?”

4.450Similarly, those like the Sāṃkhyas mentally construct it as an extremely subtle

individual that is pervasive but not evident, thinking that there is a soul that has a nature different from form and so on. Therefore, it says,

“What do you think… is the bodhisattva other than form? What do you think… is the bodhisattva other than feeling?”

and so on.

4.451Similarly, those like the Parivrājakas and so on mentally construct it as the size of a thumb or the size of a grain of barley and so on. They mentally construct the idea that this individual resides in a body constituted out of aggregates. Therefore, it says,

“What do you think… is the bodhisattva in form ? What do you think… is the bodhisattva in feeling?”

and so on.

4.452Similarly, those like the Ulūkas and so on, who assert that impermanent form and so on are resident in the permanent person, think that form and so on reside in the soul, mentally constructing something in the residence. Therefore, it says,

“What do you think… is form in the bodhisattva? Is feeling in the bodhisattva?”

and so on.

4.453Similarly, like certain of those who assert Īśvara and so on, they mentally construct an extremely subtle, very hard to understand “Īśvara” as existing, and mentally construct the idea [F.89.a] that it is different from the intrinsic nature of form and so on. Therefore, it says,

“What do you think… is the bodhisattva without form ? What do you think… is the bodhisattva without feeling?”

4.454Intending that all those possibilities fly in the face of reason, the question is posed separately taking the five aggregates, six elements, twelve sense fields, and twelve links of dependent origination as the point of departure, and the elder Subhūti replies in the negative to each, with,

“None of those, Lord.”

4.455Then if a dharma that is different exists and if this bodhisattva supposes it has to be a compounded phenomenon or an uncompounded phenomenon, if it is a compounded phenomenon it will be apprehended in these aggregates and so on, but it is not apprehended; and even if it is asserted that it is an uncompounded phenomenon, to eliminate that doubt, taking the suchness of the aggregates and so on as his point of departure, the Lord asks,

“What do you think, Subhūti, is the bodhisattva the suchness of form?”

4.456Then, were the different and combined suchnesses of aggregates, constituents, sense fields, and dependent origination, having been collected, together to exist in a bodhisattva, just a single bodhisattva would have an unbounded, infinite number of intrinsic natures. Something like that makes no sense, so the elder Subhūti negates those as well, with,

“None of those, Lord.”

The Lord then asked

again the reason why, with

“Subhūti, for what reason do you say…?”

and it says the reason why, with,

“Lord… when a bodhisattva absolutely does not exist and cannot be apprehended, how could that form be a bodhisattva?”

and so on. This means that just like conceiving of a rabbit’s horns or the child of a barren woman as tall or short, or snow white [F.89.b] or jet black, given that a being absolutely does not exist, form and so on that is a compounded phenomenon in its intrinsic nature, or suchness that is an uncompounded phenomenon in its intrinsic nature, does not exist.

“How could the suchness of form be apprehended in it?”

means how could it have the suchness of form as its intrinsic nature.

4.459Having thus negated all intrinsic natures, to bring the instructions without apprehending a being to a conclusion it says,

“Excellent, excellent, Subhūti!” said the Lord. “Bodhisattvas, Subhūti, should train in the perfection of wisdom like that, without apprehending a being.”

Instructions for making an effort by not apprehending words for things

4.460Then, in the context of the noble elder Subhūti first asking about a “word for something,” with,

“What phenomenon is this, the word bodhisattva , for?”

where the Lord has also taught as though a bodhisattva existed, some think that even if, ultimately, bodhisattvas are taken to lack an intrinsic nature of the aggregates and so on, still, they do exist from a conventional perspective as having what has been labeled onto the aggregates and so on as their intrinsic nature. Therefore, to teach that even that designation does not exist, after that, taking the words of the question as his point of departure to teach the instructions by not apprehending words for things, the Lord asks,

“What do you think, Subhūti, is bodhisattva the word for form ? Or do you think bodhisattva is the word for feeling?”

and so on. Were a word for something to be the bodhisattvas’ intrinsic nature then the words for the five‍—form and so on‍—and the fourteen‍—permanent and impermanent and so on‍—would become their intrinsic nature. Therefore it asks, having taken the word for each of them separately, “Do you think bodhisattva is the word for form? Do you think bodhisattva is the word for feeling?” [F.90.a]

4.461Then, given that form and so on are absolutely nonexistent because they are imaginary phenomena, how could words for them be apprehended? If words for things are not apprehended, how could there be a bodhisattva? Thus, the elder Subhūti teaches that words for things do not exist, and bodhisattvas do not exist with the words for them as their intrinsic nature.

4.462Then, based on the fact that they do not apprehend words for things,

“Excellent, excellent, Subhūti!” said the Lord. “Bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom like that, Subhūti, should train in the perfection of wisdom without apprehending a word for form,”

up to

without apprehending the words for… consciousness is… a pleasurable state, a suffering state, self, selflessness, calmness, noncalmness, emptiness, nonemptiness, the state of having a sign, signlessness, the state of being wished for, or wishlessness,”

is the instruction by words for things.

Instructions for making an effort when all dharmas cannot be apprehended

4.463Having thus taught that a “bodhisattva” does not ultimately, or even conventionally, exist, then, in order to teach the instructions when all dharmas cannot be apprehended, that not only does a bodhisattva not exist, but all dharmas do not exist either, the Lord sets the scene by taking the words of the elder Subhūti’s earlier question:

“Again, Subhūti, you say…”

Earlier, the elder Subhūti, with,

“I do not see that‍—namely, the phenomenon bodhisattva ,”

has said he does not see a phenomenon called “bodhisattva,” teaching that nobody, ultimately, sees anything at all.

4.465Then, the Lord again, in order to teach that ultimately, during the non-thoroughly established period when nobody sees anything at all and nothing else sees that either, says,

“Subhūti, the dharma does not see the dharma-constituent; [F.90.b] the dharma-constituent does not see the dharma,”

and so on. The idea is that a falsely imagined dharma does not see a thoroughly established dharma-constituent, and a thoroughly established dharma-constituent does not see a falsely imagined dharma either. To teach just that it says,

“Subhūti, the form constituent does not see the dharma-constituent,”

and so on.

4.466Then, when they are different, as the reason for that, it also says,

“And why? You cannot make the uncompounded known without the compounded, and you cannot make the compounded known without the uncompounded.”

4.467If compounded dharmas and uncompounded dharmas were to be different, in that case one might be seen by the other, but there are no separate “uncompounded phenomena” at all for compounded phenomena. So, it is just suchness itself called “a compounded phenomenon” during the impure period, and just that itself called “an uncompounded phenomenon” during the purified period. This is just like previously murky water that has later become clear‍—it is just that water itself‍—and like the sky earlier spotted with clouds and so on that has later become spotless‍—it is just that sky itself. Similarly, with previously impure suchness‍—when it has become totally purified it is still just that suchness, so compounded dharmas and uncompounded dharmas do not have different intrinsic natures. Therefore, just as a self does not itself see itself, so too a falsely imagined dharma does not see a thoroughly established dharma-constituent, and a thoroughly established dharma-constituent does not see a falsely imagined dharma either. That is what it means.

