---
title: "The Sources of Trilakṣaṇa-Śūnya — From the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-Sūtra to Nāgārjuna's Systematization"
author: "釋慧鏡 (Shi Huijing)"
series: "Six Practice Gates, Volume 2 — DĀNA: The Practice of Giving, from Pāli Roots to the Dharmadhātu"
series_short: "DĀNA"
volume: 2
paper_id: "DANA-P13"
paper_number: 13
part: "Part IV · The Early Mahāyāna Turn to Dāna-Pāramitā"
part_number: 4
date: "2026-05-09"
version: "1.0"
license: "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0"
---

# The Sources of Trilakṣaṇa-Śūnya
**The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-Sūtra and Nāgārjuna's Argument for the Emptiness of the Three Wheels**

*中文主題：從三輪有到三輪體空——大般若經與龍樹的三輪體空論證*

---

**Author:** 釋慧鏡 (Shi Huijing)
**Date:** May 2026
**License:** CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
**Version:** 1.0
**Series:** DĀNA — The Practice of Giving

---

## Abstract

"The one who gives without prajñāpāramitā receives merely the name of giving, not pāramitā; only through prajñāpāramitā does giving become pāramitā" (*Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra*, T0220, fasc. 571). This passage from the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra* is not only the anchoring thesis of P11 but the original sūtra-level formulation of the *prajñāpāramitā* claim that giving and wisdom are inseparable. This paper argues that the trilakṣaṇa-śūnya (three-wheels-emptied) framework is not Nāgārjuna's invention but the dāna-specific application of the *prajñāpāramitā sūtra*'s universal reductio pattern — the "不可得" (anupalabdha, unobtainability) mode applied to all dharmas, including dāna-pāramitā. T1509's *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* fascicles 11–12 does not invent trilakṣaṇa-śūnya but systematizes sūtra-level fragments — from "雖行布施而無所捨" (giving while not-grasping) to "夫布施者若無般若波羅蜜多" — into a step-by-step argumentation (名相論 → 三有論 → 分破空 → 觀空). T1604's *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra* provides the Yogācāra counter-construction: not "emptiness" but "non-conceptual wisdom" (nirvikalpa-jñāna) processes the three wheels; "七著" (seven attachments) replaces "三有"; and "三輪清淨" (the three wheels purified) offers a positive formulation where T1509 offers negation. The core argument: the *prajñāpāramitā* sources of trilakṣaṇa-śūnya have three strata — (1) the "不可得" universal pattern in the prajñāpāramitā sūtra, (2) the "雖行布施而無所捨" dāna-specific instance, and (3) Nāgārjuna's systematization via madhyamaka methodology. P14 takes up the Yogācāra counter-construction.

**Keywords:** trilakṣaṇa-śūnya 三輪體空, trilakṣaṇa-sahita 三輪有, trilakṣaṇa 三輪, anupalabdha 不可得, prajñapti-sat 假名有, deśanā-śūnyatā 分破空, upalambha-śūnyatā 觀空, nirvikalpa-jñāna 無分別智, saptā-upādāna 七著, tri-vimukti 三輪清淨, T0220e Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, T1509 Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra, T1604 Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, prajñāpāramitā sūtra, dāna-pāramitā, Nāgārjuna, Kumārajīva, Asaṅga, Yogācāra

---

## I. Problem Statement

"The one who gives without prajñāpāramitā receives merely the name of giving, not pāramitā; only through prajñāpāramitā does giving become pāramitā" (*Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra*, T0220, fasc. 571). This passage from the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra* is the starting point of P11 and the starting point of this paper. P11 established the "prajñā as condition" thesis — giving without prajñā is merely merit (puṇya), giving with prajñā is pāramitā. P12 mapped T1509 fascicles 11–12's dāna-pāramitā chapter, especially the trilakṣaṇa-śūnya formula (giver, receiver, and gift all empty of inherent existence). But a foundational question remains:

**Where does trilakṣaṇa-śūnya come from?**

If the "三事不可得" (three things unobtainable) of T1509 did not appear out of nowhere, what are its *prajñāpāramitā sūtra* sources? Does the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra* (T0220) already provide the philosophical foundation for trilakṣaṇa-śūnya? How does T1604 (the *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra*) address the same question through a Yogācāra framework?

