The Three Marks of Noble Wisdom
The Buddha names three marks a bodhisattva must cultivate to pass beyond the "lame donkey's" wisdom and reach the eighth ground: the mark of having nothing at all, the mark of every buddha's own place of vowing, and the mark of the ultimate in self-realized noble wisdom. Mahāmati then asks for the teaching that will ground the "hundred and eight statements" already given, and the Buddha answers with a debate over whether a rabbit's horns and a cow's horns are equally unreal, or unreal in two entirely different ways — a debate that turns out to be about whether any imagined thing, or the denial of it, was ever a fit object for a claim of "existing" or "not existing" at all.
The Three Marks of Noble Wisdom
「復次，大慧！若菩薩摩訶薩欲知自心現量、攝受及攝受者妄想境界，當離群聚習俗睡眠，初中後夜常自覺悟修行方便；當離惡見經論言說，及諸聲聞緣覺乘相；當通達自心現妄想之相。
「復次，大慧！菩薩摩訶薩建立智慧相住已，於上聖智三相，當勤修學。何等為聖智三相當勤修學？所謂：無所有相、一切諸佛自願處相、自覺聖智究竟之相。修行得此已，能捨跛驢心慧智相，得最勝子第八之地，則於彼上三相修生。大慧！無所有相者，謂聲聞、緣覺及外道相，彼修習生。大慧！自願處相者，謂諸先佛自願處修生。大慧！自覺聖智究竟相者，一切法相無所計著，得如幻三昧身，諸佛地處進趣行生。大慧！是名聖智三相。若成就此聖智三相者，能到自覺聖智境界。是故，大慧！聖智三相，當勤修學。」
爾時大慧菩薩摩訶薩知大菩薩眾心之所念，名聖智事分別自性經，承一切佛威神之力而白佛言：「世尊！唯願為說聖智事分別自性經，百八句分別所依。如來、應供、等正覺，依此分別說菩薩摩訶薩入自相、共相、妄想自性。以分別說妄想自性故，則能善知周遍觀察人法無我，淨除妄想，照明諸地，超越一切聲聞、緣覺及諸外道諸禪定樂，觀察如來不可思議所行境界，畢定捨離五法自性。諸佛如來法身智慧，善自莊嚴，超幻境界，昇一切佛剎、兜率天宮乃至色究竟天宮，逮得如來常住法身。」
"Furthermore, Mahāmati, if a bodhisattva-mahāsattva wishes to know the measure of his own mind's manifestation, and the false thought bound up with what is grasped and the one who grasps it, he should keep apart from crowds, from worldly custom, and from sleep, and, throughout the first, middle, and last watches of the night, constantly awaken himself to the skillful means of practice; he should keep apart from wrong views, from scriptural debate and idle talk, and from the marks proper to the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha vehicles; and he should penetrate to the very mark of the false thought manifested by his own mind.
"Furthermore, Mahāmati, once a bodhisattva-mahāsattva has established and abides in the mark of wisdom, he should diligently train in the three marks of noble wisdom found above it. What are the three marks of noble wisdom in which he should diligently train? They are: the mark of having nothing at all, the mark of every buddha's own place of vowing, and the mark of the ultimate in self-realized noble wisdom. Having attained practice in these, he is able to relinquish the mark of a mind and wisdom like a lame donkey's, attains the eighth ground of the Buddha's foremost children, and it is from that point on that he cultivates and gives rise to these three marks found above it. Mahāmati, the mark of having nothing at all is what the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the outsider all cultivate and give rise to [in their own more limited way]. Mahāmati, the mark of every buddha's own place of vowing is what is cultivated and given rise to in the very place where every buddha before him has made his vow. Mahāmati, the mark of the ultimate in self-realized noble wisdom is that in which one is attached to nothing at all in the mark of any dharma, attains the illusion-like samādhi's own body, and advances, by stages, through the grounds and places of every buddha. Mahāmati, these are called the three marks of noble wisdom. One who accomplishes these three marks of noble wisdom is able to reach the domain of self-realized noble wisdom. Therefore, Mahāmati, one should diligently train in the three marks of noble wisdom."
