Web tools are unavailable, so I'll proceed with the classical material provided and well-established canonical references I can cite with high confidence. Here is the full interpretation:

無生門 (Wúshēng Mén) — The Gate of Non-Arising

这个概念在说什么

Most people encounter Buddhism through its vocabulary of negation: emptiness, no-self, non-attachment. And most people walk away thinking Buddhism is saying "nothing exists" or "you should feel nothing." 無生門, the Gate of Non-Arising, is the concept that dismantles that misunderstanding at its root — not by arguing against it, but by showing that the very framework of "arising and ceasing" within which the misunderstanding lives is itself what needs to be seen through.

The term comes from Zhiyi's (智顗) *Mohe Zhiguan* (《摩訶止觀》, T1911), the foundational text of Tiantai (天台) Buddhism. 無生門 is one of the four gates of the Perfect Teaching (圓教四門): the gate of existence (有門), the gate of non-existence (無門), the gate of both existence and non-existence (亦有亦無門), and the gate of neither existence nor non-existence (非有非無門). Zhiyi also presents an alternate fourfold schema framed in terms of arising: the gate of arising (生門), the gate of non-arising (無生門), the gate of both arising and non-arising (亦生亦無生門), and the gate of neither arising nor non-arising (非生非無生門). He singles out 無生門 not because the other three are inferior, but because it most readily displays the function of wisdom (智德) — it is the angle from which the whole structure becomes most legible.

The Sanskrit is *anutpādamukha*: *anutpāda* (無生, "non-arising") + *mukha* (門, "gate," "mouth," "entry point"). Already in the Sanskrit, notice that this is not a thesis. It is a *mukha* — a way in. You do not "believe" non-arising; you enter through it.

What "non-arising" actually means

The classical definition is precise: 諸法初不生 — "all dharmas, from the very beginning, do not arise." This is not the claim that nothing happens. Phenomena appear, change, and dissolve; you are reading these words. What is denied is that any phenomenon possesses an intrinsic, self-sufficient *origination* — that something pops into being from its own side, under its own power, as a genuinely new entity.

This connects directly to Nāgārjuna's (龍樹) foundational verse in the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* (《中論》, T1564), Chapter 1:

諸法不自生，亦不從他生，不共不無因，是故知無生。 "Dharmas do not arise from themselves, nor from another, nor from both together, nor without cause — therefore they are known to be non-arising."

Zhiyi's contemplative method in the *Mohe Zhiguan* takes this fourfold negation and turns it into a practice: you investigate the present moment of mind (一念心) and ask — did this thought arise from itself? From something external? From both? From nothing at all? Each alternative, when examined closely, collapses. What remains is not a blank void but the recognition that "arising" was always a conceptual imposition on what is simply *this* — dependently configured, empty of own-nature, yet fully functional.

The vertical axis: piercing cause and fruit (竪通因果)

無生門 is not merely a philosophical position; it is a corridor that runs the entire length of the path.

On the cause side (因位): The practitioner who sees non-arising directly attains 無生法忍 (*anutpattikadharmakṣānti*), the "patience" or "acceptance" of non-arising dharmas. This is not intellectual agreement. It is the mind's capacity to *abide* in the recognition that nothing is being born or destroyed, without flinching, without needing to re-establish a ground. In the bodhisattva path, this marks a decisive turning point — the shift from faith-based practice to direct seeing.

On the fruit side (果位): The text states plainly: 無生法即是佛 — "the dharma of non-arising is itself the Buddha." Great nirvāṇa (大涅槃) is described simply as 不生 — "non-arising." This is not annihilation. It is the exhaustion of the compulsion to fabricate new moments of self and world from ignorance. The Buddha is not someone who "achieved" something added; the Buddha is what remains when the habit of manufacturing arising ceases.

So the same gate — 無生 — is both the door you walk through in practice and the destination you arrive at. Cause and fruit are not two different things connected by a long road; they are the same reality seen from two positions on the path.

The horizontal axis: encompassing all meanings (橫攝一切義)

If the vertical axis says "this gate runs from beginning to end," the horizontal axis says "this gate opens onto everything."