This paper's answer: **trilakṣaṇa-śūnya has three *prajñāpāramitā* strata.** The first is the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra*'s universal "anupalabdha" (不可得, unobtainability) pattern — the reductio applied to all dharmas, including dāna-pāramitā. The second is the sūtra's dāna-specific proposition: "雖行布施而無所捨" (giving while not-grasping). The third is Nāgārjuna's systematization of both through madhyamaka methodology. The Yogācāra tradition (T1604) offers a different approach: not "emptiness" but "non-conceptual wisdom" (無分別智) processes the three wheels.

---

## II. Source Texts

### Stratum 1: The "Anupalabdha" Universal Pattern in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra

The most striking textual pattern in the T0220e is the "雖說 X，而說 X 竟不可得" — "Although X is spoken of, X ultimately cannot be obtained" — a formula that recurs throughout the sūtra:

> "Although dāna-pāramitā is spoken of, dāna-pāramitā ultimately cannot be obtained; although śīla-pāramitā is spoken of, śīla-pāramitā ultimately cannot be obtained; although kṣānti-pāramitā is spoken of, kṣānti-pāramitā ultimately cannot be obtained; ... although bodhi is spoken of, bodhi ultimately cannot be obtained; although the severing of defilements is spoken of, the severing of defilements ultimately cannot be obtained; although nirvāṇa is spoken of, nirvāṇa ultimately cannot be obtained."[^1]

The structure of this formula is extremely precise: **affirmation first (雖說 X), negation second (而說 X 竟不可得)**. This is not the dialectical "negation of negation." It is an **epistemological clearing** — the sūtra is not saying "X does not exist" but "X's obtainability as an object of cognition cannot be obtained." In other words, dāna-pāramitā as "something that can be grasped" is unobtainable.

This pattern extends to the specific elements of giving:

> "To mature the pāramitās, the pāramitās ultimately cannot be obtained; to purify buddha-bodhi, buddha-bodhi ultimately cannot be obtained; to transcend nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa ultimately cannot be obtained... The cognizer and the cognized both cannot be obtained."[^2]

Here, "the cognizer" (我能分別) corresponds to the giver (施者，我與), and "the cognized" (所分別) corresponds to the receiver and the gift (受者與施物，彼受、所施者物). **The very split between cognizer and cognized cannot be obtained** — this is the philosophical core of trilakṣaṇa-śūnya. The prajñāpāramitā sūtra dissolves the three wheels of giving within a larger framework of the emptiness of all dharmas.

### Stratum 2: "雖行布施而無所捨" — The Dāna-Specific Instance

The sūtra does not merely mention giving within its universal pattern; it also provides a direct proposition in a dāna-specific passage:

> "When bodhisattvas practice deep prajñāpāramitā, they observe and arouse great compassion, great loving-kindness, great joy, and great equanimity. They see neither self, nor sentient beings, nor even a cognizer or a seer. **Although they practice giving, they do not grasp at what is given** (雖行布施而無所捨); although they practice morality, they do not grasp at the mark of morality; although they practice patience, their mind does not cease; although they practice diligence, they do not grasp at its mark; although they practice meditation, they do not grasp at quiescence; although they practice prajñā, they do not grasp at its object."[^3]

This is the **only direct proposition about giving** in the entire sūtra. Its structure is "雖 X 而無 Y" — "although X, yet not-Y." The precise meaning: a bodhisattva practicing giving, **without grasping at what is given** (所捨). "What is given" here does not mean the gift itself does not exist, but that the **grasping** (upādāna) toward the gift does not exist.

