金剛般若疏 3.4

English (machine translation) 3.4

Language: English

3.4.1

From “Subhūti, what do you think? Can a srotāpanna think like this?” onward, this is the second [section]: explaining the meaning of the comparative appraisal. Within this section, there are two major divisions: first, adducing the causes and fruits of the Hīnayāna to explain the meaning of the comparative appraisal; second, adducing the causes and fruits of the Mahāyāna to explain the meaning of the comparative appraisal. In each of these two sections, there are two divisions. The two in the first section are: first, adducing the causes of the Hīnayāna to establish the meaning of the comparative appraisal; second, adducing the fruits of the Hīnayāna to establish the meaning of the comparative appraisal. Here is the first.

Question: Why are the meanings of the Great and Small Vehicles adduced to establish the comparative appraisal?
Answer: The preceding section stated: what the Tathāgata has spoken cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken, up to all worthy and noble ones being differentiated through their awakening to the unconditioned dharmatā. Now, the import of these words is to illuminate the meaning of awakening to the dharmatā as non-reliance and non-apprehension; because of awakening to non-reliance and non-apprehension, there necessarily are the differences among the worthy and noble ones of the Great and Small Vehicles. The doubter says: If dharmas cannot be grasped, cannot be spoken, and are non-reliance and non-apprehension, how is it that the Hīnayāna obtains the four fruits and the Mahāyāna realizes and attains buddhahood? Since both the Great and Small Vehicles involve realization and attainment, one knows it is not non-reliance and non-apprehension; since both the Great and Small Vehicles are said to have realization and attainment, one knows it is not the meaning of being unspeakable. Now, in order to resolve this doubt, it is clarified that although the Great and Small Vehicles have realization and attainment, in reality there is nothing attained; although there is something spoken, in reality there is nothing spoken. Therefore, one should know that it is without grasping and without speaking, without reliance and without apprehension. Hence, the Great and Small Vehicles are adduced to explain the aforementioned [teachings] of being ungraspable and unspeakable, up to all being differentiated through the unconditioned dharma.

Question: How does this establish the comparative appraisal above?
Answer: If dharmas were graspable, speakable, reliant, and apprehended, then accepting and upholding them would have no merit; it is precisely because prajñā is without grasping and without speaking that, when one accepts and upholds it, its blessings are boundless.

Question: The text below in this sūtra says, “[This sūtra] is spoken for those of the Great Vehicle; if one delights in inferior teachings, one cannot hear and accept it.” The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: “Prajñā is the teaching of bodhisattvas; it does not belong to the two vehicles.” Why now do you cite the Hīnayāna to corroborate and establish this?
Answer: This is adducing the lesser to illustrate the greater, clarifying that if even practitioners of the Hīnayāna awaken to non-reliance, non-apprehension, non-grasping, and non-speaking, how could bodhisattvas not have faith in the teaching of non-apprehension? Just as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra cites Śreṇika as proof: when listeners heard that all dharmas are ultimately empty, they did not believe or accept it; thus it cited Śreṇika, a person of the Hīnayāna, who still had faith in the emptiness of dharmas—how could practitioners of the Mahāyāna now, in the teaching of signlessness, not have faith in emptiness? Furthermore, what is present here are the three vehicles of non-apprehension, which are the skillful means and function of prajñā; these are the great and the small, not the small of apprehension. Furthermore, [the Buddha] wishes to guide those who study the Hīnayāna to enter the Great Teaching; even if one wishes to practice the Hīnayāna, one must also study this teaching. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: “Devaputras! If you wish to abide in the fruit of a srotāpanna, you must also not depart from this forbearance.”

Question: If so, then this teaching is common to the three vehicles?
Answer: Just as there are three grades of those who contemplate the middle way: through contemplation with inferior wisdom, one attains śrāvaka bodhi; through contemplation with middling wisdom, one attains pratyekabuddha bodhi; through contemplation with superior wisdom, one attains buddha bodhi.