Zhiyi uses a striking image from the esoteric syllable tradition: 初阿字攝四十一字，四十一字攝阿字 — "The first syllable 'A' contains all forty-one syllables; all forty-one syllables contain 'A'." In the Siddhaṃ script tradition, the vowel 'A' (阿) is the seed-syllable of non-arising — every other sound is a modification of the open, unmodified vowel. The metaphor says: 無生門 is not one topic among many. It is the generative grammar from which all other teachings unfold, and into which they all fold back.

Then comes the most vivid image in the entire passage: 一唾火滅、一吹世界成 — "One spit extinguishes the fire; one breath brings a world into being." Destruction and creation are not two sequential acts. In contemplative experience, the very movement that *stops* the three poisons (greed, hatred, delusion) and the three calamities is simultaneously the movement that *establishes* the world in its suchness. You do not first tear down and then rebuild. The tearing-down *is* the building. 破立同時 — destruction and establishment are simultaneous.

This is why 無生門 is not nihilism wearing a Buddhist robe. Nihilism says: destroy, and nothing remains. 無生門 says: in the very act of seeing through fabrication, the full functionality of the conventional world is *thereby* established. The text calls this 一立一切立 — "when one thing is established, all things are established" — grounded in the tenfold conditioned arising (十因緣法). Once sentient beings are established as such, the entire causal web of affliction and its objects is established; once teaching and capacity are established, the entire causal web of understanding and practice is established. Nothing is left out.

The four phrases: mapping the whole of existence (四句攝因果能所)

Zhiyi compresses the entire drama of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa into four phrases built from "arising" (生) and "non-arising" (不生):

1. 不生生 (Non-arising, yet arising): The practitioner no longer sees the world through the lens of ignorance (無明世諦), yet the Buddha's knowing-and-seeing (佛知見) opens and functions. One has attained non-arising patience, yet one is vividly alive to the world. This is the cause-position of the bodhisattva.

2. 不生不生 (Non-arising and non-arising): The fruit-position. Both the power of severance (斷德) and the power of wisdom (智德) are complete. Ignorance does not arise; even prajñā does not "arise" as a separate act. There is no longer a subject who "has" non-arising. This is the Buddha-ground.

3. 生不生 (Arising, yet non-arising): Afflictions are extinguished (惑滅), yet the bodhisattva freely *appears* to be born, freely *initiates* teaching activity. The arising is theatrical, compassionate, ungraspable — like an actor who weeps on stage without being sad.

4. 生生 (Arising upon arising): Ordinary sentient beings, moment after moment, one thought giving birth to the next in an unbroken chain of conditioned existence (有漏). The bodhisattva sees this and great compassion (大悲) arises — not as a philosophical conclusion but as an involuntary response, the way your hand reaches for a stumbling child before you "decide" to help.

These four phrases are not a ladder. They are a complete map. And the text insists: each phrase, taken as a fixed position, is 不可說 — "inexpressible."

Six phrases of inexpressibility (六句不可說)

The *Mohe Zhiguan* then pushes further: not only are the four phrases inexpressible as fixed positions, but "arising" itself is inexpressible, and "non-arising" itself is inexpressible. Six negations total. The point is not to induce frustration. It is to bring the mind to the place the tradition calls 心行處滅，言語道斷 — "where the mind's activity ceases, where the road of language is cut off."

This famous phrase (which appears in Nāgārjuna's *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* and throughout the Prajñāpāramitā literature) marks the limit of conceptual thought. It is not anti-intellectual. It is the intellect's own honest report: *I have reached the edge of what I can do.* What lies beyond is not silence-as-absence but silence-as-fullness — the mind no longer needing to narrate experience in order to have it.

The contemplative practice: not a view but an investigation (觀行實踐)

Here the text issues its most important warning. 無生 is not a *position* you adopt. It is not the thought "nothing really arises" held as a belief. If you do that, you have merely created what Zhiyi calls 無生見 — a "view of non-arising" — which is just another mental fabrication (法塵), another object the mind clings to, another tiny idol made of the very emptiness that was supposed to free you.

The actual practice is investigative: you take the present thought and ask, *where did this come from?* From itself? It would have to exist before it existed — absurd. From another? Then anything could produce anything. From both? Doubles the absurdity. From no cause? Then practice, ethics, causation — all meaningless. Each alternative dissolves under scrutiny. What dissolves is not the world but your *grasp* on the world as self-originating. This yields 性空 (emptiness of own-nature) and 相空 (emptiness of characteristics) — and from that, the "wisdom eye" (慧眼) opens onto the "first meaning" (第一義).