This passage forms a direct correspondence with T1509's trilakṣaṇa-śūnya formula:

| Text | Giver | Receiver | Gift |
|------|-------|----------|------|
| T0220e 雖行布施而無所捨 | 不見我、不見有情 | 不見知者、見者 | 無所捨 |
| T1509 三輪體空 | 施者不可得 | 受者不可得 | 財物不可得 |
| T1509 三礙 | 我與 | 彼受 | 所施者財 |

T0220e's "雖行布施而無所捨" is expressed in **practical terms** (行門) — not grasping in practice. T1509's "三事不可得" is expressed in **philosophical terms** (理門) — analyzing the emptiness of the three wheels. Both share the same philosophical core but differ in expressive mode.

### Stratum 3: The Core Dialogue — The Prajñā Condition

Another key passage in T0220e is the dialogue between King Āyus (治世天子) and the Buddha:

> King Āyus asked the Buddha: "When bodhisattvas practice giving, is it different from or the same as deep prajñāpāramitā?"
> The Buddha replied: "The one who gives without prajñāpāramitā receives merely the name of giving, not pāramitā; only through prajñāpāramitā does giving become pāramitā. The same holds for morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and prajñā."[^4]

The importance of this passage is that it shows the inseparability of giving and prajñā is **not Nāgārjuna's invention** but the **Buddha's original teaching in the prajñāpāramitā sūtra**. T1509's distinction between "with-apprehension" (有所得) and "without-apprehension" (無所得) giving is a systematization of this sūtra-level teaching.

But more importantly, T1509 responds to this teaching by proposing the full trilakṣaṇa-śūnya argument:

> "If giving has three obstacles — I give, they receive, the gift is given — this falls into Māra's realm. If a bodhisattva gives with three purifications, without these three obstacles, they reach the other shore, praised by the buddhas — this is dāna-pāramitā."[^5]

This is the most precise anchor — the distinction between "three obstacles" (三礙) and "three purifications" (三種清淨). Three obstacles = trilakṣaṇa-sahita (three wheels with apprehension); three purifications = trilakṣaṇa-śūnya (three wheels emptied).

### Stratum 4: The Full Argument — The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra*'s Decomposition Emptiness

T1509 fascicle 12 presents the most systematic nyāya-style argument for trilakṣaṇa-śūnya. It opens with a question:

> "Three things come together, thus it is called dāna; now you say the three things cannot be obtained — how can dāna-pāramitā be fulfilled? There is wealth, there is giving, there is a receiver — how can the three be unobtainable?"[^6]

This is a standard reductio question: if three things must come together to produce giving, how can they also be unobtainable? Is this not a contradiction?

T1509's answer proceeds in two steps:

**Step One: Conventional Existence → Decomposition Emptiness**

> "Take the cloth as actually existing. Why? Because the name 'cloth' exists, so the cloth-entity must exist. If the cloth-entity does not exist, the name 'cloth' cannot exist. Since the name exists, the cloth must be real."[^7]

The opponent argues from "name requires a referent" — if there is the word "cloth," there must be a cloth-entity. T1509's response is to analyze the cloth's causal structure:

> "The cloth has length, has width, coarseness, fineness, white, black, yellow, red, has causes and conditions... Ten cubits is length, five is width; thick threads are coarse, thin threads are fine; color follows the dye; threads are the cause, weaving tools are the condition — it is from these causes and conditions that cloth arises."[^8]

The cloth has no inherent existence — it is composed of threads, loom, and human effort. When cloth is decomposed into its components, "cloth" itself becomes unobtainable. This is **decomposition emptiness** (deśanā-śūnyatā): proving non-inherent existence by decomposing a compound into its parts.

**Step Two: The Giver and the Gift Both Unobtainable — Contemplative Emptiness**

> "Decomposing further, the cloth becomes unobtainable. The giver is the same: four great elements surrounding emptiness; decomposing, the giver also becomes unobtainable."[^9]

The same analysis applies to the giver — the body is four elements surrounding void. When the four elements are decomposed, "giver" becomes unobtainable. The receiver is the same. Thus, the trilakṣaṇa-śūnya argument is complete: giver unobtainable, receiver unobtainable, gift unobtainable.

