[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [出三藏記集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145) › 8.20 # 出三藏記集 8.20 出三藏記集 8.20 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.8.20) 夫般若波羅蜜者。眾妙之淵府。群智之玄宗。神王之所由。如來之照功。其為經也。至無空豁廓然無物者也。無物於物。故能齊於物。無智於智。故能運於智。是故夷三脫於重玄。齊萬物於空同。明諸佛之始。盡群靈之本無。登十住之妙階。趣無生之徑路。何者耶賴其至無。故能為用。夫無也者。豈能無哉。無不能自無。理亦不能為理。理不能為理則理非理矣。無不能自無則無非無矣。是故妙階則非階。無生則非生。妙由乎不妙。無生由乎生。是以十住之稱興乎未足定號。般若之智生乎教迹之名。是故言之則名生。設教則智存。智存於物實無迹也。名生於彼理無言也。何則至理冥壑歸乎無名。無名無始道之體也。無可不可者聖之慎也。苟慎理以應動則不得不寄言。宜明所以寄。宜暢所以言。理冥則言廢。忘覺則智全。若存無以求寂。希智以忘心智不足以盡無。寂不足以冥神。何則故有存於所存。有無於所無。存乎存者非其存也。希乎無者非其無也。何則徒知無之為無。莫知所以無。知存之為存。莫知所以存。希無以忘無。故非無之所無。寄存以忘存。故非存之所存。莫若無其所以無。忘其所以存。忘其所以存。則無存於所存。遺其所以無。則忘無於所無。忘無故妙存。妙存故盡無。盡無則忘玄。忘玄故無心。然後二迹無寄無有冥盡。是以諸佛因般若之無始。明萬物之自然。眾生之喪道。溺精神乎欲淵。悟群俗以妙道。漸積損至無。設玄德以廣教。守谷神以存虛。齊眾首於玄同。還群靈乎本無。蓋聞出小品者道士也。常遊外域歲數悠曩。未見典載而不詳其姓名矣。嘗聞先學共傳云。佛去世後。從大品之中抄出小品。世傳。其人唯目之以淳德。驗之以事應。明其至到而已。亦莫測其由也。夫至人也。攬通群妙凝神玄冥。虛靈響應感通無方。建同德以接化。設玄教以悟神。述往迹以搜滯。演成規以啟源。或因變以求通。事濟而化息。適任以全分。分足則教廢。故理非乎變。變非乎理。教非乎體。體非乎教。故千變萬化莫非理外。何神動哉。以之不動故應變無窮。無窮之變。非聖在物。物變非聖。聖未始於變。故教遺興乎變。理滯生乎權。接應存物。理致同乎歸。而辭數異乎本。事備乎不同。不同之功。由之萬品神悟遲速莫不緣分。分闇則功重。言積而後悟。質明則神朗。觸理則玄暢。輕之與重未始非分。是以聖人之為教。不以功重而廢分。分易而存輕。故群品所以悟。分功所以成。必須重以運通。因其宜以接分。此為悟者之功重。非聖教之有煩。今統所以約。教功所以全。必待統以適任。約文以領玄。領玄則易通。因任則易從。而物未悟二本之不異。統致同乎宗。便以言數為大小。源流為精麁。文約謂之小。文殷謂之大。慎常之為通。因變之為㵲。守數之為得。領統之為失。而彼揩文之徒羈見束教。頂著阿鋡神匱分。淺才不經宗儒墨。大道域定聖人志記文句詰教難擁。謂崇要為達諒。領統為傷宗。須徵驗以明實。效應則疑伏。是以至人順群情以徵理。取驗乎沸油。明小品之體本。塞群疑幽滯因物之徵驗。故示驗以應之。今不可以趣徵於一驗。目之為淳德。效喪於事。實謂之為常人。而未達神化之權。統玄應於將來。暢濟功於殊塗。運無方之一致。而察殊軌為異統。觀寄化為逆理。位大寶為欣王。聚濟貨為欲始。徒知至聖之為教。而莫知所以教。是以聖人標域三才玄定萬品。教非一塗應物萬方。或損教違無寄通適會。或抱一御有繫文明宗。崇聖典為世軌則。夫體道盡神者。不可詰之以言教。遊無蹈虛者。不可求之於形器。是以至人於物遂通而已。明乎小大之不異。暢玄標之有寄。因順物宜不拘小介。或以大品辭茂事廣喻引宏奧。雖窮理有外終於玄同。然其明宗統一會致不異。斯亦大聖之時教。百姓之分致。苟以分致之不同。亦何能求簡於聖哉。若以簡不由聖。豈不寄言於百姓。夫以萬聲鍾響。響一以持之。萬物感聖。聖亦寂以應之。是以聲非乎響。言非乎聖明矣。且神以知來。夫知來者。莫非其神也。機動則神朗。神朗則逆鑒。明夫來往常在鑒內。是故至人鑒將來之希纂。明才致之不並簡。教迹以崇順。擬群智之分。向關之者易統。知希之者易行。而大品言數豐具辭領富溢。問對衍奧而理統宏邃。雖玄宗易究而詳事難備。是以明夫為學之徒。須尋迹旨關其所往。究攬宗致標定興盡。然後悟其所滯統其玄領。或須練綜群問明其酬對。探幽研賾盡其妙致。或以教眾數溢諷績難究。欲為寫崇供養力致無階。諸如此例群仰分狹。𨶳者絕希。是故出小品者。參引王統。簡領群目。筌域事數。摽判由宗。以為小品。而辭喻清約運旨亹亹。然其往往明宗而標其會。致使宏統有所於理無損。自非至精孰其明矣。又察其津塗尋其妙會。攬始源終研極奧旨。領大品之王標。備小品之玄致。𦆝𦆝焉攬津乎玄味。精矣盡矣。無以加矣。斯人也。將神王於冥津群形於萬物量不可測矣。宜求之於筌表。寄之於玄外。惟昔聞之曰。夫大小品者出於本品。本品之文有六十萬言。今遊天竺未適於晉。今此二抄亦興于大本。出者不同也。而小品出之在先。然斯二經雖同出於本品。而時往有不同者。或小品之所具。大品所不載。大品之所備。小品之所闕。所以然者。或以二者之事同互相以為賴明其本一。故不並矣。而小品至略玄總事要舉宗。大品雖辭致婉巧而不喪本歸。至於說者。或以專句推事而不尋況旨。或多以意裁不依經本。故使文流相背義致同乖。群儀偏供喪其玄旨。或失其引統錯徵其事巧辭。辯偽以為經體。雖文藻清逸而理統乖宗。是以先哲出經。以胡為本。小品雖抄以大為宗。推胡可以明理。徵大可以撿小。若苟住胸懷之所得。背聖教之本旨。徙常於新聲。苟競於異常。異常未足以徵本。新聲不可以經宗。而遺異常之為談。而莫知傷本之為至。傷本則失統。失統則理滯。理滯則惑殆。若以殆而不思其源。困而不尋其本。斯則外不關於師資。內不由於分得。豈非仰資於有知。自塞於所尋。困蒙於所滯。自窮於所通。進不闇常退不研新。說不依本理不經宗。而忽詠先舊毀呰古人。非所以為學輔其自然者哉。夫物之資生。靡不有宗。事之所由。莫不有本。宗之與本萬理之源矣。本喪則理絕。根朽則枝傾。此自然之數也。末紹不然矣。於斯也。徒有天然之才淵識邈世。而未見大品攬其源流明其理統。而欲寄懷小品率意造義。欲寄其分得標顯目然。希邈常流徒尚名賓。而竭其才思玄格聖言。趣悅群情而乖本違宗。豈相望乎大品也哉。如其不悟。將恐遂其所惑以罔後生。是故推考異同驗其虛實。尋流窮源各有歸趣。而小品引宗時有諸異。或辭例事同而不乖旨歸。或取其初要廢其後致。或筌次事宗例其首尾。或散在群品略撮玄要。時有此事乖互不同。又大品事數甚眾而辭曠浩。衍本欲推求本宗明驗事旨。而用思甚多勞審功又寡。且稽驗廢事不覆速急。是故余今所以例玄事以駢比。標二品以相對。明彼此之所在。辯大小之有光。雖理或非深奧。而事對之不同。故釆其所究。精麁並兼。研盡事迹。使驗之有由。故尋源以求實。趣定於理宗。是以考大品之宏致。驗小品之總要。搜玄沒之所存。求同異之所寄。有在尋之有軌爾乃也。貫綜首尾推步玄領。究其盤結辯其凝滯。使文不違旨理無負宗。棲驗有寄辯不失微。且於希詠之徒。浪神遊宗陶冶玄肆。推尋源流關虛考實。不亦夷易乎。若其域乖體極對非理標。或其所寄者願俟將來摩訶薩幸為研盡備其未詳也。 > Now, prajñāpāramitā is the profound repository of myriad subtleties, the dark principle of all wisdoms, that from which the spiritual sovereign arises, and the illuminating potency of the Tathāgata. As a scripture, it is supremely non-existent, vacuous, expansive, and devoid of things. Being devoid of thinghood amidst things, it can equalize all things; being devoid of knowing amidst knowing, it can actuate wisdom. Therefore, it levels the three liberations in double profundity and equalizes the ten thousand things in ultimate voidness, illuminates the origin of all Buddhas, exhausts the fundamental non-existence of all sentient spirits, scales the wondrous stages of the ten abodes, and takes the direct road to non-arising. Why is this? Relying on its supreme non-existence, it is thereby capable of function. As for non-existence itself, how could it merely be non-existent? Non-existence cannot make itself non-existent, nor can the principle make itself principle. If the principle cannot make itself