If, at that point, you think "Ah, *this* emptiness is the real non-arising," you have fallen back in. The text prescribes further contemplation using the "threefold provisional" (三假) analysis to break even that subtle clinging. The gate has no handle on the inside.

The final gathering: one thought, three truths (一念收束)

Everything — the vertical penetration of cause and fruit, the horizontal encompassing of all meanings, the four phrases, the six inexpressibilities, the investigative practice — all of it converges on a single point:

無明一念因緣所生法，即空、即假、即中。

"The single thought born of ignorance, being a dharma of conditioned arising, is *at once* empty (空), *at once* provisional (假), *at once* the middle (中)."

This is the Inconceivable Threefold Truth (不思議三諦). To contemplate this single thought in all three aspects simultaneously is 一心三觀 — "one mind, three contemplations." 無生門, in its ultimate intent, is not about "non-arising" as opposed to "arising." It is about seeing that this very moment of apparent arising is already empty, already provisionally functional, already beyond both assertions — and that these three are not three sequential insights but one act of seeing.

The other three gates of the Perfect Teaching arrive at the same place from different angles. 無生門 is simply the angle Zhiyi chooses because it most cleanly displays how wisdom works: by releasing the compulsion to find an origin, the whole of reality — in its emptiness, its functionality, and its irreducibility to either — stands revealed.

Connection to the broader tradition

The *Heart Sūtra* (《心經》) — the most widely recited text in East Asian Buddhism — states: 是諸法空相，不生不滅，不垢不淨，不增不減 — "The empty character of all dharmas: neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure, neither increasing nor decreasing." This is 無生門 in six words. The sūtra does not argue for this; it *declares* it as the content of Avalokiteśvara's direct vision (照見五蘊皆空). Zhiyi's contribution is to show *how* that declaration functions as a contemplative entry point — not just a description of reality but a door you can walk through.

生活里的走查

Let's walk 無生門 through an ordinary contemporary day, mapping each layer precisely.

Morning: the alarm and the first thought (生生)

Your phone alarm sounds at 6:45. Before you are fully conscious, a cascade has already begun: irritation at the sound, a half-formed image of the day's first meeting, a tightening in the chest, the thought "I don't want to go in." Each moment gives birth to the next in an unbroken chain. This is 生生 — arising upon arising, the unbroken flow of conditioned existence (有漏). Nothing here has a single origin you can point to. The irritation didn't come "from you" (you didn't choose it); it didn't come purely "from the alarm" (your colleague sleeps through the same sound); it didn't come from both as two independent causes; and it didn't come from nowhere. Yet it is vividly, undeniably *happening*.

Where people mis-map: Many will say, "The alarm *caused* my irritation." That is the "arising from another" (他生) error — locating the origin outside yourself. Others say, "I'm just an anxious person; it comes from me." That is the "arising from self" (自生) error. 無生門 asks you to notice that neither location holds, and yet the experience is fully present. You don't need to solve this. You need to *see* it.

Commute: scrolling and the fabrication of a self (一念因緣所生法)

On the train, you open a social media app. Within three seconds, an algorithmically curated post triggers a small spike of envy — someone your age, same field, announcing a promotion. Watch what happens: a "you" who is *behind* crystallizes in that instant. Before the post, there was no "you-who-is-behind." After the post, there is. This self has a birth moment. It is 因緣所生法 — a dharma born of conditions. And in the same instant, it is 即空 (empty: it was not there a moment ago and will dissolve when your attention shifts), 即假 (provisionally functional: it genuinely organizes your mood, your posture, your next forty-five minutes), 即中 (neither purely illusory nor purely real — irreducible to either claim).

Where people mis-map: The popular mindfulness framing says, "Notice the thought, let it go, return to the breath." That is useful but incomplete. It treats the arising as a real event you then dismiss. 無生門 goes further: the "arising" itself was never a solid event. There was no moment when a real, self-existent envy was *born* and then needed to be *killed*. Seeing this — seeing that there was no birth to begin with — is different from watching a birth and then performing a funeral. The first is 無生; the second is still 生滅 (arising-and-ceasing) with better manners.