Then Mahāmati Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva, knowing what was on the minds of the great bodhisattvas present, and relying on the majestic spiritual power of every buddha, said to the Buddha, using the name "the sūtra that distinguishes the own-nature of the matter of noble wisdom": "World-Honored One, I beg you to teach the sūtra that distinguishes the own-nature of the matter of noble wisdom, the very ground on which the hundred and eight statements are distinguished. It is in dependence on this distinguishing that the Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Truly and Fully Enlightened One, explains how a bodhisattva-mahāsattva enters the own-nature of the marks of self and of the shared, and the own-nature of false thought. Because he distinguishes and explains the own-nature of false thought in this way, [a bodhisattva] is able to fully understand and thoroughly observe the no-self of persons and the no-self of dharmas, purify false thought entirely, illumine every ground, pass beyond the meditative bliss of every śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and outsider, and observe the inconceivable domain in which the Tathāgata himself moves, resolved to leave behind the own-nature of the five dharmas once and for all. Fully adorned with the wisdom of the Tathāgatas' own dharma-body, he rises above the domain of illusion, ascends to every buddha-land, to the Tuṣita heaven, and even to the heaven of Akaniṣṭha, and attains the Tathāgata's own everlasting dharma-body."
The commentators are direct about why the "lame donkey" image marks such a sharp threshold: "此三相，二乘所不能行，故喻如跛驢" — "these three marks are what the two vehicles [śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas] are simply unable to practice; hence they are compared to a lame donkey." A bodhisattva who has not yet cultivated them is not merely slower than one who has — he shares, up to that point, the same basic mode of wisdom the two vehicles are permanently limited to, and only the eighth ground marks the place where that shared limitation is finally left behind: "最勝子者，即第八地菩薩，不共二乘，故云能捨" — "'the foremost of the Buddha's children' here means precisely a bodhisattva of the eighth ground, no longer sharing anything in common with the two vehicles; hence it says he 'is able to relinquish' [the lame donkey's mind]." On the first of the three marks specifically, the commentators catch something a fast reading misses: "無所有相者，謂聲聞、緣覺及外道相，彼修習生" is not the sūtra's own account of what the mark of "having nothing at all" positively consists in — it names the same term the lesser vehicles and even outsiders already cultivate toward, at their own more limited level, before a bodhisattva goes on to cultivate the second and third marks that they cannot reach at all. One mark is shared groundwork; the other two are what only the Mahāyāna path adds on top of it.
On why Mahāmati's second great request is given its own name — "聖智事分別自性經," the sūtra that distinguishes the own-nature of the matter of noble wisdom — before a word of the teaching itself has been spoken, the commentators read this naming as deliberate framing, not mere ceremony: "五法、三自性、八識、二無我，皆是此經所說聖智之事。諸菩薩已聞說八識竟，念欲聞三自性法，是故大慧為再請" — "the five dharmas, the three own-natures, the eight consciousnesses, and the two kinds of no-self are all 'the matter of noble wisdom' this sūtra teaches. Having already heard the teaching on the eight consciousnesses, the assembled bodhisattvas now wish to hear the teaching on the three own-natures — and it is for this reason that Mahāmati asks again." What follows, in other words, is announced in advance as belonging specifically to the three-own-natures quarter of the sūtra's own fourfold architecture, even though the actual term "three own-natures" (三自性) does not appear again until several pages later.
A Rabbit's Horns, and a Cow's
佛告大慧：「有一種外道，作無所有妄想計著。覺知因盡，兔無角想。如兔無角，一切法亦復如是。大慧！復有餘外道見種、求那、極微、陀羅驃形處橫法，各各差別。見已計著無兔角橫法，作牛有角想。大慧！彼墮二見，不解心量，自心境界妄想增長身受用，建立妄想限量。大慧！一切法性亦復如是，離有無，不應作想。大慧！若復離有無而作兔無角想，是名邪想。彼因待觀，故兔無角，不應作想，乃至微塵分別事性，悉不可得。大慧！聖境界離，不應作牛有角想。」爾時，大慧菩薩摩訶薩白佛言：「世尊！得無妄想者，見不生想已，隨比思量觀察不生妄想，言無耶？」
佛告大慧：「非觀察不生妄想言無。所以者何？妄想者，因彼生故，依彼角生妄想。以依角生妄想，是故言依因，故離異不異，故非觀察不生妄想言無角。大慧！若復妄想異角者，則不因角生；若不異者，則因彼故。乃至微塵分析推求，悉不可得，不異角故。彼亦非性，二俱無性者，何法何故而言無耶？大慧！若無故無角，觀有故言兔無角者，不應作想。大慧！不正因故而說有無，二俱不成。大慧！復有餘外道見，計著色空事形處橫法，不能善知虛空分齊，言色離虛空，起分齊見妄想。大慧！虛空是色，隨入色種。大慧！色是虛空持所持處所建立，性色空事，分別當知。大慧！四大種生時，自相各別，亦不住虛空，非彼無虛空。如是，大慧！觀牛有角，故兔無角。大慧！又牛角者，析為微塵，又分別微塵，剎那不住，彼何所觀故而言無耶？若言觀餘物者，彼法亦然。」
爾時世尊告大慧菩薩摩訶薩言：「當離兔角牛角，虛空形色，異見妄想。汝等諸菩薩摩訶薩，當思惟自心現妄想，隨入為一切剎土最勝子，以自心現方便而教授之。」
爾時世尊欲重宣此義，而說偈言：
「色等及心無， 色等長養心，
身受用安立， 識藏現眾生。
心意及與識， 自性法有五，
無我二種淨， 廣說者所說。
長短有無等， 展轉互相生，
以無故成有， 以有故成無。
微塵分別事， 不起色妄想，
心量安立處， 惡見所不樂。
覺想非境界， 聲聞亦復然，
救世之所說， 自覺之境界。」