Question: Why are four fruits established in the śrāvaka teaching, while ten bhūmis are opened in the bodhisattva teaching?
The master said: One must now open this path, as this path has long been blocked. Now we clarify that unimpeded and universal adaptability fully captures the skillful means of the sage: wishing to rescue and guide sentient beings, the Great and Small are opened according to their faculties and dispositions. However, when speaking ultimately of the gate of the Path, it has never been great or small; that it is now made into great and small is entirely an expedient of opening the great and the small in response to faculties and conditions. Yet the difference between the great and the small is due to there being both common and distinct aspects. If discussed generally, both the great and the small can be called bhūmis, and both the great and the small can be called fruits. Thus, in the ten bhūmis shared by the three vehicles, the bhūmi of the eight people and the bhūmi of seeing are the fruit of a srotāpanna; the bhūmi of attenuation is the fruit of a sakṛdāgāmin; the bhūmi of freedom from desire is the fruit of an anāgāmin; the bhūmi of what has been accomplished is the fruit of an arhat; and in the bodhisattva teaching, the bhūmi of what has been accomplished belongs to the buddha bhūmi. From this, one knows that both the great and the small can be called bhūmis. And that both the great and the small are called fruits: since the Hīnayāna is called the four fruits, the bodhisattva's ten bhūmis are also called the ten fruits; hence the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, “Dharmas with existence are the bodhisattva's path; dharmas without existence are the bodhisattva's fruit.”

If discussed according to their distinctions, the opening of the great and the small differs: their fruits and bhūmis are distinct; the Hīnayāna is termed cause and fruit, whereas the bodhisattva is termed the ten bhūmis. The reason the bodhisattva is termed 'bhūmi' (ground) is that it supremely upholds and is vast and universal, able to give birth and bring to completion; because it possesses these numerous meanings, it is given the name 'bhūmi'. The śrāvaka lacks these various meanings, hence it is not called a bhūmi. The person of the śrāvaka reviles old age, sickness, and death, and wishes to enter the remainderless [nirvāṇa], hence they sever and eliminate afflictions; frequently realizing rest and respite to fulfill the longing of their heart, they are given the designation 'fruit'. The bodhisattva does not have these matters, hence it is not called a fruit. Yet there is also the sense of their mutual application, and the matter is always universally applicable. How is this known? For instance, all three kinds are vehicles, all three kinds are paths, all three kinds are bhūmis, and all three kinds are noble ones; so how could 'bhūmi' not be universally applicable? Thus one knows that one meaning is merely cited according to context.

Question: According to the Hīnayāna doctrine, afflictions are only explained as [severed by] seeing the truths and [severed by] cultivation. Since the initial fruit is established upon severing the afflictions of seeing the truths in the three realms, severing the afflictions of cultivation should likewise establish only one fruit. If so, there should only be two fruits; how can there be four fruits? If severing the afflictions of cultivation in the three realms establishes three fruits, then [severing] the afflictions of seeing the truths in the three realms should also establish three fruits. Furthermore, if determined according to realms: since there are three realms, severing the afflictions of the three realms should have three fruits; why does severing the afflictions of the desire realm establish two fruits, while severing the afflictions of the upper two realms establishes one fruit? If determined according to calm and distraction: the desire realm is already a distracted realm, so severing the afflictions of the desire realm should establish one fruit; the upper two realms are already calm realms, so severing the afflictions of the two realms should also establish one fruit. For what reason now are causes and fruits not established according to these meanings?
Answer: These are provisional designations established through the Tathāgata's skillful means, without fixed lakṣaṇas; discussed generally, it is fully as questioned. But that it is not so now is because severing the afflictions of seeing the truths in the three realms brings one out beyond the three lower destinies to become a noble one; hence the person of the initial fruit is established. The dust of the evil destinies having settled and the eighty-eight heads of the serpent having died, with respect to severing the afflictions of cultivation in the three realms three further fruits are established: severing the afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm establishes two fruits, and severing the afflictions of cultivation in the upper two realms establishes the arhat. Why is this? The desire realm is a realm of suffering and difficulty; since this is difficult to cross over, severing the afflictions of the desire realm establishes two fruits. The upper two realms are not realms of suffering and difficulty, and already have the foundation of liberation, so their afflictions are easily severed; hence severing the afflictions of the upper two realms establishes the fruit of an arhat.