Work: the meeting and "one spit, one breath" (一唾一吹)

In the 10 a.m. meeting, a colleague challenges your proposal. The old pattern: threat-detection, adrenaline, a rehearsed counter-argument forming before they finish speaking. Now imagine you have done enough contemplative work that, in the moment of challenge, you see the "threat" has no origin-point. It didn't arise from them (they are speaking words), didn't arise from you (you didn't choose the adrenaline), didn't arise from the conjunction, didn't arise from nowhere. In that seeing, the fire of reactivity goes out — 一唾火滅. And *in the same instant* — not a second later, not after you "calm down" — a creative response is already forming, a way to integrate their objection that you couldn't have scripted in advance. 一吹世界成. Destruction and establishment are not two steps. They are one movement seen from two sides.

Where people mis-map: Corporate mindfulness programs often teach: "Pause. Breathe. Then respond." This implies a sequence: first stop the fire, then build something. 無生門's claim is more radical — the stopping and the building are not sequential. You don't first achieve emptiness and then, from that blank slate, construct a response. The response is *already there* in the seeing-through. The emptiness is not a prerequisite; it is the *form* the functioning takes.

Evening: intimacy and the "view of non-arising" trap (無生見)

Your partner says, "You weren't really listening to me today." A familiar sting. You've been reading about non-arising. A voice in your head says: "This sting has no origin. It's empty. It's not really arising." And you feel a small smugness. You have just committed the error Zhiyi warns about most sternly: you have turned 無生 into a 見 — a *view*, a position, a subtle identity ("I am the one who sees non-arising"). This "view of non-arising" is 法塵相應 — a mental object (dharma-dust) that the mind grasps, indistinguishable in structure from any other clinging. You have used emptiness as a shield against being genuinely touched by another person's pain.

The text's remedy: apply the threefold provisional analysis (三假) even to this. Who is the "I" who sees non-arising? Where is this seeing located? Is it itself arisen or unarisen? The investigation turns on the investigator. The gate has no handle on the inside — you cannot stand *on* non-arising and look down at arising. The moment you try, you have re-established the very duality the gate was meant to dissolve.

Where people mis-map: This is the single most common failure mode among people who encounter emptiness teachings intellectually. They weaponize non-arising against their own emotional life. "It's all empty" becomes a way of not feeling, not a way of feeling fully without being enslaved. Zhiyi's insistence that 無生見 must itself be broken is not a minor technical point. It is the difference between liberation and dissociation dressed in Buddhist vocabulary.

Night: the child's nightmare and great compassion (生生 → 生不生)

Your four-year-old wakes screaming from a nightmare. You go in. You sit on the bed. You say, "It's okay, it wasn't real." And you mean it — and you also know that for the child, the terror was *completely real*, and that saying "it wasn't real" would be a cruelty if it were said from a distance. So you hold them. You enter the dream-world with them. You *arise* into their drama — 生不生: you, whose own afflictions are stilled, freely appear to be born into their world of monsters, not because you are confused, but because compassion (大悲) is the involuntary response of one who sees 生生 — the unbroken chain of conditioned suffering — in another.

This is the bodhisattva's posture in miniature. You don't help the child by explaining dependent origination. You help by *appearing in their world* while not being trapped in it. 生不生: arising, yet non-arising. Present, yet ungraspable. This is not a metaphor. This is the structural logic of all genuine care.

当代人为什么需要它

The tyranny of origins

Contemporary culture is obsessed with origins. Where does your anxiety come from? Your attachment style? Your political opinion? The algorithm that radicalized you? The childhood wound? The neurotransmitter imbalance? Each answer locates an *origin* — a point where the thing *arose* — and in locating it, grants it a strange solidity. If your anxiety "comes from" your childhood, it becomes a thing with a genealogy, a biography, a *right* to exist. You spend years in therapy tracing the family tree of your suffering, and sometimes that helps — but sometimes it also inadvertently confirms that the suffering is a real entity with a real birth certificate.

無生門 offers a different relationship to the same data. It does not deny that conditions are operative. It denies that any phenomenon has a *self-sufficient point of origination*. Your anxiety is not a thing that was *born* and now *lives*. It is a pattern that *configures* — dependently, moment by moment — and that can *reconfigure* without anyone having to find and kill its ancestor. This is not anti-therapy. It is a different metaphysical ground on which therapeutic work can stand — one where you are not excavating a fossil but watching weather.