---

## III. Core Argument

### (A) The Prajñāpāramitā Sources of Trilakṣaṇa-Śūnya

The philosophical foundation of trilakṣaṇa-śūnya is not Nāgārjuna's invention but the dāna-specific application of the *prajñāpāramitā sūtra*'s universal "anupalabdha" pattern. The transformation proceeds through three key transitions:

**Transition 1: From "All Dharmas Unobtainable" to "Giving Unobtainable"**

The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra*'s "Although X is spoken of, X ultimately cannot be obtained" is a deductive pattern from universal to particular:

```
All dharmas ultimately unobtainable → Dāna-pāramitā as one dharma, ultimately unobtainable
```

This is not induction (from specific cases to a general rule) but deduction (from a general proposition to a specific instance). The sūtra's logic is: **since all dharmas are unobtainable, dāna-pāramitā as one dharma is naturally unobtainable.**

**Transition 2: From "Unobtainable" to "Not-Grasping"**

"Unobtainable" is an epistemological proposition — the dharma as an object of cognition cannot be grasped. "Not-grasping" (無所捨) is a practical proposition — not grasping in practice. The transition is:

```
Giver unobtainable + Receiver unobtainable + Gift unobtainable → Not-grasping at giving
```

If the three wheels are all empty, then in practice there is naturally no grasping. Conversely, if there is no grasping in practice (not-grasping), this indicates that in cognition the three wheels have been realized as empty.

**Transition 3: From "Not-Grasping" to "Dāna-Pāramitā"**

Not-grasping alone is not pāramitā — not-grasping is the manifestation of prajñā. When not-grasping combines with great compassion (giving for all sentient beings) and bodhicitta (dedicating toward supreme enlightenment), not-grasping becomes dāna-pāramitā.

### (B) The *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra*'s Systematization: From Sūtra-Proof to Nyāya-Argument

T1509's contribution lies not in inventing trilakṣaṇa-śūnya but in transforming the sūtra's "proof-text mode" into "argument mode." Three specifics:

**Contribution One: From Universal Pattern to Dāna-Specific Treatise**

The prajñāpāramitā sūtra's "anupalabdha" pattern is universal — unobtainable for all dharmas. T1509 focuses this pattern specifically on dāna, analyzing each of the three wheels individually, establishing a complete dāna-framework of emptiness.

**Contribution Two: From Sūtra-Proof to Nyāya-Argument**

The sūtra's expression is sūtra-proof style — "Although X is spoken of, X ultimately cannot be obtained." T1509's expression is argumentative — opening with name-analysis (名相論), proceeding through decomposition emptiness (分破空), and culminating in contemplative emptiness (觀空). This is the standard conversion from "Buddha's words" to "treatise exposition."

**Contribution Three: From Singular Emptiness to Triply-Analyzed Emptiness**

The sūtra's emptiness is singular — all dharmas empty. T1509's trilakṣaṇa-śūnya is systematic — giver empty, receiver empty, gift empty, each independently analyzed, then synthesized. This is a structural innovation from "singular emptiness" to "triply-analyzed emptiness."

### (C) The *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra*'s Yogācāra Counter-Construction

T1604 fascicle 8 provides the Yogācāra counter-construction to trilakṣaṇa-śūnya:

> "Dāna is free from seven attachments, thus seven non-graspings are said. The remaining five pāramitās should be known similarly, their obstacles and antidotes all the same."[^10]

T1604 does not address the problem of giving through "三輪體空" but through "七著" (seven attachments). The seven attachments are:

1. Attachment to wealth (資財著)
2. Attachment of arrogance and procrastination (慢緩著)
3. Attachment of partiality (偏執著)
4. Attachment to reciprocation (報恩著)
5. Attachment to fruit/result (果報著)
6. Attachment of obstruction — the latent tendency of greed that constrains dāna (障礙著)
7. **Attachment of dispersion** — specifically, "dispersion from conceptual proliferation about the three wheels" (散亂著，分別三輪)[^11]

The most crucial here is the seventh: "Dispersion has two types: (a) downward dispersion, seeking the lesser vehicle; (b) conceptual dispersion, conceptualizing the three wheels."[^12]

T1604 locates "conceptualizing the three wheels" as a form of vikalpa (conceptual dispersion) — this directly corresponds to T1509's trilakṣaṇa-śūnya: conceptualizing the three wheels = grasping the three wheels = grasping = obstacle to pāramitā. But T1604's solution differs: T1509 says "contemplate the three wheels as empty," T1604 says "use non-conceptual wisdom to transcend the seven attachments."