3.4.2

Regarding establishing two fruits through severing the delusions of the desire realm: the bhavanā-heya of the desire realm has nine grades; severing the first six grades is called the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, and completely severing the remaining three grades establishes the fruit of the anāgāmin. As for why severing the first six grades establishes the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin, the master Vasumitra says in the *Vibhāṣā*: "The afflictions of the first six grades can generate unmanifest karma and moisten rebirth in the three evil destinies; therefore, severing these six grades establishes one fruit. Moreover, having divided the delusions into nine grades, the delusions of the superior and middling two [sets of] three grades are heavy; hence severing them establishes one fruit, while the latter three grades are light, so severing them establishes the fruit of the anāgāmin." Master Zhuangyan says: "The afflictions of the nine grades of bhavanā-heya of the desire realm moisten karma differently: the first three grades moisten rebirth in the impoverished borderlands, and the next three grades moisten rebirth in the wealthy borderlands." Question: "From what text does the establishment of these four fruits come?" Answer: "The *Vibhāṣā* establishes them on account of five meanings: first, abandoning a path previously traveled; second, attaining a path not previously traveled; third, attaining liberation of a single flavor; fourth, fully cultivating the sixteen aspects; fifth, cultivating and attaining the eight knowledges. Now, the first fruit is established by fully possessing all five meanings; the lower three fruits may fully possess three meanings—namely, abandoning a path previously traveled, attaining a path not previously traveled, and liberation of a single flavor. Such meanings are extensively explained in the Sarvāstivāda treatises. One should merely know they are provisional designations and skillful means; it is not like the understanding of apprehension in the Sarvāstivāda treatises, for the Sarvāstivāda treatises only grasp the names and do not know the Buddha's intention." Regarding the text on the first fruit, there is first the question and next the answer. Within the answer there are three parts: first, the direct answer, clarifying that when awakening to the first fruit, one does not see attainment and non-attainment, or realization and non-realization, which accomplishes the aforementioned meaning of being ungraspable and ineffable. From "Why is this?" downward is the second sentence, explaining the meaning above. As for srotāpanna: here this means cultivating the uncontaminated, and it is also called "going against the flow of saṃsāra." There are two kinds of flows: first, the flow of saṃsāra, which is afflictions; second, the flow of the path, which is called correct contemplation. Here both flows are fully clarified: being called "entering the stream" means entering the flow of the path; not entering form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas means going against the flow of saṃsāra on account of entering the flow of the path. Because one goes against the flow of saṃsāra, one enters the flow of the path. Yet entering the flow of the path, there is in truth nothing entered; and going against the flow of saṃsāra, there is in truth nothing gone against. The third sentence, "This is called a srotāpanna," concludes with the name. Other sūtras say: "Attaining the srotāpanna is called severing the fetters in the trenches: first contemplating the suffering of the desire realm to sever the afflictions under the suffering of the desire realm; next contemplating the suffering of the higher realms to sever the afflictions under the suffering of the higher realms; turning back to contemplate the origination of the desire realm, and next contemplating the origination of the higher realms. Bending up and down like this resembles trenches; hence it is called severing the fetters in the trenches." The Tripiṭaka Master says: "Attaining the srotāpanna is translated here as reaching the flow: just as afflictions lead a person to the flow of saṃsāra, the Noble Eightfold Path leads a person to the flow of nirvāṇa." Question: "Why does it only say not entering the six sense objects?" Answer: "Since one does not enter the six sense objects, nor does one enter the six faculties or six consciousnesses, this clarifies the emptiness of dharmas. Because one does not see a srotāpanna, this is the emptiness of persons. Entering the flow of the path, there is nothing entered; hence nirvāṇa is unobtainable. Going against the flow of saṃsāra, there is nothing gone against; hence saṃsāra is unobtainable. Thus, no person, no dharma, no saṃsāra, and no nirvāṇa—this is called a srotāpanna of prajñā." The second fruit also has a question and answer; the coming of the text can be known. Sakṛdāgāmin is translated here as "attenuating lust, anger, and delusion," and is also called "once-returner." This person still experiences two births in the desire realm—one birth in heaven and one birth among humans, whereupon they become an arhat; hence they are called "once-returner," and also called "frequent returner." Because they frequently undergo two births, they are called a "frequent returner." Third, anāgāmin is translated here as "non-returner," and also called "not coming": having exhausted the fetters of the desire realm, they are not reborn in the desire realm; hence they are called "not coming." Regarding "yet in truth there is no coming": Question: "The anāgāmin is named 'not coming,' and it already says 'in truth does not come'; the sakṛdāgāmin is named 'once-returning,' so it should say 'in truth returns.' Above it said that the once-returner 'in truth has no returning'; so when the anāgāmin is named 'not coming,' it should say 'there is no not-coming.'" Answer: "In truth it should be so, but the alternating text expresses the meaning without doing so. The anāgāmin is named 'not coming,' yet it says 'in truth there is no coming' because the name of 'not coming' and the expression of 'no attainment' correspond in meaning; hence the phrase 'no coming' is used in turn to explain the name of 'non-birth.' The names of the two fruits above are different, which is why they are not of the same category. Furthermore, the meaning in truth should say 'and there is no not-coming'; now, lacking the character 'not' and merely saying 'no coming,' 'no' subsumes 'not,' thus sparing cumbersome words." Question: "Among the ten knowledges, how many knowledges do the four fruits fully possess?" Answer: "The first two fruits, among the ten knowledges, exclude the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and the knowledge of others' minds." Question: "Ordinary beings and non-Buddhists still attain the knowledge of others' minds; why do the noble ones of the two fruits not attain it?" Answer: "It is not that the noble ones are incapable of attaining it; if they attain the knowledge of others' minds, they attain the four dhyānas and sever the desire realm, and are no longer of the first two fruits. A person of the third fruit possesses eight knowledges plus the knowledge of others' minds, and the fourth fruit fully possesses all ten knowledges." From the fourth fruit onward is the second part: adducing the fruit of the Hīnayāna to establish the meaning of the comparative assessment. The three above, although all called fruits, are all causes when viewed in relation to the arhat. Within this text there are again two parts: first, speaking generally of arhats; second, specifically clarifying Subhūti. The first also has a question and answer. Within the answer there are three parts: first, a direct answer; second, an answer explaining in accordance; third, an answer explaining by contrast. Question: "All four persons are called fruits; why do the first three say 'fruit' while the arhat is called the 'path'?" Answer: "The designations of fruit and path both apply to all four persons; however, because the arhat's virtue is ultimate, to distinguish them from the three above, it specifically says 'path.' Why is this? The *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* says: 'Bodhi is named the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising.' Bodhi is called the 'path' here. Since the arhat has attained these two knowledges, they are given the name of the 'path'; the three fruits above have not attained these two knowledges, so they are not named with the 'path.'" Second, specifically relying on Subhūti's superior awakening and understanding as proof: Subhūti is indeed an arhat, but now he is the principal interlocutor, and he has also uniquely attained superior samādhi distinct from other people; moreover, he adduces himself as proof, wishing to make the meaning evident. In the text there are four parts: first, clarifying that the Buddha addressed his attainment of the superior fruit; second, clarifying that regarding his fruit he does not form the thought of attainment; third, clarifying that if he had the thought of attainment, he would not be endorsed by the Buddha; fourth, clarifying that because of non-attachment, he is praised by the Buddha.