principle, then principle is not principle; if non-existence cannot make itself non-existent, then non-existence is not non-existence. Therefore, wondrous stages are not stages, and non-arising is not arising. The wondrous originates from the un-wondrous; non-arising originates from arising. Thus, the designations of the ten abodes arise from unfixed titles, and the wisdom of prajñā is born from the names of instructional traces. Therefore, when words are spoken, names arise; when teachings are established, wisdom subsists. Wisdom subsisting amidst things is truly traceless; names arising in that domain are inherently without words. Why so? The ultimate principle is a dark chasm returning to the nameless; being nameless and without beginning is the substance of the Way. Having nothing permissible and nothing impermissible is the sage's circumspection. If one circumspectly matches the principle to respond to movements, one cannot but resort to words. One must illuminate that whereby they are resorted to, and express that whereby they are spoken. When principle is dark, words are discarded; when awareness is forgotten, wisdom is made whole. If one preserves non-existence to seek quietude, or aspires to wisdom to forget the mind, such wisdom will not suffice to exhaust non-existence, nor will such quietude suffice to merge with the spirit. Why so? Because there remains preservation in what is preserved, and non-existence in what is made non-existent. Preserving what is preserved is not true preservation; desiring non-existence is not true non-existence. Why? One merely knows non-existence as non-existence, but does not know that whereby it is non-existent; one knows preservation as preservation, but does not know that whereby it is preserved. Desiring non-existence to forget non-existence is not the non-existence of true non-existence; relying on preservation to forget preservation is not the preservation of true preservation. Nothing compares to negating that whereby it is non-existent, and forgetting that whereby it is preserved. Forgetting that whereby it is preserved, there is no preservation in what is preserved; casting away that whereby it is non-existent, one forgets non-existence in what is non-existent. Forgetting non-existence, the subtle is preserved; the subtle being preserved, non-existence is exhausted. Exhausting non-existence, one forgets the profound; forgetting the profound, one is without mind. Only then do the two traces have no reliance, and non-existence and existence merge and exhaust. Therefore, the Buddhas rely on the beginninglessness of prajñā to clarify the spontaneous nature of the myriad things. Sentient beings forfeit the Way and drown their spirits in the abyss of desires; \[the Buddhas\] awaken the worldly masses with the wondrous Way, gradually diminishing desires to reach supreme non-existence, establishing dark virtue to broaden instructions, and guarding the valley spirit to preserve vacuity, equalizing all heads in dark oneness and returning all spirits to their fundamental non-existence. It is heard that the one who produced the Smaller Chapter was a master of the Way. He traveled in the outer regions for many a past year; as he is not recorded in the canons, his name remains unknown. I once heard earlier scholars pass down together: after the Buddha passed into extinction, from within the Larger Chapter, the Smaller Chapter was excerpted. As tradition has it, people only characterized him by his pure virtue and verified him through responsive events, illustrating his supreme attainment and nothing more; neither could anyone fathom his origin. Now, the consummate person encompasses all subtleties and condenses the spirit in the dark profound; responsive like an empty echo, his spiritual communion is boundlessly versatile. Establishing identical virtue to receive and transform, setting forth dark teachings to awaken the spirit, he relates past traces to investigate stagnation and expounds established regulations to open the source. Or, adapting to