4.468To teach the benefit of this practice when all dharmas cannot be apprehended it says,

“Subhūti, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom like that [F.91.a] do not see any dharma at all, but they do not tremble, feel frightened, or become terrified at not seeing; their minds are not cowed by any dharma, do not tense up, and do not experience regret.”

4.469The result of this practice when all dharmas cannot be apprehended is also an increase in faith and an increase in wisdom. With an increase in faith “they do not tremble” and so on; with an increase in wisdom their minds do not sink down and become disenchanted. That faith, furthermore, is especially for three objects: it is felt for the explanations of the deep doctrine, the achievement of what is extremely difficult to do, and the totally amazing, marvelous buddhadharmas. This means that when faith in those three objects increases, the trembling and so on that arise from an absence of faith do not occur, and the cowed mind that arises from the absence of knowledge of just those three profound objects does not occur.

4.470There they are said to “tremble” when it is slight, when it first happens; said to “feel frightened” when it is middling; and said to “become terrified” when it is huge. Connect the feeling of disenchantment with the three time periods like that as well.

4.471Then, they

“do not see form”

and so on is a detailed teaching of just that‍—of dharmas that cannot be apprehended. It teaches all the dharmas: the aggregates, constituents, sense fields, links of dependent origination,

“greed, hatred, and confusion;”

the thirteen‍—

“a self, a being, and a living being,”

and so on;

“the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm;”

and

“śrāvakas and śrāvakadharmas… pratyekabuddhas and pratyekabuddhadharmas… bodhisattvas and bodhisattva dharmas [F.91.b]… buddhas and buddhadharmas… and awakening.”

4.472The aggregates, constituents, sense fields, and links of dependent origination incorporate all inner and outer dharmas; “greed, hatred, and confusion” incorporate all on the side of defilement and the basis of suffering; “a self, a being,” and so on incorporate the totally nonexistent designation dharmas; the three realms incorporate all the dharmas in the cycles of existence; and “śrāvakas” and so on incorporate all bright purification dharmas.

“Mind and mental factor dharmas”

incorporate the six engaging consciousnesses and the foundation consciousness, and what are associated with them, and

“thinking mind and thinking mind dharmas”

teach the afflicted thinking mind and what is associated with it.

Benefits of the endeavor

4.474Having thus completed the fifth, the instructions for the endeavor, to teach the sixth, the benefits of the endeavor, it gives an exposition in a long passage of the text, from,

“Lord, bodhisattva great beings who want to comprehend form should train in the perfection of wisdom,”

and so on, up to

“because in this perfection of wisdom there is detailed instruction for the three vehicles in which bodhisattva great beings should train on the level of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas.”

4.475Again, here there are four benefits:

comprehension of the dharmas that have to be comprehended;

elimination of those that have to be eliminated;

perfecting in meditation those that have to be perfected; and

direct witness by reaching those that have to be directly witnessed.

4.476Among these,

“Lord, bodhisattva great beings who want [F.92.a] to comprehend form,”

and so on, teaches the benefit of comprehension, because this passage teaches that they should comprehend the aggregates, constituents, sense fields, and the links of dependent origination.

“Who want to eliminate greed, hatred, and confusion”

teaches the benefit of elimination because this passage teaches that they should eliminate greed, hatred, and confusion, views, and the ten unwholesome actions. The benefit of perfecting is the passage teaching that they

“complete the ten wholesome actions… the perfections,”

and so on, up to

“the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha.”

4.478And the benefit of directly witnessing is the passage teaching that they

“obtain the dhāraṇi gateways and meditative stabilizations.”

4.479Then it teaches two more benefits: it teaches the benefit that they

“fulfill all the intentions of beings”

and that they

“complete all the wholesome roots.”

These two are also just those characteristic of the perfecting spoken about earlier. They are taught last because they set the scene for the big flaw.

“The big flaw”‍—

this is called “the big flaw” because it is the head or main fault, or because it is the flaw during the peaked period characterized by special insight.

“A conforming love for dharmas”‍—

this is “conforming” because it is in the form of the cause that eliminates error. It is “love for dharmas” because it is together with the mental construction of them as dharmas.

“Form a persistent negative attachment to the notion”‍—

wrong view together with mental construction is “negative attachment” when it is big; the mind is “persistent” when it is middling; and discrimination causes “the notion” when it is small. These three dharmas are in conformity with error: with erroneous discrimination, erroneous mind, and erroneous view. [F.92.b] It also teaches that there is love for two sorts of dharma: the true dharmic nature of the perfect view of reality, and the true dharmic nature of practice.

4.483The locution

“flawlessness”

connotes an absence, because the thing that is the flaw does not exist, hence “flawlessness.”

“Do not see in inner emptiness outer emptiness”‍—

inner emptiness is empty of the intrinsic nature of inner emptiness; it has not been made empty of the other emptinesses, outer emptiness and so on. So this means that an outer emptiness is not to be sought for in inner emptiness in order to make it empty.

4.485Similarly,

“And… in outer emptiness inner emptiness”‍—

this means it is not sought for in order to make it empty, because it is an emptiness of its own intrinsic nature.

“Train so that they know form but do not falsely project anything because of it”‍—

this means that they know that all dharmas are empty of their own intrinsic natures and are merely just names, and with the knowledge that they are merely just names they do not falsely project anything. It explains like that up to

“the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha,”

and then teaches the thought of awakening together with its good qualities, with bodhisattvas

“do not falsely project anything even because of the thought of awakening.”

“Because that thought is no thought”‍—

take the word “thought” as imaginary thought. It says it “is no thought” because the thoroughly established‍—the unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening thought in the form of the dharma body‍—transcends everything marked by mental construction and conceptualization, and hence does not have the mark of a thought. Therefore, it says

“the basic nature of thought is clear light,”

that is, the nature of the thought that is the dharma body is clear light. So, it “is no thought” means that it is no imaginary thought.

“A thought that is not conjoined with greed nor disjoined from greed”

teaches just the basic nature, clear light. Even during the earlier period when greed and hatred [F.93.a] and so on arise in an ordinary person, like space, because it is not sullied by any stains, it is “not conjoined.” Later, even when a buddha, because that thought is separated from the afflictive emotions plucked out of thin air and abides in its natural purity, those stains have absolutely not arisen, and so, like space that is not conjoined with clouds and so on, it is clear light and hence “not disjoined” either. This is saying that it is not the case that it was conjoined earlier and later became disjoined, because, since it is naturally pure even during the earlier period when it is together with stains, it is not conjoined with them, and therefore later as well it is not disjoined from them either.

“Venerable Subhūti, the thought of which you say ‘it is no thought,’ does that thought exist?”