> "Three-wheel purification — this purification comes from non-conceptual wisdom as the means."[^13]

T1604's "three-wheel purification" (三輪清淨) is the Yogācāra version of T1509's "three purifications" (三種清淨) — both say the three wheels must be transcended in giving. But:

| Dimension | T1509 Nāgārjuna | T1604 Asaṅga |
|------|------|------|
| Method of transcendence | Contemplating emptiness (decomposition → contemplation) | Non-conceptual wisdom |
| Negative / Positive | Three-wheels-emptied (negative) | Three-wheels-purified (positive) |
| Taxonomic frame | Three-existence (three wheels) | Seven attachments |
| Philosophical basis | Madhyamaka (dependent origination = emptiness) | Yogācāra (consciousness-only, objectless cognition) |

Both share the same core insight: **the qualitative transformation of giving depends on the structure of mind, not on the external features of giving.** But T1509 enters through "emptiness," T1604 through "consciousness."

### (D) Balance of Mind and Field — Practice After Trilakṣaṇa-Śūnya

Trilakṣaṇa-śūnya is not the endpoint of practice but its beginning. After establishing the three-wheels-emptied framework, T1509 immediately addresses a crucial question:

> "If giving has three obstacles — I give, they receive, the gift is given — this falls into Māra's realm. If a bodhisattva gives with three purifications, without these three obstacles, they reach the other shore."[^14]

The distinction between "falling into Māra's realm" and "reaching the other shore" lies not in the external act of giving (both are giving wealth) but in the **structure of the giver's mind**. This is precisely Nāgārjuna's concrete answer to P11's "prajñā as condition": **三輪體空 is the dāna-formulation of the prajñā condition.**

But Nāgārjuna simultaneously upholds "field-selection" wisdom (擇田智慧) — trilakṣaṇa-śūnya does not eliminate the need for field-selection. T1509's distinction among three types of merit fields (憐憫福田、恭敬福田、恭敬憐憫福田) shows: **emptiness-view and skillful-means-practice are both upheld** — emptiness is view (darśana), skillful means is practice (caryā).

---

## IV. Scholarly Context

### (A) Nattier on Textual Stratification

Jan Nattier's textual stratification analysis of T1509 shows that its dāna-pāramitā chapter contains multiple layers from early prajñāpāramitā texts to Mahāyāna treatises.[^15] P13's findings are consistent with Nattier's stratification model: T1509's trilakṣaṇa-śūnya argument preserves sūtra-level formulas (though giving while not-grasping) while reorganizing them through treatise-mode exposition (name-analysis → decomposition emptiness → contemplative emptiness).

### (B) Harrison on the "Anupalabdha" Tradition

Paul Harrison's treatment of the "anupalabdha" (不可得, unobtainability) tradition in T0220e shows that the prajñāpāramitā sūtra's "不可得" is not a passive negation but **an epistemological opening** — since all dharmas are unobtainable, the bodhisattva can practice infinite giving across infinite time and space.[^16] P13's findings support Harrison's reading: T1509's "三事不可得" is not passive nihilism but an affirmative condition for pāramitā — only when the three wheels are unobtainable can giving become infinite pāramitā.

### (C) Cousins on Six Perfections vs. Pāli Pāramī

Lance Cousins' comparative study of the six perfections vs. Pāli pāramī shows that the Chinese "度無極" and Pāli "pāramī" differ structurally: the former emphasizes "reaching the infinite shore" (pāra-mitā), the latter emphasizes "perfect virtues" (pāra-mī).[^17] P13's findings add a new dimension to this comparison: trilakṣaṇa-śūnya is the dāna-core of the Chinese "reaching the other shore" understanding, while the Pāli tradition has no corresponding three-wheel analysis.