changes, he seeks penetration, and once the task is accomplished, transformation rests; suiting the capacities to make their allocations whole, once the allocations are sufficient, the teaching is set aside. Thus, principle is not the change, nor is change the principle; the teaching is not the substance, nor is substance the teaching. Therefore, among the thousands of changes and myriad transformations, none is outside the principle. How could the spirit be stirred? By remaining unstirred, it responds to changes without end. Endlessly changing, it is not the sage who resides in things; things change, yet not the sage; the sage has never begun to change. Thus, remaining teachings arise from changes, and theoretical stagnations are born of expedient means. Responsive reception preserves things; their principles converge in the same return, yet their words and numbers differ from the original, and their events are complete in their divergence. The efficacy of divergence arises because among the myriad kinds, the spiritual awakening may be slow or swift, always depending on their allocations. When the allocation is dim, the effort must be heavy: words accumulate and only then does awakening come. When the nature is clear, the spirit is luminous: upon encountering principle, it is profoundly free. Light and heavy have never failed to correspond to allocations. Therefore, in the sage's imparting of teachings, he does not abandon an allocation because the effort is heavy, nor does he retain lightness when an allocation is facile. Thus, that by which all kinds awaken and that by which allocated effort succeeds must require weight to carry through, relying on what is fitting to receive their allocations. This is the heavy effort of the awakened, not a redundancy in the sage's teaching. Now, the reason for abridging the general outline and completing the instructional efficacy is that one must wait for the outline to suit the capacity and condense the text to grasp the profound. Grasping the profound, penetration is easy; relying on capacity, compliance is easy. Yet beings do not realize that the two versions are not different, and that their overall intent converges upon the same ancestral principle; instead, they immediately consider the count of words as 'larger' or 'smaller,' and the lineage as refined or coarse. A concise text they call 'small'; an abundant text they call 'large.' They regard holding to the constant as penetration, and adapting to changes as frivolous; guarding numbers they regard as gain, and grasping the general outline as loss. Those followers who adhere to the literal letter are fettered in their views and bound by teachings; they place the Āgamas atop their heads, their spirits limited by narrow allocations; shallow in talent and unversed in classics, they venerate Confucianism and Mohism. Within the bounded domains of the great way, the intentions of sages, textual recordings, and phrases are interrogated, and teachings are obstructed. They consider venerating essentials as thorough understanding, and grasping the general outline as harming the ancestral principle. They require empirical verifications to clarify reality, and only when responsive proofs appear are their doubts subdued. Thus, the consummate person, according to the sentiments of the multitude, tested the principle, drawing proof from boiling oil, to clarify the fundamental substance of the Smaller Chapter and block the deep stagnation of the multitude's doubts; because of things requiring verification, he displayed proof to respond to them. Now, one cannot hastily rely on a single verification, designating him as one of pure virtue, or, if efficacy were lost in events, calling him an ordinary person, thus failing to comprehend the expedience of spiritual transformation, which commands dark responses for the future, unfolds liberating efficacy along disparate paths, and actuates boundless unity; instead, observing divergent tracks as differing systems, viewing provisional conversions as contrary to principle, taking