What does he have in mind? He inquires thinking like this: When the elder Subhūti said “because that thought is no thought,” even then he gave expression to the word “thought,” so that thought would come to exist with the mark of thought.

4.490Then the elder Subhūti, having in mind, “I am not saying the mark of thought or the mark of no thought exists. It is not right to say, when talking about an absolute purity established as being inexpressible in its nature as being different, that it is something different, so I am saying ‘thought’ and ‘no thought’ through the force of prior usage,” inquires of him,

“Venerable Śāriputra, can you apprehend existence or nonexistence there, in that state of no thought?”

4.491He intends to say that when it is no thought you cannot say it either exists or does not exist, because that would be resorting to two extremes. Therefore it says,

“No, Venerable Subhūti.”

4.492Then the elder Subhūti, because it is not suitable to express it at that time in either way because of the danger posed by the two extremes, [F.93.b] again asks why he asks that:

“Is then… this argumentative investigation of yours… appropriate?”

4.493After he has said that, Śāriputra, thinking that if he is saying it neither exists nor does not exist then even the mark of no thought does not exist, so why does he say it is no thought, counters,

“Venerable Subhūti, what is the state of no thought?”

4.494Then the elder Subhūti thinks: I am not saying to him “no thought,” having in mind a mark of no thought in some other form. It has to be called “thought” during the earlier period when it is together with stains, because it has distortion and conceptualization, and, because something like that does not exist‍— “no thought” having asserted the mere nonexistence of the thing called “thought.” In order to teach that, he says,

“Venerable Śāriputra, the state of no thought is a state without distortion and without conceptualization,”

by which he means that the nonexistence of something that has distortion and conceptualization‍—like thought during the earlier period‍—is “no thought.”

4.495When he says that, the elder Śāriputra, wondering if during that period it is only thought that is without distortion and without conceptualization, or whether all dharmas are without distortion and without conceptualization, asks

“Venerable Subhūti, just as thought is without distortion and without conceptualization, so too is form without distortion and without conceptualization?”

4.496Then the elder Subhūti explains that the buddhadharmas up to

“unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening are without distortion and without conceptualization as well.”

“The Lord’s son, close to his bosom”‍—

children born miraculously, in that they are born from their father’s heart, are called “children close to his bosom.” Alternatively, take this as the foremost child. So [F.94.a] this elder, in that he is a son born from the heart-mind, is “close to his bosom,” because he has come about from attention to calm abiding and special insight. He is

“born from his mouth,”

because he has come about from explanations of the doctrine;

“born from his Dharma,”

because he has come about from Dharma practice;

“magically produced from his Dharma,”

because he is born from path, result, and realization Dharma;

“his Dharma heir,”

because he takes ownership of nirvāṇa‍—the Dharma;

“not heir to material possessions,”

because he has eliminated craving;

“a direct eyewitness to the dharmas,”

because he is not captured by anything other than the true nature of dharmas; and

“who witnesses with your body,”

because he has attained the form and formless absorptions and has witnessed the dharma body.

4.498He is

“foremost of those who are at the conflict-free stage.”

4.499In the śrāvaka system the meditative absorption that discourages harmful words is called the conflict-free meditative absorption . Because he is at that stage he is called “at the conflict-free stage.” Here, all conceptual thought construction is called “conflict.” Because all of that is absent, the nonconceptual meditative absorption is called without conflict. Because he is at that stage he is called “at the conflict-free stage.”

4.500Then the elder Śāriputra causes delight by praising with

“excellent!”

and so on, teaches that a bodhisattva engaged in such an endeavor is irreversible from achieving awakening, and, having set forth all training at the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha level, and at the Bodhisattva level as benefiting this perfection of wisdom, rejoices in the fact that

“in this perfection of wisdom is detailed instruction for the three vehicles,”

bringing the benefits of the endeavor to a conclusion.

Subdivisions of the endeavor512

4.501Having thus taught the benefits of the endeavor, [F.94.b] there has to be an explanation of the subdivisions of the endeavor for those who wonder about the endeavor’s many aspects, so from here on there is an explanation of six practices that cause going forth. The six practices that cause going forth are

practice free from the two extremes,

practice that does not stand,

practice that does not fully grasp,

practice that has made a full investigation,

practice of method, and

practice for quickly fully awakening.

4.502The Lord himself also teaches that these sorts of practices cause going forth when he sums up in conclusion with

“those bodhisattva great beings stand on the irreversible level by way of not taking their stand on it and will go forth to the knowledge of all aspects and will be near the knowledge of all aspects,”

and so on. It teaches each of the six in its own place below.

Practice free from the two extremes

4.503Now, the elder Subhūti, in order to set the scene for these six practices, says,

“Lord, given that I do not find, do not apprehend, and do not see a bodhisattva or the perfection of wisdom, to which bodhisattva will I give advice and instruction in what perfection of wisdom?”

and so on. This is a fourfold teaching of a bodhisattva and the perfection of wisdom, as well as of a person who is suitable to be given instruction in what cannot be apprehended by the three valid cognitions governed by direct perception, inference, or conclusive teaching, and a perfection of wisdom that is a suitable instruction. Thinking that he does not see them, so, as to what person should they be construed, he poses the question in the passage ending with “give advice and instruction in what perfection of wisdom?”

4.504Then, since no real thing suitable to be the instructions can be apprehended with the three valid cognitions either, “this”‍—the instruction in an unreal dharma by an unreal dharma‍—“really” makes him “uneasy,” [F.95.a] which is to say, thinking he is unable to give instruction in a dharma that cannot be apprehended he thus teaches the passage from,

“Lord, given that I do not find, do not apprehend, and do not see any real basis…‍—Lord, while not finding, not apprehending, and not seeing any real basis, which dharma will advise and instruct which dharma?”

ending with

“this really is something I might be uneasy about.”

4.505Here do not take “uneasy” as mental regret; “uneasy” is about a thing done badly. He intends, “It would be a fault because I would not have understood.”

4.506Again, persons and dharmas that are real things do not exist when presented as in the explanation of the instruction above; therefore, having taken them as simply just names, how could the persons and the dharmas wax and wane? With that thought he makes this statement:

“Because, Lord, given that I do not find, do not apprehend, and do not see all dharmas, this really is something I might be uneasy about, how I might make just the name bodhisattva and just the name perfection of wisdom wax and wane.”

“Wax” is the over-reification of what does not truly exist; “wane” is the over-negation of what does truly exist.

4.508Then, in order to teach that even those very names are not real things, he says,

“Lord, furthermore, that name does not stand alone and does not meet up with anything. And why? It is because that name does not exist.”

4.509“Does not stand alone” means a compounded dharma thus does not stand; “does not meet up with anything” means that an uncompounded dharma like space and so on does not stand.