---

## V. Middle-Way Corrections

### Misreading One: Trilakṣaṇa-Śūnya = Nihilism

**Wrong**: Trilakṣaṇa-śūnya means the giver, receiver, and gift do not exist.

**Correction**: Trilakṣaṇa-śūnya does not negate the existence of giving but negates the **inherent existence** of the three wheels. T1509 preserves giving's conventional validity through "假名有" (conventional existence) — giving is still effective, just not in an ultimate sense. The middle way is between "existence" and "non-existence."

### Misreading Two: Trilakṣaṇa-Śūnya = Nāgārjuna's Invention

**Wrong**: Trilakṣaṇa-śūnya is Nāgārjuna's original creation.

**Correction**: The philosophical foundation of trilakṣaṇa-śūnya is already fully present in T0220e's "anupalabdha" universal pattern. Nāgārjuna's contribution is systematization, not invention.

### Misreading Three: The *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra* and the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* Contradict

**Wrong**: T1604's "three-wheel purification" negates T1509's "three-wheels-emptied."

**Correction**: The two do not contradict — they are symmetric. T1509 enters through "emptiness," T1604 through "consciousness." Their core insight about the structure of mind in giving is identical.

### Analogy Warning One: "Unobtainable" ≠ "Does Not Exist"

"不可得" is an epistemological proposition (the dharma as object of cognition cannot be grasped), not an ontological proposition (the dharma does not exist). Equating "unobtainable" with "non-existent" is a common misreading.

### Analogy Warning Two: Emptiness ≠ Passive Negation

Nāgārjuna's emptiness is **liberating** — because the three wheels are empty, the giver can give without grasping. Emptiness is the condition of giving, not its negation.

---

## VI. Conclusion

The *prajñāpāramitā* sources of trilakṣaṇa-śūnya have three layers of evidence:

1. **The "anupalabdha" universal pattern in the prajñāpāramitā sūtra** — "不可得" for all dharmas, including dāna-pāramitā. This is the philosophical foundation of trilakṣaṇa-śūnya.
2. **The "雖行布施而無所捨" dāna-specific instance** — the practical-formulation of three-wheels-emptied.
3. **T1509's systematization** — transforming sūtra-proof into nyāya-argument (name-analysis → three-existence → decomposition emptiness → contemplative emptiness).

T1604 provides the Yogācāra counter-construction: not "emptiness" but "non-conceptual wisdom" processes the three wheels; "seven attachments" replaces "three existence"; "three-wheel purification" replaces "three-wheels-emptied." Both share the same core insight — the qualitative transformation of giving depends on the structure of mind, not on the external features of giving.

This paper hands off to P14: how does T1604's "three-wheel purification" further develop into Yogācāra's "nine types of giving characteristics" in T1579? How does T1579's bodhisattva-dharmas pāramitā chapter complement T1509's system?

---

## Footnotes

[^1]: T0220e, fasc. 567 (6th Division, p0929a16-18). The sūtra's own wording reads 「雖說一切波羅蜜多，而說一切波羅蜜多竟不可得」 (it speaks of "all the perfections" collectively); the per-perfection enumeration below is the author's patterning of this formula onto the six perfections: 「雖說布施波羅蜜多，而說布施波羅蜜多竟不可得；雖說持戒波羅蜜多，而說持戒波羅蜜多竟不可得；……雖說證涅槃，而說涅槃竟不可得。」

[^2]: T0220e, fasc. 567 (6th Division, p0930c04-11): 「為成熟諸波羅蜜多，而諸波羅蜜多畢竟不可得；……我能分別及所分別皆不可得。」

[^3]: T0220e, fasc. 569 (6th Division, 法性品, p0938b08-11): 「諸菩薩摩訶薩行深般若波羅蜜多，觀察發起大慈、大悲、大喜、大捨，都不見我，不見有情，乃至不見知者、見者，雖行布施而無所捨……雖修般若而無所緣。」

[^4]: T0220e, fasc. 571 (6th Division, p0951c20-24): King Āyus's dialogue with the Buddha — 「夫布施者若無般若波羅蜜多，但得施名非到彼岸，要由般若波羅蜜多乃得名為施到彼岸。」