the seat of the great treasure as delighting in kingship, and gathering relief goods as the beginning of desire. One merely knows that the consummate sage teaches, but knows not that whereby he teaches. Therefore, the sage establishes the boundaries of the Three Realms and darkly determines the myriad kinds. His teachings are not confined to a single path; he responds to things in myriad directions. Sometimes he diminishes teachings and deviates from non-existence, resorting to penetration to suit the occasion; sometimes he embraces the One to control existence, adhering to texts to clarify the ancestral principle, exalting the sacred scriptures as the standard for the world. Now, one who embodies the Way and exhausts the spirit cannot be interrogated through verbal teachings; one who roams in non-existence and treads in vacuity cannot be sought in physical vessels. Thus, the consummate person merely achieves penetration with respect to things. Clarifying that small and large are not different, he unfolds the profound signposts that have reliance, accommodating what is appropriate to things without being bound by petty obstacles. Perhaps with the Larger Chapter, the wording is luxuriant, the events extensive, and the metaphors vast and profound; though exhausting principle to its limit, it ultimately returns to dark unity. Yet its clarification of the ancestral principle and its overarching unification converge without divergence. This is likewise the timely instruction of the Great Sage, the differentiated allocation of the common people. If their allocated capacities are not the same, how could one seek simplicity from the sage? If simplicity does not stem from the sage, does it not rely on the words given to the common people? Now, as myriad sounds strike a bell, the echo holds them in unity; as the myriad things move the sage, the sage also responds in stillness. Therefore, the sound is not the echo, and words are not the sagely illumination. Furthermore, it is through the spirit that the future is known. One who knows the future is none other than the spirit itself. When the hidden dynamic stirs, the spirit is luminous; when the spirit is luminous, it anticipates and mirrors. It is clear that the coming and going are always within the mirror. For this reason, the consummate person foresaw that few in the future would compile it, and understood that talents and capacities would not be equal; thus, he simplified the instructional traces to exalt compliance, matching the allocations of all wisdoms, so that those who turn to it find it easy to synthesize, and those who know its rarity find it easy to practice. Yet the Larger Chapter has an abundance of words and enumerations, with rich, overflowing phrases and outlines, its questions and dialogues profound, its overarching principle vast and deep. Though the dark ancestral principle is easy to study, its detailed events are difficult to master fully. Therefore, it is clear that those who study must trace the footprints to find their destination, exhaustively grasp the ancestral intent, and demarcate its rise and resolution; only then will they awaken to what is obstructed and synthesize its dark essentials. Or they may need to examine all queries and clarify the dialogues, delving into the abstruse and researching the hidden to exhaust its wondrous intent. Or, because the teachings and enumerations are so vast that chanting and mastering them is hard to complete, when wanting to copy, venerate, and make offerings, their ability provides no means. Cases like these are manifold: the multitude looks up with narrow capacities, and those who truly pass through are exceedingly few. Therefore, the one who produced the Smaller Chapter drew upon the overarching thread, selected the various headings, corralled the numbers of events, and marked their origins in the ancestral principle, creating the Smaller Chapter; its diction and metaphors are pure and concise, and the unfolding of its import is unflagging. However, here and there it