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "There is a kind of outsider who forms the false conception that things have no [underlying] existence at all: seeing that the cause [that would produce horns on a rabbit] is entirely absent, he forms the notion of 'a rabbit's horns' [as the paradigm case of the nonexistent], and takes every dharma to be just the same. Mahāmati, there are yet other outsiders who see the various theories of substance, quality, atom, and the underlying substratum, each posited in its own distinct and arbitrary way; having seen this, they become attached to the very notion of 'no rabbit's horns' they have arbitrarily formed, and form, in turn, the notion of 'a cow's having horns' [as the paradigm case of the existent]. Mahāmati, both have fallen into one of two views, failing to understand that this is merely the measure of their own mind: false thought about the object-realm of their own mind grows within them, in what they receive and make use of, and they establish, upon it, a false measure and limit. Mahāmati, the nature of every dharma is just the same: it is apart from both existence and non-existence, and no notion should be formed about it at all. Mahāmati, if, having set aside both existence and non-existence, one still goes on to form the notion 'a rabbit has no horns,' this is itself called a false notion — it depends on comparing [the rabbit] against [the cow], and it is precisely because of this that 'a rabbit has no horns' is said; no notion should be formed about it. Down even to the finest atom, the nature of any such thing that could be discriminated cannot ultimately be apprehended at all. Mahāmati, the domain of the noble ones is apart from all this — no notion of 'a cow has horns' should be formed either." Then Mahāmati Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, does one who has attained freedom from false thought, having seen that no notion at all arises, then go on to compare and deliberate, observing that no false thought arises, and call this 'nothing exists'?"
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "It is not by observing that no false thought arises that one says 'nothing exists.' Why is this? Because false thought arises in dependence on something — it is in dependence on the horn that the false thought [of its absence] arises. Because the false thought arises in dependence on the horn, this is said to depend on a cause; and because [that dependence] is neither a case of being different nor of not being different, it is not by [merely] observing that no false thought arises that one may say 'there is no horn.' Mahāmati, if the false thought is [held to be] different from the horn, then it does not, in fact, arise from the horn; if it is not different, then it does depend on the horn — yet, however far one carries the analysis, down even to the finest atom, [the horn] cannot ultimately be apprehended at all, precisely because [the thought] is not different from the horn. So neither [the horn nor the thought about it] has any [independent] nature of its own; and if both alike have no nature of their own, then what thing, and for what reason, could one call 'nonexistent'? Mahāmati, if it is because [the cow's horn] does not exist that [the rabbit's horn] does not exist, or if it is by observing [the cow's horn] as existing that one says 'a rabbit has no horns,' then no notion should be formed either way. Mahāmati, it is because the cause given is not the correct one that speaking of either existence or non-existence [in this case] fails equally. Mahāmati, there are yet other outsiders who become attached to the theories of form and emptiness posited arbitrarily and in their own distinct ways, unable to properly understand the true bounds of space; they say that form is apart from space, and thereby give rise to the false view of a boundary [between the two]. Mahāmati, space is itself a form, following along within the very category of form. Mahāmati, form is what is held within, and space what holds it, established each in relation to the other's own place — the true nature of form, and the true nature of emptiness, should be discriminated and understood on this basis. Mahāmati, at the moment the four great elements arise, each has its own distinct mark, and yet none abides within space as though space were somewhere else — nor is it the case that where they are, space is simply absent. Just so, Mahāmati: it is in relation to a cow's having horns that one says a rabbit has none. Mahāmati, moreover, if a cow's horn is analyzed down into atoms, and those atoms further discriminated, not one of them abides for even a single instant — so what, then, is one even observing, that one should speak of 'nonexistence' at all? And if it is said that one observes it in relation to some other thing, the very same problem applies to that thing as well."