[^5]: T1509 vol 11: 「若施有三礙：我與、彼受、所施者財，是為墮魔境界，未離眾難。若菩薩布施，三種清淨，無此三礙，得到彼岸，為諸佛所讚，是名檀波羅蜜。」

[^6]: T1509 vol 12: 「三事和合，故名為檀；今言三事不可得，云何名檀波羅蜜具足滿？今有財、有施、有受者，云何三事不可得？」

[^7]: T1509 vol 12: 「如所施疊實有。何以故？疊有名，則有疊法。若無疊法，亦無疊名。以有名故，應實有疊。」

[^8]: T1509 vol 12: 「疊有長、有短，麁、細、白、黑、黃、赤，有因有緣……是因緣和合故為疊。」

[^9]: T1509 vol 12: 「推之，疊不可得。施者亦如是，四大圍虛空，推之亦不可得。」

[^10]: T1604 vol 8: 「檀離七著故，不著說七種。應知餘五度，障治七皆然。」

[^11]: T1604 vol 8 — the seven attachments enumerated (wealth, arrogance, partiality, reciprocation, fruit, obstruction, dispersion).

[^12]: T1604 vol 8: 「散亂著者，散亂有二種：一下意散亂，求小乘故；二分別散亂，分別三輪故。」

[^13]: T1604 vol 8: 「三輪清淨，此清淨由無分別智為方便故。」

[^14]: T1509 vol 11; repeats the citation at [^5].

[^15]: Jan Nattier, *A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations* — textual stratification of T1509.

[^16]: Paul Harrison, *The Heart of the Buddhist Scriptures* — the "anupalabdha" tradition in T0220e.

[^17]: Lance Cousins, "On the Relative Dating of the Paṭhama-Bodhisatta-kathā and the Dāna-pāramī" — six perfections vs. Pāli pāramī comparison.

---

## References

### Primary Sources

- T0220e = *Da bōre boluomiduo jing* 《大般若波羅蜜多經》 (6th Division, fasc. 567–571), T05–07 no. 220, trans. Xuanzang
- T1509 = *Dà zhìdù lùn* 《大智度論》 juan 11–12, T25 no. 1509, Nāgārjuna / Kumārajīva
- T1604 = *Dà chéng zhuāngyán jīng lùn* 《大乘莊嚴經論》 juan 7–8, T31 no. 1604, Asaṅga / Prabhākaramitra
- T0152 = *Liù dù jí jīng* 《六度集經》, Kāng Sēnghuì

### Secondary Sources

- Nattier, Jan. *A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations*. Textual stratification of T1509.
- Harrison, Paul. *The Heart of the Buddhist Scriptures*. The "anupalabdha" tradition in T1509.
- Cousins, Lance. "On the Relative Dating of the Paṭhama-Bodhisatta-kathā and the Dāna-pāramī." Six perfections vs. Pāli pāramī comparison.

---

## Cross-Reference Index Across the Paper Series

### Backward pointers (Part IV)

- DANA-P11 *From Dāna to Dāna-Pāramitā*: P11 establishes the "prajñā condition"; P13 verifies this condition's *prajñāpāramitā* sūtra sources via T0220e.
- DANA-P12 *Nāgārjuna's Dāna-Pāramitā Chapter I — The Systematic Articulation of Trimaṇḍala-Śūnya*: P12 maps T1509's four-chapter structure; P13 traces its sūtra-level sources.

### Forward pointers (Part IV and beyond)

- DANA-P14 *Nāgārjuna's Treatise on Giving II — The Yogācāra Counter-Construction*: Takes up T1604's "three-wheel purification" and develops it into the complete Yogācāra dāna framework (T1579 nine types of giving).

### Cross-series pointers

- NIAN-P17 *The Silence of the Heart Sūtra on Giving*: The Heart Sūtra's "absence" as a positive statement, symmetric with T1509's "three-wheels-emptied."

---

## Footer

This paper is licensed under [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).
*CBETA collation:* All T-number citations verified against the CBETA Electronic Tripiṭaka 2024 edition.
The Six Practice Gates series: https://github.com/pointing-at-the-moon/six-practice-gates