3.4.3

"Foremost among humans": there are altogether three kinds of being foremost. First is being foremost among persons. Second is being foremost in abandonment: this refers to abandoning two kinds of obstacles, namely, abandoning the affliction obstacle and abandoning the absorption obstacle. Third is being foremost in virtue: this is attaining the absorption of non-disputation, as well as the knowledge that severs the affliction obstacle and the knowledge that severs the absorption obstacle. Question: For what reasons and conditions does one cultivate the absorption of non-disputation? Answer: There are altogether three meanings. First, formerly hearing the Buddha explain that this absorption has various merits, one had faith in one's heart and vowed to attain it; now having become an arhat, one cultivates this absorption, and due to the former cause, one becomes practiced in it and attains it. Second, while an ordinary person, one gave rise to disputation against many sentient beings and thus suffered retribution; now having attained the stage beyond training (aśaikṣa), one looks back, remembering former sorrows and regrets, and therefore cultivates this absorption. Third, wishing to cause many persons to obtain retribution in the present life, one further cultivates it. Having attained this absorption, one first applies skillful means to safeguard the minds of others so that not a single sentient being gives rise to disputation toward oneself, and only then does one manifest one's body; hence it is called "non-disputation". Question: By what skillful means does one cultivate this absorption? Answer: First, within the dispersed mind, one makes a vow. In accordance with that aspiration of mind, one sets a near or far limit—perhaps a land, a village, people, or places—vowing to see all their appearances, clan names, and personal names, and to know what their minds tend toward. Having made this vow, one enters the penetrative absorption (nirvedha-bhāgīya samādhi); just as previously vowed, everything is clearly distinct. Having completed this matter, one returns to the dispersed mind and recollects what was seen in absorption, just as what was seen in a dream is remembered upon waking. By this means, one can prevent evil and generate good without vexing others; hence it is called "non-disputation". Non-disputation and the knowledge of aspiration complement each other, as explained before. Question: Why is it called "non-disputation"? Answer: Some say that benevolence (maitrī) is non-disputation, because on account of benevolence one does not dispute with beings. Some say that the fourth dhyāna is called non-disputation, because this absorption is free from the three disasters and avoids the four feelings. Some say that understanding emptiness is the absorption of non-disputation. Some say that it is precisely the knowledge of non-disputation that constitutes the absorption of non-disputation. Now, we explain in accordance with the treatise (*Upadeśa*). The treatise says: "Relying on Subhūti, he was far removed from two kinds of obstacles: by severing afflictions, he attained arhatship; by severing absorption obstacles, he attained the absorption of non-disputation." Hence we know that this is a distinct methodological absorption; it is neither an understanding of emptiness, nor the fourth dhyāna, nor benevolence. Question: The text says "desire-free arhat"; what desire is abandoned? Answer: It is not the desire of afflictions that is abandoned; rather, it is that Subhūti loved cultivating the practices of the araṇya, keeping far away from the realms of the five desires and five sense objects; this is called "desire-free". "Araṇya" is translated here as "free of business"; that is, wandering at ease and unrestrained, not bound by mundane encumbrances. The locations of the four passages are easy to recognize and need not be cited. "The Buddha said to Subhūti: 'In the past, when the Tathāgata was with Dīpaṃkara Buddha...'" onward is the second chapter, adducing Mahāyāna causes and fruits to explain and establish the preceding meaning. In the text, there are two parts: first, adducing Mahāyāna causes to explain and establish the preceding meaning; second, adducing Mahāyāna fruits to explain and establish the preceding meaning. Within adducing Mahāyāna causes, it divides into two: first, adducing the reception of prediction (vyākaraṇa); second, clarifying the adornment of lands. Here is the first. The reason this text occurs is that it arises from the preceding statement that the Dharma spoken by the Tathāgata cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken. If one says that