clarifies the ancestral principle and marks its convergence, causing the grand synthesis to have places \[omitted\] without harming the principle. Were it not for the supremely refined, who could understand this? Furthermore, observing its pathways and seeking its wondrous convergence, he grasped the beginning and pursued the end, thoroughly probing the profound import, mastering the royal signposts of the Larger Chapter, and fully providing the dark intent of the Smaller Chapter. Tirelessly, he drew nourishment from the dark flavor—refined indeed! Exhaustive indeed! Nothing could be added to it. This man's spirit surely reigned over the dark crossings, and his physical form was numbered among the myriad things; his measure is unfathomable. One should seek him beyond the fishing-trap and place him outside the profound. In the past, I heard it said: The Larger and Smaller Chapters both derived from the Root Chapter. The text of the Root Chapter contains six hundred thousand words. At present, it circulates in India and has not yet reached the Jin. These two excerpts also arose from the great root, but their translators were different, and the Smaller Chapter was produced first. However, although these two sūtras both derive from the Root Chapter, there are occasional differences: sometimes what the Smaller Chapter possesses is not recorded in the Larger Chapter, and what the Larger Chapter is equipped with is lacking in the Smaller Chapter. Why is this? Perhaps because the events in both are identical, they rely upon each other to clarify that their root is one; thus, they were not both set down. The Smaller Chapter is extremely brief, darkly summarizing essential matters and raising the ancestral principle; the Larger Chapter, though graceful and intricate in its phrasing, does not lose the root return. As for the commentators, some use isolated phrases to deduce events without seeking the figurative meaning; or many cut according to their own ideas without relying on the scripture's root. Consequently, the lineages of texts contradict each other, and their doctrinal points diverge alike. The various rites are practiced in a one-sided manner, losing the dark intent; or they lose the guiding framework, erroneously adducing events, using clever words to argue falsity as the scriptural body. Although their literary style is clear and free, their theoretical synthesis deviates from the ancestral principle. Therefore, when earlier sages produced scriptures, they took the foreign text as the root; though the Smaller Chapter is an excerpt, it takes the Larger as its ancestral principle. Deducing from the foreign text can illuminate the principle; verifying against the Larger can regulate the Smaller. If one stubbornly abides in what is grasped within one's mind, turning one's back on the root intent of the sacred teaching, shifting from the constant to novel sounds, contending merely for anomaly—anomaly is insufficient to verify the root, and novel sounds cannot govern the ancestral principle. Yet they abandon anomaly as mere talk, not realizing that injuring the root is severe. Injuring the root leads to losing the synthesis; losing the synthesis leads to theoretical stagnation; theoretical stagnation leads to perilous confusion. If in such peril one does not reflect on its source, and in such exhaustion one does not search for its root, then externally one has no recourse to teachers, and internally it does not stem from allocated attainment. Is this not relying on knowledge \[one presumes to have\] while blocking what should be sought, becoming ensnared in what is obstructed, and bringing exhaustion upon what is open? Advancing, one does not understand the constant; retreating, one does not examine the new. Explanations do not rely on the root, and principles do not align with the ancestral teaching; yet they disparage former traditions and slander ancient figures. Is this the way to study and assist one's spontaneous nature? Now, when things are endowed with life, none is without an