4.510After teaching like that, Subhūti, in order to further teach that, having seen every other dharma freed from the extremes of over-reification and over-negation, he does not see anything that could be labeled with the names bodhisattva or perfection of wisdom , [F.95.b] says,

“Lord, given that I do not apprehend and do not see the waxing and waning of form,”

and so on. Our own Lord Buddha and the tathāgatas together with their śrāvaka saṅghas and bodhisattva communities in as many world systems in the ten directions as there are sand particles in the Gaṅgā River teach the suchness of all the dharmas: the aggregates, constituents, sense fields, six contacts, six feelings, and six elements; the links of dependent origination; greed, hatred, and confusion; obsessions, obscurations, proclivities, fetters, and views; a self, a living being, a creature and so on (the thirteen); all the perfections; all the emptinesses; the dharmas on the side of awakening, gateways to liberation, four concentrations, four immeasurables, and formless absorptions; the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha; morality; giving away; the gods; disgust at what is included in the body; breathing in and out; death; the five eyes, six clairvoyances, ten powers, four fearlessnesses, four detailed and thorough knowledges, eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha, and five appropriating aggregates that are like a dream, illusion, mirage, city of the gandharvas, echo, apparition, reflection in the mirror, and magical creation; isolation, calm, nonproduction, nonstopping, nonappearing, not occasioning anything, nondefilement, and nonpurification; suchness, unmistaken suchness, unaltered suchness, the true nature of dharmas, the dharma-constituent, the establishment of dharmas, the certification of dharmas, the very limit of reality, and the inconceivable element; the wholesome and unwholesome, [F.96.a] basic immorality and not basic immorality, with outflows and without outflows, with afflictions and without afflictions, ordinary and extraordinary, compounded and uncompounded, defiled and purified, and saṃsāra and nirvāṇa dharmas; and the past, future, and present.

4.511What is the difference between the terms

“suchness, unmistaken suchness,”

and so on? They are differentiated because the referent of the thoroughly established differs.

4.512Here the mark of the thoroughly established is ninefold:

the thoroughly established that is indestructible,

the thoroughly established without error,

the thoroughly established that does not alter,

the thoroughly established that is the nature of things,

the thoroughly established that is the state causing all purification dharmas,

the thoroughly established that is constant,

the thoroughly established that is irreversible,

the thoroughly established that is true reality, and

the thoroughly established beyond the path of logic.

4.513The thoroughly established that is indestructible is called suchness , because it always stays just like that without being destroyed.

4.514The thoroughly established without error is called unmistaken suchness because it is without mistakes and is not a form of error.

4.515The thoroughly established that does not alter is called unaltered suchness because it does not change.

4.516The thoroughly established in its intrinsic nature is called the true nature of dharmas because it is the mark that all dharmas share‍—having emptiness for their intrinsic nature.

4.517The thoroughly established that is the cause of all purification dharmas is called [F.96.b] the dharma-constituent because it is the constituent and cause of all the buddhadharmas‍—the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and so on.

4.518The mark of the thoroughly established that is constant is called the establishment of dharmas because it remains constantly, because it says,

“Whether the tathāgatas arise or whether they do not arise this true nature of dharmas simply remains.”

4.519The thoroughly established that is irreversible is called the certification of dharmas because by breaking through to the first level on up one goes forth to a state in which perfection is certain because one will have gone forth to perfect, complete awakening‍—to flawlessness.

4.520The thoroughly established that is true reality is called the very limit of reality because it reaches its limit in reality, in the true reality that is without error.

4.521The thoroughly established beyond the limit of logic is called the inconceivable element because it is inexpressible, self-reflexive analytic knowledge beyond the scope of all inference.

4.522Furthermore, all imaginary phenomena are

like a dream

because they are not like that when awakening has happened. The opposite of those is called suchness , because suchness exists at all times.

4.523All dharmas are like

an illusion

because they are mistaken appearances, so the opposite of those is called unmistaken suchness , because it is an unmistaken nature.

4.524All dharmas are like

a mirage

because while they are one thing they look like something else, so the opposite of those is called unaltered suchness because it does not ever change.

4.525All dharmas are like

a reflection of the moon in water

because, while that is not the actual nature of that phenomenon, it appears as that phenomenon’s actual nature, so the opposite of those is called the true nature of dharmas , because it is the nature of the ultimate.

4.526All dharmas are like

a city of the gandharvas [F.97.a]

because they are meaningless. The opposite of those is called the dharma-constituent because it is the cause of the buddhadharmas and is meaningful.

4.527All dharmas are like

an echo

because they are fleeting. The opposite of those is called the establishment of dharmas because its mark is lasting.

4.528All dharmas are like

an apparition

because they have a nature that is not fixed. The opposite of those is the certification of dharmas because its nature is fixed.

4.529All dharmas are like

a reflection in the mirror

because they are a transference of consciousness. The opposite of those is the very limit of reality because it is the ultimate.

4.530All dharmas are like

a magical creation

because they are karmically created by mind. The opposite of those is the inconceivable element because it is beyond the entire scope of the thinking mind.

4.531Ultimately these are all synonyms of the thoroughly established.

4.532Having eliminated over-reification and over-negation by teaching that you cannot apprehend the waxing and waning of all phenomena, to teach that a name cannot be apprehended, he says,

“Lord, whatever this designation bodhisattva that is a conventional term for the true nature of dharmas is, it cannot be said to be aggregates, or constituents, or sense fields,”

and so on. This teaching is in two parts.

4.533The subsection of the passage saying “it cannot be said to be… at all” teaches that a name is not included in the collection of dharmas‍—the aggregates, constituents, sense fields, and so on. The subsection of the passage saying “cannot be said to be anything” teaches not being included in the true dharmic nature of

“wholesome or unwholesome or neutral, basic immorality or not basic immorality,”

and so on.

4.534The subsection of the passage saying “cannot be said by anything at all” teaches by saying the names for [F.97.b]

“dream, illusion, mirage, city of the gandharvas , echo, apparition, a reflection in the mirror, and magical creation,”

which are absolutely nonexistent but still are renowned in the world; for

“space, earth, water, fire, and wind,”

which are renowned as having the mark of just conceptualized phenomena; for

“ suchness , unmistaken suchness , unaltered suchness , true nature of dharmas , dharma-constituent , establishment of dharmas , certification of dharmas , and very limit of reality ,”

which are renowned as having the mark of the thoroughly established; for all the perfections that are renowned as the true dharmic nature of bodhisattvas; for

“ morality , meditative stabilization , wisdom , liberation, and knowledge and seeing of liberation,”

all of which are renowned as the true dharmic nature of śrāvakas; and for

“ stream enterer , once-returner , non-returner , worthy one , and pratyekabuddha ”;

and for

“ stream enterer dharmas ,”

and so on; and for

“ bodhisattva , bodhisattva dharmas … and buddha, and buddhadharmas .”

[B9]

4.535Then, at the end of just that practice free from the two extremes, again, in conclusion, to teach going forth, the passage, up to the end, says,

“You should know that bodhisattva great beings stand on the irreversible level by way of not taking their stand on it and will go forth to the knowledge of all aspects.”