Algorithmic arising and the illusion of the feed

The recommendation algorithm is, in a precise sense, a 生生 machine. Each click gives birth to the next prediction, which gives birth to the next click, in an unbroken chain of conditioned arising. The "you" that the algorithm addresses — the user-profile, the taste-vector — is 因緣所生法 par excellence: it has no origin outside the chain, no self-nature, no existence independent of the platform's modeling. And yet it functions. It organizes your evening, your desires, your sense of what is "for you."

無生門 does not say "delete your accounts" (though you might). It says: see the 即空即假即中 of the algorithmic self. It is empty (no stable entity behind the profile). It is provisional (it genuinely shapes what you encounter). It is the middle (neither a conspiracy against you nor a neutral mirror — irreducible to either story). Seeing this, you can *use* the feed without *being* the feed. The gate is not a wall.

The "origin story" of the self in neuroscience

Contemporary neuroscience has thoroughly deconstructed the "Cartesian theater" — the idea of a single point in the brain where "you" arise and watch the show. Predictive processing models, global workspace theories, and split-brain research all converge on something like: there is no single origin-point of consciousness. Experience configures, without a configurer. This resonates — genuinely, structurally — with the fourfold negation of 自生他生共生無因生.

But the limitation must be stated: neuroscience describes the *mechanisms* of configuration. It does not, and in principle cannot, address whether the recognition of non-arising is *soteriologically effective* — whether seeing it changes the structure of suffering. That is a first-person, contemplative claim, not a third-person, experimental one. The resonance is real; the equivalence is not. Brain science can show you there is no little homunculus; it cannot show you what it is like to *abide* in that recognition without flinching. That is what 無生法忍 is — and no fMRI captures "patience."

The need for a gate, not a conclusion

Perhaps the deepest reason 無生門 matters now is formal, not contentual. We live in an era of conclusions without gates. Everyone has a position. Everyone has "done the research." Everyone has a take on non-duality, on emptiness, on "it's all an illusion." But a conclusion is a dead end. A gate is a passage. 無生門 insists on being walked through, not agreed with. You cannot screenshot it. You cannot put it in a bio. You can only enter it — and the entering changes the one who enters, in ways that no summary can transmit.

The tradition's phrase 心行處滅，言語道斷 is not a failure of communication. It is a *description of the gate's architecture*: the gate is located precisely at the point where language and conceptual mind reach their structural limit. You can be *told* about the gate. You cannot be *told through* it. That is why the tradition insists on practice, on a teacher, on the slow work of contemplation — not because the information is secret, but because the transformation is structural, and structure cannot be transmitted as content.

常见误读与澄清

Misreading 1: "Non-arising means nothing happens"

This is the most common and most damaging error. People hear 無生 and conclude that Buddhism denies change, denies causation, denies the reality of experience. They then either reject Buddhism as obviously false (things *do* happen) or accept it as a kind of metaphysical anesthesia (nothing *really* happens, so why care).

Both responses miss the point by the same distance. 無生門 does not deny that phenomena appear, function, and transform. It denies that any phenomenon possesses *intrinsic origination* — that it boots itself up from nothing, under its own power, as a self-sufficient entity. The conventional world of cause and effect, of birth and death, of effort and result, is fully affirmed. What is denied is a *metaphysical ground* beneath that world — a "first cause" or "self-nature" that would make arising into an absolute event rather than a dependent configuration.

Zhiyi's 一立一切立 makes this explicit: from the standpoint of 無生門, *everything* is established. Sentient beings are established. Teaching is established. Practice is established. Cause and effect are established. The gate does not flatten the world; it *frees* the world to be fully, dependently, gloriously functional — precisely because no single node in the web claims to be the web's own origin.

Misreading 2: "Non-arising is the same as 'living in the present moment'"

Contemporary mindfulness culture often translates 無生 as "be present" or "don't get lost in thoughts about past and future." This is a kind simplification that loses the concept's structural content.

"Being present" still assumes a subject who is present, a present moment that is present *to* someone, and a past/future that one has successfully "let go of." 無生門 interrogates the arising of the "present moment" itself. When did "now" arise? From the previous moment? Then it is not self-originating. From itself? Then it existed before it existed. The "present" is as dependently configured as anything else. To "be present" without examining the arising of presence is still to operate within 生滅 — arising and ceasing — just with better attention. 無生門 goes one layer deeper: it asks whether "arising" is the right frame at all.