dharmas cannot be grasped, then formerly as the Bodhisattva Māṇava, he should not have received prediction; if formerly as the Bodhisattva Māṇava he did indeed receive prediction, then dharmas would be graspable. If one says that dharmas cannot be spoken, then Dīpaṃkara Buddha should not have bestowed the prediction upon him. Since he bestowed the prediction upon Śākyamuni: "In a future age, you will attain Buddhahood," then it would be speakable. Because the assembly at that time harboured this doubt, the Buddha brought up the assembly's doubt to ask Subhūti, saying: "Did the Tathāgata attain bodhi through any dharma when with Dīpaṃkara Buddha?" Subhūti answered: "When with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, there was truly nothing attained." This meaning clarifies that one does not see a person who is capable of attaining, nor is there any prediction that can be attained, fully as recorded in the chapter on Maitreya in the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa*; only such non-attainment and non-non-attainment is called obtaining the reception of prediction—this attainment is truly non-apprehension. Masters of the north say that there are altogether four times of receiving prediction: first, receiving prediction not face-to-face at the lineage of habituation; second, receiving prediction also not face-to-face at the lineage of the path; third, receiving prediction face-to-face at the first bhūmi; fourth, receiving prediction face-to-face upon the great forbearance of non-arising at the eighth bhūmi. The text here clarifies that because Śākyamuni was still a bodhisattva of the lineage of habituation, he had not yet attained the prediction of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas at the first bhūmi or above. Now the Buddha asks Subhūti: "Did I at that time already realize the sambodhi of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas of the first bhūmi? Or even realize the sambodhi of the permanent, present fruit after the vajra-[like samādhi]?" Subhūti answered: "The Tathāgata at that time had not yet attained the sambodhi of the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas of the first bhūmi, nor had he attained the permanent sambodhi after the vajra." We now maintain that the treatise has no such meaning, nor have we seen it stated in the sūtras; if inferred according to the principle, it is theoretically unacceptable. What is clarified here is simply the meaning of non-reliance and non-apprehension, refuting doubts about having reliance and apprehension, and establishing the preceding sense of being ungraspable and unspeakable; how could one interpret it in terms of the shallowness or depth of stages of practice? Thus in meaning it is not so. However, sūtras are not without the explanation of the three levels of sages and ten levels of āryas, and the *Śūraṅgamasūtra* also contains a passage on four kinds of predictions, but that is not the primary intent here. "'What do you think? Does he adorn Buddha lands or not?'" onward is the second part, which next distinguishes the adornment of lands to explain and establish the preceding meaning. The intention of its arrival is the same as before: if all dharmas cannot be grasped and cannot be spoken, how does a bodhisattva undertake the practice of purifying Buddha lands? To resolve this doubt, this text arrives. Question: Since causal practices are immeasurable, why was receiving prediction distinguished first, and now the adornment of lands clarified? Answer: Receiving prediction is the bodhisattva's own practice, while adorning lands is the practice of converting others. Because one awakens oneself to non-arising, the Buddha bestows the prediction: this is one's own practice. The categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva's Buddha land; hence the practice of adorning lands is the practice of converting others. Although the portals of practice are many, they do not exceed these two; therefore it is clarified. Moreover, discussing the attainment of prediction earlier was the direct retribution (the person), while discussing the adornment of lands now is the dependent retribution (the environment). Furthermore, after attaining non-arising, the bodhisattva has no other business than maturing sentient beings and purifying Buddha lands. Next, the arriving text of the second phrase also has two parts: first, question; second, answer. The intent of the question is clear. Within the answer, there are two: first, directly clarifying the reality and falsity of adorning lands; second, exhorting the cultivation of causes for the pure land. Here is the first.