ancestor; when events have an origin, none is without a root. The ancestor and the root are the source of the myriad principles. When the root is lost, principle is severed; when the root rots, the branches fall. This is the destiny of nature; late successors are not otherwise. At this juncture, there are those who possess natural talent and profound knowledge towering above the age, yet have not seen the Larger Chapter to grasp its origin and lineage and clarify its theoretical framework; wishing to express their thoughts through the Smaller Chapter, they invent doctrines arbitrarily. Wishing to present their allocated attainments, they conspicuously set them forth, aspiring to surpass the common crowd, merely valuing fame and guesthood, exhausting their talents and intellects to construct abstruse frameworks for the sacred words, catering to the pleasure of the multitude while turning away from the root and violating the ancestral principle. How could they compare to the Larger Chapter? If they do not awaken, I fear they will follow their delusions and deceive future generations. For this reason, I have examined similarities and differences to test their emptiness and reality, tracing the stream to its source, each having its own destination. The Smaller Chapter's citation of the ancestral principle occasionally contains various discrepancies: sometimes the wording and events are identical without violating the purposive destination; sometimes it takes the opening essential and omits the subsequent elaboration; sometimes it arranges the order of topics, aligning head and tail; sometimes scattered across various chapters, it briefly captures the dark essentials. At times, such discrepancies and differences occur. Furthermore, the matters and enumerations in the Larger Chapter are extremely numerous and its phrasing vast and expansive; if one initially wishes to search for the root ancestral principle and clearly verify the import of events, it requires immense thought, and the labor of investigation yields little success. Moreover, examining and verifying delays affairs and cannot provide quick results. Therefore, I have now aligned dark matters side by side and set the two chapters in mutual contrast, clarifying where each belongs and distinguishing the brilliance of both the large and small. Although the principle may not be profoundly hidden, the alignment of matters is different; hence, I have selected what has been investigated, combining both the refined and the coarse, thoroughly researching the events and traces so that verification has a basis. Thus, I seek the source to find the reality, aiming to fix the principle's ancestral core. In this way, I examine the grand purport of the Larger Chapter, verify the summarized essentials of the Smaller Chapter, search for where the hidden and submerged subsist, and seek where similarities and differences reside; having a track to follow, it is precisely so. Linking head and tail, tracing the dark outlines, probing tangled knots, and discriminating stagnations, I ensure the text does not violate the purport, the principle does not betray the ancestral core, dwellings of verification have reliance, and discrimination does not lose subtlety. Furthermore, for those who aspire to chant and study, giving free rein to the spirit in the ancestral core, cultivating themselves in the dark realm, tracing the origins, checking falsity and testing reality—will it not be easy and level? If my demarcations violate the ultimate substance or my comparisons do not align with the principle's signposts, or wherever they rely—I hope to await future mahāsattvas who will graciously examine it thoroughly and supply what is not yet fully detailed. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.8.19) - [Next: 8.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.8.21) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145~en-mt.8.20) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.8.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.8.20) · Pramāṇa