This does not make mindfulness practice wrong. It makes it *incomplete* if it stops at attention-training. The tradition is clear: 止 (caliding, śamatha) without 觀 (insight, vipaśyanā) is stillness without sight. 無生門 is 觀 at its most radical.

Misreading 3: "If nothing arises, effort is pointless"

This is the nihilist's favorite inference, and it is addressed directly by the four-phrase structure. 生生 — the unbroken chain of suffering — is real at the conventional level. Beings suffer. The bodhisattva's response to 生生 is not a shrug but 大悲 — great compassion. The recognition of non-arising does not cancel the *provisional* reality of suffering; it cancels the *metaphysical solidity* of suffering, which is precisely what makes compassionate action possible without burnout.

If suffering were truly, intrinsically *born* — if it had a real origin, a real self-nature — then it would be permanent, unchangeable, and compassion would be futile. It is precisely *because* suffering is non-arising (lacking intrinsic origination) that it can be transformed. 無生 is the ground of hope, not its negation. The bodhisattva can enter the world of 生生 without being swallowed by it *because* 生生 has no bottom, no origin, no final solidity. The quicksand has no floor — which means you cannot drown in it.

Misreading 4: "Non-arising is a mystical experience you either have or don't"

The contemplative method Zhiyi describes is not a trance state or a peak experience. It is an *investigation* — a structured, repeatable inquiry into the origin of the present thought. You can do it right now, with the next thought that arises. You ask: where did this come from? And you actually look. Not philosophically. Perceptually. The four alternatives (self, other, both, neither) are not logical puzzles to be solved on paper; they are directions to *look in* with attention. Each one, when genuinely looked into, yields nothing. The "yielding nothing" is not a failure. It is the data. It is 性空 and 相空 showing themselves.

This is available to anyone with attention and honesty. It does not require a retreat center, a lineage, or a special state of consciousness. It requires only the willingness to look for an origin and to report accurately on what you find — which is, consistently, *no findable origin*, and yet *a vivid, functioning, undeniable experience*. That "and yet" is the middle way. That "and yet" is 即空即假即中. That "and yet" is the gate.

Misreading 5: "The four gates are four different teachings for four types of people"

This is a Tiantai-specific subtlety. In Zhiyi's system, the four gates of the Perfect Teaching are not four separate doctrines aimed at four personality types (as in some earlier classificatory schemes). They are four *angles on the same reality*, and they 互攝 — mutually contain one another. Entering through 無生門, you find 有門 inside it. Entering through 有門, you find 無生門 inside it. "The first syllable 'A' contains all forty-one syllables; all forty-one syllables contain 'A'."

This means 無生門 is not the "emptiness teaching" as opposed to the "existence teaching." It is the whole truth seen from the angle of wisdom's severing function. The other three gates see the same whole truth from other angles. No gate is partial. No gate is preliminary. The choice of 無生門 is pedagogical, not ontological — Zhiyi selects it because it most cleanly displays 智德, the function of wisdom. Another teacher, in another context, might select 有門 and arrive at the same destination.

A final clarification: the gate and the destination

The tradition says: 無生法即是佛 — "the dharma of non-arising is itself the Buddha." This means the gate and the destination are not different things. You do not walk *through* non-arising to arrive *at* something else. The walking-through *is* the arrival. The investigation *is* the finding. The question "where does this thought arise from?" asked with full attention and answered with full honesty ("nowhere findable, yet here it is") — that question-and-answer *is* 無生法忍 in embryo. It is not a rehearsal for enlightenment. It is enlightenment's own activity, occurring now, in the only place it has ever occurred: this single, unfindable, undeniable, dependently-arising, empty, provisional, middle thought.

心行處滅，言語道斷。And yet — here are words, pointing at the place where words end. The gate is open. It has always been open. That it has "always been open" is itself, of course, non-arising.

*Primary source: Zhiyi (智顗),* Mohe Zhiguan *(《摩訶止觀》, T1911). Cross-references: Nāgārjuna,* Mūlamadhyamakakārikā *(《中論》, T1564), Ch. 1; Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya (《心經》).*