3.4.4

If we rely on what the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, this passage from beginning to end coherently forms one meaning: namely, that for a bodhisattva, being without great adornment is the great adornment, and although there is great adornment, in truth there is no adornment. Yet relying on the commentary's explanation, where the text here says, "Subhūti said: 'No, World-Honoured One,'" this clarifies that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya truly lacks the marks and adornments of the seven precious things; hence one should not say that a bodhisattva has a pure land of seven precious things to be apprehended. Regarding "The Tathāgata speaks of adorning Buddha-lands": a doubter might ask, "If the adornment of marks is not the true land, why does the Buddha speak of the seven precious things and so forth as a pure land, causing bodhisattvas to cultivate the causes of a pure land and grasp the fruit of a pure land?" Thus it is now explained: The Tathāgata takes the true Dharma as his body, having no body and no non-body; therefore there is no land. When he now speaks of marks as a pure land, this is for practitioners at the beginning stages, to cause them to abandon the defilement of earth and sand and grasp the purity of gems and jade; it is not the true pure land of the ultimate truth. Hence it is said that the Tathāgata adorning a Buddha-land is no adornment. Regarding "is called adornment": this is the true adornment of the ultimate truth. Precisely because the dharmatā of all phenomena lacks no virtue and has no burden that is not purified, it is called adornment; because it is where the consummate person dwells, it is called a land. From "should thus give rise to a pure mind" onward is the second part: clarifying the causes of a pure land. Now, the above clarified the fruit of the land, refuting the world's differentiated lands and clarifying the true pure Buddha-land of the ultimate truth, thus clarifying the difference between the true and false aspects of the two lands; here, the causes are distinguished according to the differences between gain and loss. Within the text, it is divided into three sections: first, directly encouraging cultivation and attainment; second, encouraging abandoning the defects; third, reiterating encouragement to cultivate and attain. "Should thus give rise to a pure mind of faith" is the encouragement to cultivate and attain. "Should not give rise to a mind abiding in sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, or phenomena" is the second sentence, encouraging abandoning defects. From "should not abide in anything" onward is the third sentence, encouraging cultivation and attainment. From "Subhūti! Suppose there were a person whose body was like Mount Sumeru, king of mountains" onward is the second part: clarifying the fruit of the Mahāyāna to verify the previous meaning of non-apprehension and non-explanation, thereby establishing the comparative assessment. The text has two parts: first the Buddha's question, and next Subhūti's reply. This is the initial question. Masters of the Tattvasiddhi explain: The vastness of the king of mountains illustrates the vastness of the principle of signlessness. We now say this is not so: not only does the meaning lack proper order, but the text has no source for it. Now, generating [the meaning] on the basis of the commentary, it is still to resolve a doubt. The doubt asks: If there is no apprehension and no explanation, how do the Buddhas attain bodhi and speak of attaining bodhi for others? The reason Mount Sumeru is cited is to clarify that Sumeru is the largest among the ten jewel mountains, illustrating that the Buddha is the greatest among the ten bhūmis. Sumeru is translated here as "Wondrous High Mountain" and also as "Peaceful and Luminous Mountain". The meaning of the explanation is: just as Mount Sumeru, although the greatest among the ten jewel mountains, has no mind that says it is great, the Buddha is likewise: although he is the greatest among all the sages, he likewise has no mind that says he is great; although he attains bodhi, he also has no mind that says he attains it. Regarding "The Buddha explains as no body, which is called a great body": this again resolves a doubt. The doubt asks: Hearing that Sumeru has no mind that says it is great, one might think it is equal to the Buddha; since Sumeru is conditioned and contaminated, one might say that the Buddha is also conditioned and contaminated. Therefore, it is now explained: "The Buddha explains as no body" clarifies that the Buddha is not like Sumeru and is not a conditioned and contaminated body; hence it is called "no body". "Is called a great