Practice that does not stand

4.536Having thus given the names and taught the dharmas of the practice free from the two extremes, after that, to teach the practice that does not stand, it says,

“Furthermore, Lord, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom should not stand in form,”

and so on.

4.537It also teaches this practice in two parts: not standing in dharmas and not standing in the true nature of dharmas.

4.538Among these, [F.98.a] not standing in dharmas is the passage from where it says

“should not stand in form,”

up to,

“Because of this one of many explanations, Lord, when bodhisattva great beings are practicing the perfection of wisdom they should not stand in syllables.”

4.539Not standing in the true nature of dharmas is the passage from where it says,

“Furthermore, Lord, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom should not stand in ‘form is impermanent,’ ”

and ending with

“and therefore do not fulfill the perfection of wisdom and go forth to the knowledge of all aspects.”

4.540At the end of listing the dharmas within the context of explaining the practice free from the two extremes, it says

“[they] stand on the irreversible level by way of not taking their stand on it and will go forth to the knowledge of all aspects.”

Because it says “by way of not taking their stand,” it should be taken as a segue to the category of the practice that does not stand.

4.541Now an explanation has to be given that lists the dharmas within the context of explaining all the practices that do not stand, so, having taught that they do not stand in the five aggregates, with

“[they] should not stand in form ; they should not stand in feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness,”

it then, taking form as its point of departure, also gives the reason why they do not stand in each of them separately, with,

“Lord, it is because form is empty of form… that emptiness of form is not form, and emptiness is not other than form. Form itself is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form.”

4.542The intention is as follows: Earlier it said that they “should not stand in form,” and it said that it is “because form is empty of form.” There are three types of form: falsely imagined form, conceptualized form, [F.98.b] and the true dharmic nature of form.

4.543Among these, the form ordinary foolish beings take to be defined as an easily breakable or seeable real thing is imaginary form.

4.544The aspect in which just that appears as real as an object of consciousness is conceptualized form.

4.545Just the bare thoroughly established suchness separated from those two falsely imagined and conceptualized form aspects is the true dharmic nature of form. It is

“empty”

because it is empty of the definitions‍—being seeable and so on‍—of imaginary phenomena, and of any form conceptualized as a form appearing in the aspect of an object.

4.546When this is said, someone might entertain a doubt, thinking that that which is the true dharmic nature of form empty of the imaginary form and conceptualized form might have a definition of form that is quite other, and it might then also be called “form.” It therefore says

“that emptiness of form is not form.”

4.547This means the suchness empty of imaginary and conceptualized form that is the true dharmic nature of form marking the thoroughly established does not have form for its intrinsic nature because it is totally isolated from form aspects.

4.548When this is said, someone might entertain a doubt, thinking that if form is totally nonexistent, well then, that of which it is empty is called “emptiness,” and without the object there is no emptiness, so, a true dharmic nature that is other than a dharma is not tenable, and a dharma that is other than a true dharmic nature is not tenable either. It therefore says

“and emptiness is not other than form.”

4.549What does this teach? It means that just as water that is not clear is called “dirty” when it is not clear, and “clear water” when it is clear, and just as space is called “cloudy” when it is not clear, [F.99.a] and “clear space” when it is clear, similarly with this emptiness. In nonpure contexts you use the word “form” and so on for it, in order not to be different from ordinary fools, and in pure contexts you call it “emptiness.” Therefore the dharmas, form and so on, that are different from emptiness do not exist. Because a difference between dharmas and the true nature of dharmas does not exist, when you set forth a dharma as the true dharmic nature

“form itself is emptiness, and”

when you have set forth the true dharmic nature as a dharma

“emptiness itself is form.”

4.550Alternatively, in

“form itself is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form,”

take emptiness as suchness, as the true dharmic nature of form.

4.551Thus, it says

“they should not stand in form,”

because it is not suitable for them to stand in imaginary and conceptualized forms that are absolutely nonexistent, and it is also not suitable for them to stand in thoroughly established form.

4.552Similarly, connect this with

“feeling”

and so on.

“Should not stand in syllables”

and so on‍—they should not stand in seed syllables.

“Should not stand in syllable accomplishment”‍—

the term “syllable accomplishment” is used for the production of the knowledge of anutpāda (“nonproduction”) after resorting to the seed syllable a, and so on, used as a dhāraṇī. This teaches that they should not stand there either. That dhāraṇī knowledge is a product of such explanations as

“a is the door to all dharmas because they are unproduced from the very beginning.”

4.555That statement, furthermore, becomes a condition for full awakening when certain bodhisattvas with sharp faculties resort to the single statement and enter into the meaning of nonproduction. It happens when those with middling faculties resort to two syllables and have become familiar with two statements. [F.99.b] Many statements become a condition for full awakening when those with dull faculties resort to them and have become familiar with them. Hence it says

“should not stand… in a single explanation, in two explanations, or in a number of different explanations.”

4.556Also, in the subsection of the passage about not standing in the true nature of dharmas, it says

“form that is impermanent is empty of the intrinsic nature of form that is impermanent.”

4.557The impermanence of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas is marked by production and cessation, that is, is marked as a falsely imagined phenomenon. The nonexistent thing that is the meaning based on the bodhisattvas’ definition of impermanence is said to be “the meaning of impermanence.” Thus, existing permanently is called permanence. A permanently nonexistent thing, being nonexistent at all times, the opposite of that, is said to be the bodhisattvas’ impermanence. Hence it is saying that impermanence is ultimately marked by nonexistence. “Form that is impermanent is empty of the intrinsic nature of form that is impermanent”: that true reality, the ultimately “impermanent” of the bodhisattvas, is “empty of the intrinsic nature of the impermanent” marked by production and cessation that is conceptualized by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.

4.558“And why?” It says,

“Also, that which is the emptiness of form that is impermanent is not the impermanence of form.”

This means that that which, ultimately, is the true reality that is the impermanence of form is not the intrinsic nature of the impermanence of imaginary form, and therefore the ultimate impermanence of form is empty of the impermanence of imaginary form.

4.559To those who think, “In that case the true nature of a dharma is different from the dharma,” it says

“and form that is impermanent is not other than emptiness.”

This means that there is no impermanence of a falsely imagined form other than suchness, like clean water and space.

4.560Because they are not different, it says

“and emptiness itself is form that is impermanent.” [F.100.a]

The idea is that emptiness is a word to convey the emptiness of form that is impermanent.

4.561Connect this in the same way with all the rest.

Practice that does not fully grasp

4.562Having thus taught practice that does not stand, to teach the faults of standing, it says,

“Furthermore, Lord, when bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom without skill in means stand in form with a mind that has descended into grasping at ‘I’ and grasping at ‘mine,’ they practice an enactment of form, and they do not practice the perfection of wisdom,”

and so on. It means if, “without skill in means”‍—which is to say if, having incorrectly grasped dharmas without knowing that they are characterized as something that does not exist‍—they “stand in form,” and think, “I am, in my basic nature, form,” or “this form is me,” or “it is defined as being seeable,” then they “practice an enactment of form,” that is, a karmically formed phenomenon that ensues when there is the conception of form, “not the perfection of wisdom” that follows emptiness.

