金剛般若經疏論纂要 2
English (machine translation) 2
- Language
- English
2.1
Exposited by the Śramaṇa Zongmi of the Da Xingfu Monastery in the Capital
2.2
Edited and settled by the Śramaṇa Zixuan of Changshui
2.3
8. Severing the doubt that upholding and expounding [the teaching] does not escape karmic suffering. The Treatise says: "Earlier it was said that giving up the body is suffering, and because it is a physical retribution, its merit is inferior. If so, then practicing the bodhisattva deeds by upholding and expounding according to this Dharma-gate, ascetic practice is also an effect of suffering; why would this Dharma not become an effect of suffering?" [The section] severing this has two parts: first, explaining surpassing patience to sever doubt, which has two parts: first, explaining the substance of patience.
2.4
"Subhūti! The perfection of patience (kṣānti-pāramitā), the Tathāgata speaks of as not the perfection of patience."
2.5
Having reached the other shore of patience, one is already free of the marks of suffering; how much more so when the other shore is no shore at all—who suffers? Who endures?
2.6
Second, explaining the marks of patience, with two parts: first, citing one lifetime to verify the patience under extreme suffering, which has two parts: first, directly explaining.
2.7
"Why is this? Subhūti, as in the past when my body was cut into pieces by King Kali, at that time I had no mark of self, no mark of person, no mark of sentient being, and no mark of life-span."
2.8
Kali is translated here as 'Extremely Evil'. When the Buddha was an ascetic in the past cultivating the Way in the mountains, the king was tired from hunting and fell asleep; his consorts together paid homage to the ascetic. The king asked if he had attained the four fruits, and he answered 'no' to all. The king, enraged, dismembered him. The devas grew angry and rained stones; the king was frightened and repented. The ascetic proved that he originally had no anger, and the king was thereby spared harm. The Treatise says: "Not only was there no suffering, but there was joy, on account of loving-kindness and compassion."
2.9
Second, revealing it in the reverse.
2.10
"Why is this? In the past when I was dismembered limb by limb, if I had the mark of self, the mark of person, the mark of sentient being, or the mark of life-span, I would have given rise to anger and hatred."
2.11
Second, citing many lifetimes to verify continuous patience.
2.12
"Subhūti, I also remember in the past being a kṣānti-ṛṣi for five hundred lifetimes; in all those lifetimes I had no mark of self, no mark of person, no mark of sentient being, and no mark of life-span."
2.13
Because suffering accumulated, patience matured into joy, accompanied only by right concentration, loving-kindness, and compassion. Thus the verse says: / 'Free of the marks of self and resentment, / Truly there is no distress; / United with joy, possessing kindness and compassion, / Such is the fruit of ascetic practice.'
2.14
Second, encouraging the departure from marks to abide in patience. The Treatise says: "If there is a bodhisattva who does not depart from the mark of self, sees the suffering in ascetic practice, and wishes to abandon the bodhicitta, [the Buddha] encourages departure from marks." Asaṅga says: "To counteract the causes and conditions of non-patience, there are three kinds of suffering: the suffering of saṃsāra, the suffering of conflict with sentient beings, and the suffering of lack of requisites." This text has two parts: first, a general indication.
2.15
"Therefore, Subhūti, a bodhisattva should depart from all marks and give rise to the mind of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi."
2.16
If one generates the mind while departing from marks, even if encountering great suffering, one will not abandon it. Asaṅga says: "'Departing from all marks' is for the sake of departing from the marks of these three sufferings."
2.17
Second, distinctly explaining, which has two parts: first, counteracting non-patience toward the suffering of saṃsāra.
2.18
"One should not give rise to a mind abiding in form; one should not give rise to a mind abiding in sound, fragrance, taste, touch, or dharmas. One should give rise to a mind that does not abide in anything. If the mind abides, then it is not abiding [properly]. Therefore, the Buddha says the bodhisattva's mind should not abide in form when practicing generosity."
2.19
First, directly explaining: flow (liu) is the truth of origin, and turning (zhuan) is the truth of suffering. Asaṅga says: "If one is attached to form and the like, one will be exhausted by the suffering of saṃsāra, and thus bodhicitta will not arise." Later, citing proof: citing the earlier statement that non-abiding generosity fully contains the six pāramitās confirms this passage.
2.20
Second, counteracting non-patience toward the suffering of conflict [with sentient beings].
2.21
"Subhūti! A bodhisattva should practice generosity in this manner for the benefit of all sentient beings. What the Tathāgata speaks of as all marks are precisely not marks; he also speaks of all sentient beings as precisely not sentient beings."
2.22
Asaṅga says: "Having already practiced generosity for the sake of sentient beings, why give rise to anger toward them? Because of being unable to be without the notion of sentient beings, when in conflict with sentient beings, exhaustion arises; hence, the selflessness of persons and selflessness of dharmas are revealed." The Treatise says: "'Marks' means the mark of sentient beings. 'Not marks' means selflessness. Seeing a self within the aggregates is the mark of sentient beings; 'all sentient beings' are the dharmas of the five aggregates. 'Not sentient beings' means the selflessness of dharmas, because the aggregates are empty." The suffering of lack of requisites is paired with the severing [of doubt] that follows.
2.23
9. Severing the doubt that what can realize lacks substance and is not a cause. The Treatise says: "If within the fruit of realization there is no path, how can it serve as an efficient cause for the fruit?" The text severing this has two parts: first, severing the doubt.