body" means the unconditioned and uncontaminated body; hence it is said, "is called a great body." Question: Among the three bodies of the Buddha, which Buddha is being cited here? Answer: It specifically cites the retribution body (saṃbhogakāya). Why is this? The retribution body is precisely the fulfillment of cultivating causes, and therefore attains bodhi. The Dharma-body is the Buddha-nature, which has not yet attained bodhi; therefore the Dharma-body is not mentioned. Only after attaining the retribution body does he give rise to response and transformation bodies; hence the transformation body also does not attain bodhi. Therefore, he only cites the retribution body. From "Subhūti! What do you think? If there were as many sands as in the Ganges..." onward is the second part: citing the dāna of precious gems equal to the sands of all those Ganges rivers to make a comparative assessment with upholding and expounding a four-line gāthā. The appearance of this passage has two reasons: First, previously it was explained that a small dāna—namely, the precious gems of three thousand worlds—did not match upholding the sūtra. Now it clarifies that a vast dāna—namely, the precious gems of as many worlds as the sands of all those Ganges rivers—should match upholding the sūtra. Furthermore, previously the precious gems of the great chiliocosm were given only to sentient beings, which was an inferior field of merit. Now, the precious gems equal to the sands of the Ganges are offered to the Buddhas, which is a superior field of merit and should match upholding the sūtra. Now it is shown that although the gift is vast and the field is superior, because it is a dāna of apprehension, it still does not match upholding the sūtra. Question: Since the previously stated comparison with the great chiliocosm already did not match upholding the sūtra, why did he not immediately speak of the precious gems equal to the sands of the Ganges to assess it against upholding the sūtra? Answer: Expounding the meaning by increasing the number from few to many should indeed proceed in sequence; but previously, upon hearing that the comparative assessment of the great chiliocosm did not match upholding the sūtra, the assembly at that time may not have understood the reason why it did not match, thinking that prajñā was still something to be apprehended and explained: how could receiving and upholding four lines surpass the precious gems of a great chiliocosm? Therefore, the above broadly resolved the doubt, clarifying that because prajñā cannot be apprehended or explained, although four lines are few, if one upholds or expounds them, the merit is vast; although the dāna is vast, it can be apprehended and explained, so its merit is small. It is for this reason that only after resolving the previous doubt is the ground of its superiority revealed, and therefore the comparative assessment is made again. Within this passage there are two parts: first, clarifying that the merit of the gift of wealth is great; second, clarifying the comparative assessment of the gift of Dharma. In the first part there are two questions and answers, which have two meanings: the first round clarifies that the number of sands is great, and the second round clarifies that the merit is great. Taking the questions and answers in succession, there are directly four divisions: first, asking about the number of sands; second, answering according to the matter; third, asking about the gift of wealth; fourth, clarifying that the merit of the gift is great. Within the first question there are three aspects: first, taking one Ganges's sands as the basis; second, taking rivers equal to the number of sands; third, asking about the sands in those rivers numbering like the sands. In the second answer there are two aspects: first, answering directly, mostly following the subsequent virtue. From "Just those Ganges rivers..." onward, the meaning of vastness is shown, clarifying that the number of the rivers themselves is already boundless, so how much more uncountable are the sands within the rivers? Question: For what reason do Buddhist sūtras frequently cite the Ganges as a metaphor? Answer: Among the four rivers, the Ganges is the largest, and its sand is also the most abundant, so it is cited as a metaphor. Second, non-Buddhists say this is an auspicious river, and that those who enter it to bathe are purified of sins and defilements; hence it is cited as a metaphor. Third, the names of other rivers change frequently, but this river's name does not change age after age. Furthermore, the five regions of India reside alongside this river, and the Buddha's disciples saw it with their own eyes; hence it is cited as a metaphor.