4.563To teach the faults of practicing an enactment, it says

“practicing an enactment [they] do not cultivate the perfection of wisdom,”

and so on.

4.564To those thinking, “Why, without such skill in means, when practicing an enactment of form and descending into grasping at ‘I’ and grasping at ‘mine,’ do they not attain the practice of the perfection of wisdom, and not attain the definite emergences by becoming absorbed in and completing the yogic practice that does not fully grasp?” it says,

“It is because, Lord, form is not fully grasped,”

and so on.

4.565This is the “practice that does not fully grasp.” It teaches this practice in three parts as well:

not fully grasping dharmas, [F.100.b]

not fully grasping causal signs, and

not fully grasping understanding.

4.566Among these, the subsection explaining not fully grasping dharmas is from

“form is not fully grasped, and…,”

and from

“that knowledge of all aspects is not fully grasped, because of inner emptiness,”

up to

“because of the emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature.”

4.567The subsection on not fully grasping causal signs starts from,

“And why? Because it cannot be expressed as a causal sign,”

and goes up to

“having thus comprehended he did not fully grasp form , did not fully grasp feeling,”

and up to

“did not fully grasp the very limit of reality.”

4.568The subsection of the passage on not fully grasping understanding is from,

“And why? Because he did not apprehend a grasper of all dharmas that are empty of their own mark,”

up to,

“Lord, because all dharmas are not fully grasped, it is the bodhisattva great being’s perfection of wisdom.”

Not Fully Grasping Dharmas

4.569There, first, in the subsection explaining not fully grasping dharmas, in regard to

“form is not fully grasped,”

because of the self, the true dharmic nature of form‍—whatever the cause of a descent into grasping at “I” and grasping at “mine”‍—is not grasped as form. Therefore, it teaches that when an enactment is practiced, it is not a practice practicing the ultimate perfection of wisdom. “And why” is form not fully grasped? It says,

“Because a form not fully grasped is not form, because of the emptiness of a basic nature.”

Here, take “not fully grasped” with the mark of a thoroughly established phenomenon. It is saying that the true dharmic nature of form that is not fully grasped, which is the intrinsic nature of a thoroughly established phenomenon, is not a falsely imagined form’s intrinsic nature. Therefore, the true dharmic nature of form is connected with “is not fully grasped.” [F.101.a]

4.570“Because of the emptiness of a basic nature” means it is not the case that, having fully grasped some aspect of an attribute of form and so on earlier, later some other counteracting force will make it empty. Its basic nature is emptiness.

4.571Construe from “feeling” and so on, up to “the very limit of reality,” like that as well.

“Lord, this meditative concentration sphere of bodhisattva great beings is called sarva­dharmāparigṛhīta ; it is vast, prized, infinite, fixed, cannot be stolen, and is not shared in common with śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas”

teaches its dharma.

“Abiding in that sphere of meditative stabilizations”

and so on teaches the benefit.

“And that knowledge of all aspects is not fully grasped, because of inner emptiness,”

up to

“emptiness that is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature,”

is teaching that because the completion of the thoroughly cleansed transcendental knowledge of all the emptinesses when all dharmas are not apprehended is “the knowledge of all aspects,” therefore it too is “not fully grasped.”

4.575Therefore, it says

“it cannot be expressed as a causal sign.”

This means that even the knowledge of all aspects is separated from the causal sign of the knowledge of all aspects because it definitely does not have a mental image of a causal sign.

“Because a causal sign is an affliction”‍—

the very causal signs of the bodhisattvas’ conceptualizations afflict the mindstream, so they are taught to be “affliction.”

Not Fully Grasping Causal Signs

4.577The subsection on not fully grasping causal signs also explains in terms of these, so it says,

“What is a causal sign? Form is a causal sign,”

and so on. It means that they are all, ultimately, afflictions for bodhisattvas so they should be abandoned, but not like attachment and so on.

“If the perfection of wisdom [F.101.b] were something that could be taken up through a causal sign, then the religious mendicant Śreṇika,”

and so on, is an elucidation of the practice without causal signs.

“The religious mendicant Śreṇika also believed in this knowledge of a knower of all aspects.”

Earlier, that religious mendicant had not realized the practice without causal signs. He had generated a faith in it, and with just that faith he produced and gained knowledge free from causal signs, but because all dharmas were not its object it was not the knowledge without causal signs.

“Partial knowledge”‍—

having comprehended dharmas, each individually, he did not apprehend the causal sign of form when he had fully grasped and understood form analytically. Similarly, he did not apprehend the causal sign of feeling when he had fully grasped and understood feeling analytically. Hence it says,

“Having thus comprehended [he] did not fully grasp form . Similarly, he did not fully grasp feeling, perception, volitional factors, or consciousness,”

up to

“he has not fully grasped even the very limit of reality.”

4.581To teach the reason for that, it explains

“because he did not apprehend a grasper of all dharmas that are empty of their own mark.”

By having comprehended with that signless knowledge each of them individually in the form of signlessness, he comes to understand that all dharmas are empty of their own mark. Hence “he did not apprehend” a person or knower that is “a grasper.”

4.582Also, as a reason for that it says,

“Because he did not see that knowledge as being an inner attainment and clear realization of knowledge, and he did not see it as being an outer one. He did not see that knowledge as being an inner and outer attainment and clear realization, and he did not see that attainment and clear realization of knowledge as being some other either.”

4.583This means that religious mendicant, having taken hold of his knowledge and fully investigated the attainment and the realization‍—whether with this knowledge of his he had attained special dharmas he had not attained before, [F.102.a] or whether the dharmas he had clearly realized with this knowledge had not been clearly realized before‍—did not see the knowledge as located in him, located outside, located in both, or located somewhere else besides those. Hence it says

“because he did not apprehend and did not see that with which he might know, or that which the knowledge might know.”

4.584There the “that with which” is teaching “that knowledge with which.” The “that which” is teaching “that which he has attained and clearly realized.” The “that which” is also teaching the dharmas he has not attained and has not clearly realized.

Not Fully Grasping Understanding

4.585Having thus taught that knowledge of attainment and clear realization does not exist as any of the four alternatives, then, in order to teach that knowledge of all dharmas‍—form and so on, which are objects‍—also does not operate as any of the four alternatives, it says

“he did not see that knowledge inside form,”

and so on. It means that he also did not see the knowledge of all dharmas‍—form and so on, which are objects‍—inside, outside, in both, or somewhere else.

4.586To again elucidate just that, it says,

“The religious mendicant Śreṇika believed in this one of many explanations,”

and so on, up to

“because he did not pay attention to any causal signs.”

This teaches the benefit of this comprehension of practice that does not fully grasp.