Then the World-Honored One said to Mahāmati Bodhisattva-Mahāsattva: "You should leave behind the false views bound up with a rabbit's horns and a cow's, with space and with form. You and all the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas should reflect on the false thought manifested by your own mind, and, entering thereby into being the foremost child of the Buddha in every land, teach others by the very same skillful means of your own mind's manifestation."
Then the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
"Form and the rest, and mind itself, have no existence,
and yet form and the rest nourish mind and cause it to grow;
the body, and what one receives and makes use of, are thereby established —
it is the storehouse consciousness that manifests every sentient being.
Mind, will, and consciousness,
and the dharmas of own-nature, are five in number;
the two kinds of no-self, and their purity,
are what is spoken of by one who explains at length.
Long and short, existence and non-existence, and the rest,
arise turn by turn, each from the other —
it is because of non-existence that existence comes to be,
and because of existence that non-existence comes to be.
The atom, and the matter to be discriminated within it —
let no false thought of form arise concerning them;
the very place where the measure of mind is established
is not a place false views can ever take delight in.
What is aware, and what it is aware of, are not themselves the true object-realm,
nor is this within the śrāvaka's own reach either —
this is what the Savior of the World has taught:
the very realm of self-realized wisdom."
The commentators frame the entire debate as an exchange between exactly two errors, not one error and its correction: "外道之見無出二種：一者計無，見一切法隨因而盡，更無有因，如兔無角，諸法亦爾，此斷見也。二者計有，見大種依微塵而生... 於塵等諸物形量處橫計差別，作牛有角想，此常見也" — "the outsiders' views amount to exactly two kinds. The first holds that nothing exists, seeing that every dharma is exhausted along with its cause, with nothing further behind it — 'a rabbit has no horns,' and every other dharma is just the same; this is the view of annihilation. The second holds that things exist, seeing that the great elements arise in dependence on atoms... arbitrarily positing distinctions among the measure and form of dust-particles and the like, and forming the notion 'a cow has horns'; this is the view of permanence." Read this way, the rabbit-horn and cow-horn similes are not one philosopher's argument against another's naive realism — they are the sūtra's own shorthand for the two classical extremes, annihilationism and eternalism, each caught making exactly the same mistake: treating "existence" and "nonexistence" as though either one could be established by simply pointing at something and denying, or affirming, a horn.
On the deceptively simple line "彼因待觀，故兔無角" ("it depends on comparing [the rabbit] against [the cow]... hence 'a rabbit has no horns' is said"), the commentators supply the logical trap the sūtra leaves implicit: "牛角之有觀兔角之無，亦非真空，故云『不應作想』" — "the existence of a cow's horn is what is being compared against the nonexistence of a rabbit's, and this too fails to be a genuine emptiness — hence it says 'no notion should be formed.'" Denying that a rabbit has horns still secretly borrows the cow's horn as its reference point, which means the denial has not actually escaped the same grasping at "existence" it thinks it has refuted — a rabbit's horns turn out to be a poor example of pure nonexistence for exactly the same reason a cow's horns are a poor example of pure existence: both depend, for their very sense, on the other. On the closing exchange about space and form, the commentators resolve what looks like a flat contradiction — "虛空是色" (space is itself form) stated right after form is said to depend on space for its place — with a single line: "色為虛空所持，於所持處建立諸色，則空外無色，互為能所" — "form is what is held within by space, and it is upon that very place of being held that every form is established; there is, then, no form existing anywhere outside of space — each is, in turn, both the holder and the held for the other." Space and form, like the cow's horn and the rabbit's, turn out not to be two independent things one could compare at all.
Part 6 Complete
This closes Part 6: the three marks of noble wisdom that carry a bodhisattva past the "lame donkey's" wisdom shared with the lesser vehicles and into the eighth ground, and the long debate over a rabbit's horns and a cow's — which turns out to show that neither the assertion nor the denial of anything imagined ever escapes depending on its own opposite for meaning. Part 7 turns to a teaching Mahāmati has not yet asked for: how the Tathāgata purifies the flow of every sentient being's self-manifesting mind — gradually, like a fruit ripening, or all at once, like a mirror showing every form without any before or after — and the distinction between the dharma-body buddha and the buddhas who depend on it.
Continue to Part 7 — Gradual and Sudden Purification →