3.4.5

On the peak of Gandhamādana Mountain is Lake Anavatapta, from which four rivers flow out, and the Ganges is one among these four rivers. Some say: this river is eight thousand li long, forty li wide at its widest, and ten li wide at its narrowest; the sand in it is extremely fine, like roasted flour, and the water is white like milk, so extremely deep that elephants and horses crossing it are submerged. Next, citing the sūtra for comparative assessment, the text can be seen. There are multiple reasons why the gift of wealth does not match the gift of Dharma: First, it clarifies that at the time of giving the gift of Dharma, the person who can give is mostly an aryan or a wise person; if it were the gift of wealth, the one who can give is not so. A foolish person is incapable of practicing [the gift of Dharma]; therefore the gift of wealth is inferior, and the gift of Dharma is superior. Second, it clarifies that the person who receives the gift of Dharma must also be a wise person before they can receive it; the foolish and animals cannot receive this, which clarifies that the gift of Dharma is superior. Third, it clarifies that the attainment of merit is superior: the gift of wealth only explains that the one who can give gains merit, while the one who receives the gift does not; if it were the gift of Dharma, both the giver and the recipient together gain merit, which is why it is superior. Fourth, with the gift of Dharma, both what can be given and what is given are retained without loss; if it were the gift of wealth, the recipient gains the fruit of five things, while the giver loses them. Fifth, the gift of wealth benefits only the physical body, whereas the gift of Dharma benefits the dharmakāya. Sixth, the gift of Dharma can cut off delusion, while the gift of wealth merely suppresses stinginess. Seventh, the gift of Dharma transcends the realm of existence, while the gift of wealth is an outflow of conditioned existence. Eighth, the fruit of the gift of wealth has an end, whereas the fruit of the gift of Dharma is inexhaustible. Ninth, the gift of wealth is not obtained all at once, whereas the gift of Dharma is obtained all at once. Tenth, it clarifies that the gift of Dharma possesses all four articles of attraction, whereas the gift of wealth has only one article of attraction; this is why the gift of Dharma is superior to the gift of wealth.

Linked texts (1)

金剛般若疏 — Classical Chinese