“Lord, this‍—… the state in which the bodhisattva great beings have gone beyond the others; it is the perfection of wisdom.”

This means it is thus a beyond that is different from all other dharmas, which has become different from all conceptualizations and all causal signs. The absence of conceptualization is the beyond in the sense that signlessness is the “beyond.” [F.102.b]

4.588What is that which is beyond the others? It says

“that he does not fully grasp form,”

and so on. Because he does not fully grasp form and so on, he is therefore “beyond the others.”

“In the interim they do not pass into complete nirvāṇa.”

That religious mendicant Śreṇika is in the buddha lineage so in the interim he does not pass into nirvāṇa. As for saying “in the interim,” it says

“those prayers are nonprayers, those powers are nonpowers, those fearlessnesses are nonfearlessnesses, those detailed and thorough knowledges are nondetailed and nonthorough knowledges, up to those eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha are nonbuddhadharmas,”

so this “in the interim” teaches they are beyond the others.

Practice that has made a full investigation575

4.590Having thus made fully complete the practice that does not fully grasp, next, taking the practice that has made a full investigation as its point of departure, it says,

“Furthermore, Lord, bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom should make an investigation like this,”

and so on.

4.591This practice that has made a full investigation is taught in four parts as well:

“What is it… of what is it… why is it… and what is it for?”

4.592From

“if, when they investigate and ponder like that,”

up to

“thus, practicing the perfection of wisdom… are not separated from the knowledge of all aspects,”

teaches the “what.”

4.593From

“Venerable Śāriputra, form is separated from the intrinsic nature of form,”

up to

“the very limit of reality is separated from the intrinsic nature of the very limit of reality,”

teaches the “of what.”

4.594From

“furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, form does not have the defining mark of form,”

up to

“bodhisattva great beings who are training in this training go forth to the knowledge of all aspects,”

teaches [F.103.a] the “why.”

4.595From

“all dharmas have not been produced and have not gone forth,”

up to

“Venerable Śāriputra, a bodhisattva great being thus practicing the perfection of wisdom is near unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening,”

teaches the “what it is for.”

4.596There, “what is it” is a question about its basic nature. There the perfection of wisdom should be described as a realization.

4.597“Of what is it” is a question about what it is connected with. There it should be described as a realization of all dharmas.

4.598“Why is it” is a question about the reason it is the perfection of wisdom. There it should be said it is because it is a realization marked by the state of things as they really are.

4.599“What is it for” is a question about function. There it should be said it is because it causes an escape.

4.600It says

“when they investigate and ponder”

the responses that have to be made to all those

“like that”‍—

as in the response to the above question “what is it?”‍—

“if… they see that the dharma that does not exist and that they do not find is the perfection of wisdom they still do not see it.”

If they thus see that the dharma that does not exist and is not found is the perfection of wisdom, that too is not seeing.

4.601What does this intend? It means that at that time even the intrinsic nature of all dharmas that cannot be apprehended is like space, so, when that which has viewed it is a seeing without an intrinsic nature, it is a perfect seeing.

4.602Therefore, it says

“because, Lord, all dharmas do not exist and are not found.”

It means during that period.

4.603When the elder Subhūti says

“you should know”

that those who, when they see that all dharmas, form and so on, are not real things,

“are not cowed… and do not tremble,”

and so on, are not separated from the knowledge of all aspects, the elder Śāriputra, to teach the mark of nonseparation, [F.103.b] asks,

“Venerable Subhūti, why should you know that they are not separated from the knowledge of all aspects?”

4.604At that point the elder Subhūti says that because all dharmas are separated from an intrinsic nature, therefore

“you should know”

that those who see that this is so

“are not separated from the knowledge of all aspects.”

4.605With,

“Venerable Śāriputra, because of this one of many explanations, form does not have the intrinsic nature of form,”

and so on, he answers the question “of what” is it the perfection of wisdom? Given that all dharmas are not real things because they are separated from an intrinsic nature, what dharmas does it then realize so that it is taught to be “the perfection of wisdom”?

4.606From,

“Furthermore, Venerable Śāriputra, form does not have the defining mark of form,”

up to those

“who are training in this… go forth to the knowledge of all aspects,”

teaches why it is a perfection of wisdom. It is posited as “the perfection of wisdom” because it realizes the marks of all dharmas. This is teaching that if all dharmas have no marks and are separated from marks, what are the marks it realizes? It is saying because all marks are falsely imagined, are nonexistent, therefore the true nature of dharmas is separated from the mark of form and so on.

4.607From,

“Venerable Subhūti, do bodhisattva great beings training in this training go forth to the knowledge of all aspects?”

up to,

“Venerable Śāriputra, bodhisattva great beings thus practicing the perfection of wisdom are near unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening”

teaches what this perfection of wisdom is for. It is a “perfection of wisdom” because it causes an escape. [F.104.a] That escape, furthermore, is not to all dharmas,

“because all dharmas have not been produced and have not gone forth.”

Hence it is also teaching that it also does not cause an escape.

“Venerable Śāriputra… form is empty of form. You cannot get at its production and going forth.”

This means that because the thoroughly established true dharmic nature of form is empty of the intrinsic nature of falsely imagined form, therefore there is no production and going forth of a defiled nature during the period of saṃsāra, and no mistaken entity exists in the purified nature during the purified period. Hence a going forth plucked out of thin air does not exist, because in its intrinsic nature it is purity, and the true nature of dharmas does not change. It

“has not been produced”

during the period when it has stains, and it

“has not gone forth”

during the period when it is stainless.

Practice of method587

4.609Having thus taught the practice that has made a full investigation, next, to teach the practice as perseverance is the passage from where it says,

“Lord, if bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom without skillful means practice form,”

and so on, up to the end:

“Śāriputra… they… bodhisattva great beings… are close to the knowledge of all aspects.”

4.610This practice as perseverance is also taught in two parts: the lack of method that has to be eliminated, and the method that has to be resorted to. The lack of method is explained in two parts as well: the practice of causal signs, and the practice of enactment. The method to be resorted to is also explained in two parts: not practicing dharmas, and not practicing the causal signs of dharmas.

4.611Among these, the practice of causal signs because of lacking method is from

“if… without skillful means [bodhisattva great beings] practice form they practice a causal sign; [F.104.b] they do not practice the perfection of wisdom,”

up to where it says,

“You should know that this is the bodhisattva great beings’ lack of skillful means.”

4.612The practice of enactment because of lacking method starts from where it says

“possess, form a notion of, and believe in form,”

and is up to,

“Venerable Śāriputra, you should know that bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom like that are without skillful means.”

4.613They “possess” because of mental error, “form a notion” because of perceptual error, and “believe” because of philosophical error.

4.614For the practice of method, the practice without apprehending dharmas starts from where it says,

“Venerable Śāriputra… when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom they do not practice form,”

and goes up to,

“Venerable Śāriputra, when bodhisattva great beings practice the perfection of wisdom like that you should know that they have skillful means.”

4.615I have already explained “the emptiness of form is not form” and so on above, so there is no need to repeat the explanation here.

4.616In the practice of method, practice without apprehending the causal signs of dharmas starts from where it says,

“If, while practicing the perfection of wisdom they apprehend any dharma, they are not practicing the perfection of wisdom,”

and goes up to

“[those] bodhisattva great beings… are close to the knowledge of all aspects.”

4.617There, connect the four alternatives that

“they apprehend… they do not apprehend… they apprehend when they apprehend and do not apprehend when they do not apprehend… and they neither apprehend nor not apprehend”

with causal signs; and construe these four this way:

“ ‘I am practicing,’… ‘I am not practicing,’… ‘I am practicing when I am practicing [F.105.a] and not practicing when I am not practicing,’ and… ‘I am neither practicing nor not practicing’ ”

with causal signs as well.

“The perfection of wisdom is without an intrinsic nature and cannot be found”‍—

at the thoroughly established stage all dharmas cannot be apprehended, so even the perfection of wisdom does not exist on account of the perfection of wisdom’s own intrinsic nature.

Practice for quickly fully awakening

4.620Having thus taught the practice of perseverance, now, with

“furthermore… that knowledge of all aspects is not two and cannot be divided into two,”

and so on, it teaches the practice for quickly fully awakening. This practice is also taught in four parts:

training in the meditative stabilization spheres,

training in not apprehending all dharmas,

training in the illusion-like and so on, and

training in skillful means.

4.621Among them, the training in meditative stabilizations starts from

“because all dharmas are things that are not real, that knowledge of all aspects is not two and cannot be divided into two,”

and goes up to

“one should train in the applications of mindfulness.”

4.622Training in not apprehending all dharmas is taught in the passage starting from where it says,

“Śāriputra, when bodhisattva great beings train like that in the perfection of wisdom,”

and

“they train in the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha, by way of not apprehending anything,”

and so on, up to the end:

“Śāriputra, they go forth to the knowledge of all aspects by way of not apprehending emptiness.”

4.624Training in the illusion-like and so on is taught in the passage starting from where it says,

“Lord, suppose someone were to ask, ‘Does this illusory being, having trained in the perfection of wisdom, go forth to the knowledge of all aspects or reach the knowledge of all aspects?’ ”

up to,

“Because, Lord, form is like an illusion, and feeling [F.105.b]… perception… volitional factors… and consciousness is like an illusion, and what that consciousness is, the six faculties are. They are the five aggregates.”

4.625Skillful means is taught in the passage starting from where it says,

“Subhūti… if they are bodhisattva great beings who have newly set out in the vehicle, and are those without skillful means who have not been taken in hand by a spiritual friend,”

up to

“someone… Subhūti, they should know is a bad friend of a bodhisattva great being.”

Training in the meditative stabilization spheres

4.626Among these, training in meditative stabilizations is taught in two parts: an explanation of the names and an explanation of nonconceptualization.

4.627Among these, in regard to the explanation of names, it first teaches meditative stabilization in the form of nonproduction with,

“Furthermore, because all dharmas are things that are not real, that knowledge of all aspects is not two and cannot be divided into two,”

and so on. Construe “knowledge of all aspects” as the stage when all dharmas are not two, because for all imaginary dharmas there is bifurcation into grasped-object and grasper-subject, exist and does not exist, real thing and unreal thing, eternal and annihilated, compounded and uncompounded, dharma and nondharma, and so on, as well as into permanent and impermanent, pleasure and suffering, having a self and selfless, calm and not calm, empty and not empty, having a sign and signless, wished for and wishless, and so on. All those pairs are falsely imagined phenomena, and because they do not exist in the knowledge of all aspects it says the “knowledge of all aspects is not two.” A real twofold thing arrived at through realization [F.106.a] does not exist, so it says “cannot be divided into two.”

4.628Having taught abiding in meditative stabilization by giving the names of the meditative stabilizations, then, to teach abiding in nonconceptual meditative stabilization, it says

“those… do not even see those meditative stabilizations, because they do not falsely project on account of those meditative stabilizations, ‘I have been absorbed,’ ”

and so on. They “do not even see meditative stabilization” because it is the meditative stabilization at the thoroughly established stage when all dharmas have become just suchness.

4.629Because the falsely imagined “I will be in meditative equipoise” and so on are totally nonexistent, the threefold conceptualizations based on time periods of them as meditative stabilization and of oneself in meditative equipoise, and the conceptualization of entering into absorption and conceptualization do not exist. Therefore, it says,

“Those bodhisattva great beings do not conceive of those.”

4.630And just because of that it says,

“The perfection of wisdom is not one thing, the meditative stabilization another, and the bodhisattva yet another. Bodhisattvas themselves are the meditative stabilization, and the meditative stabilization itself is the bodhisattva.”

4.631It says that because all dharmas have the same nature as mere suchness. And just because of that, it says

“because all dharmas are the same.”

“Is it possible to teach the meditative stabilization?”‍—

which is to say, is it possible to differentiate them and describe it? He asks, thinking that in that case the bodhisattvas themselves would be the meditative stabilizations. In order to explain that the mark of a meditative stabilization is not different it says,

“No indeed, Venerable Śāriputra.”

4.633Then the elder Śāriputra, wondering why, if the names of the meditative stabilizations do not exist, their names were given, [F.106.b] asks,

“Do they form a notion of those meditative stabilizations?”

4.634He is asking, “Like śrāvakas do?” Then, because such mental construction does not exist, venerable Subhūti says,

“They do not form such notions.”

4.635Then, because the explanation of the meditative stabilizations has been taught in one explanation and the activity taught in another, Śāriputra asks,

“How do they not form such notions?”

4.636Then, because the meditative stabilizations and their functions exist with a falsely imagined nature but cannot be apprehended when the marks of the falsely imagined have been eliminated, Subhūti therefore says,

“They do not mentally construct them.”

4.637Then, to eliminate the thought of “mine,” it says

“because all phenomena do not exist.”

4.638Thus, take the “conflict” in

“taught to be the foremost of śrāvakas at the conflict-free stage”

as conceptualization. Freedom from all thought construction, absorption into the nonconceptual, is absorption into “the conflict-free.” Hence the Lord confers an

“excellent!”

on the nonconceptual state.

Training in not apprehending all dharmas

4.639Having thus given an exposition of the training in meditative stabilization, to teach training in not apprehending it says,

“Śāriputra… training like that… up to they train in the eighteen distinct attributes of a buddha, by way of not apprehending anything,”

and so on.

4.640To teach training in not apprehending, it gives an exposition of not apprehending persons with,

“Śāriputra, because of the state of absolute purity they do not apprehend a self,”

and so on. It then gives an exposition of not apprehending all dharmas, with

“aggregates, constituents, sense fields,”

and so on, teaching

“they do not apprehend a stream enterer,”

and so on, up to

“a buddha.”

4.641As for