2.24
"Subhūti! The Tathāgata speaks of what is true, speaks of what is real, speaks of what is as it is, speaks of what is not deceitful, and speaks of what is not different."
2.25
Everything the Buddha speaks corresponds to the fact. Now speaking of realizing the fruit, how could there be doubt that it is otherwise? Speaking of what is true refers to speaking of the Tathāgata's body and the Dharma of great bodhi, for it is true wisdom. Speaking of what is real refers to speaking of the Hinayāna Four Truths, for 'truth' conveys the meaning of reality. Speaking of what is as it is refers to speaking of the Mahāyāna teaching having tathatā, which the Hinayāna lacks. Speaking of what is not different refers to speaking of prophecies in the three times and so forth, without any discrepancy. The Buddha uses these four statements not to deceive sentient beings; therefore, the Qin translation adds 'speaks of what is not deceitful'.
2.26
Second, departing from attachment.
2.27
"Subhūti! In the Dharma attained by the Tathāgata, this Dharma is neither real nor false."
2.28
"Neither real" means that it does not exist in the manner of linguistic nature. "Nor false" means that it exists because its intrinsic nature is not like linguistic expressions.
2.29
10. Severing the doubt that tathatā is omnipresent, yet some attain it and some do not. The Treatise says: "If noble beings are named by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma of tathatā, and that tathatā is constantly present in all times and places, why is it that some attain it and some do not?"
2.30
The text severing this has two parts: first, adducing a simile to sever the doubt.
2.31
"Subhūti! If a bodhisattva's mind abides in dharmas while practicing generosity, it is like a person entering darkness who sees nothing. If a bodhisattva's mind does not abide in dharmas while practicing generosity, it is like a person with eyes, when the sunlight shines brightly, seeing all kinds of forms."
2.32
The Treatise says: "Those without wisdom abide in dharmas, and because their minds are impure, they do not attain it; those with wisdom do not abide in dharmas, and because their minds are pure, they attain it." 'Having eyes' is like obtaining the counteracting dharmas. 'Sunlight' is like the darkness to be countered being entirely extinguished and the counteragent becoming manifest. Emptiness illustrates tathatā; form illustrates the myriad virtues inherent in its nature.
2.33
Second, praising the merit of the sūtra, which has two parts: first, a general indication.
2.34
"Subhūti! In future eras, if there is a good man or good woman capable of receiving, upholding, reading, and reciting this sūtra, then they will be completely known by the Tathāgata through the Buddha's wisdom, and completely seen by this person; they will all accomplish immeasurable and boundless merits."
2.35
Asaṅga says: "'Reading and reciting': this speaks of the causes for receiving and upholding; one reads in order to receive, and recites in order to uphold." The Treatise says: "Cultivating receiving and upholding relies on the method of dhāraṇī; cultivating reading and reciting relies on broad hearing-wisdom. Thus, hearing the Dharma from others and reflecting internally, one obtains the wisdom of cultivation." Therefore the verse says: / 'Cultivation proceeds from others and within.'
2.36
Second, distinctly explaining, in ten parts: first, giving up life does not equal it, with two parts: first, the merit of giving up life.
2.37
"Subhūti! If there is a good man or good woman who, in the morning, gives away bodies equal [in number] to the sands of the Ganges; in the middle of the day, again gives away bodies equal to the sands of the Ganges; and in the evening, also gives away bodies equal to the sands of the Ganges; and gives away bodies in this manner for immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of kalpas,"
2.38
The verse says: / 'Because the action and time are great, / It is superior merit among merits.'
2.39
Second, the merit of having faith in the sūtra.
2.40
"Yet if there is a person who hears this sūtra and their faithful mind does not oppose it, their merit surpasses the former. How much more so for those who copy, receive, uphold, read, recite, and explain it to others?"
2.41
Faith in the sūtra is inferior to upholding and explaining it; giving many lives is superior to the previous simile.
2.42
Second, beyond the fathom of other vehicles.
2.43
"Subhūti! In brief, this sūtra possesses inconceivable, incalculable, boundless merit."
2.44
The verse says: / 'It is not the sphere of others.' / Asaṅga says: "'Inconceivable' means it is known only by self-realization. 'Incalculable' means that there is nothing equal or superior to it."
2.45
Third, spoken based on great aspirations.
2.46
"The Tathāgata speaks it for those who set out in the Mahāyāna, speaks it for those who set out in the supreme vehicle."
2.47
"The supreme" is the One Buddha Vehicle.
2.48
4. Possessing virtue and capable of transmitting it.
2.49
"If someone can receive, uphold, read, recite, and broadly explain [it] to others, the Tathāgata fully knows this person, fully sees this person, and they will all attain and achieve immeasurable, incalculable, boundless, and inconceivable merit. People such as these are indeed bearing the Tathāgata's anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi on their shoulders."
2.50
Regarding "achieve" and so forth, the verse says: "Fulfilling the unsurpassed realm." Regarding "bearing on shoulders," Asaṅga says: "Because they bear the heavy burden of bodhi on their shoulders."
2.51
5. Delighting in the small, they are incapable of it.
2.52
"Why is this? Subhūti, if someone delights in lesser teachings, they are attached to a view of self, a view of a person, a view of a sentient being, and a view of a soul; thus they are unable to listen to, receive, read, recite, or explain this sūtra to others."
2.53
6. Wherever it is, it is like a stūpa.
2.54
"Subhūti, in whatever place this sūtra is found, all the worldly devas, humans, and asuras should make offerings to it. You should know that this place is a stūpa, and all should revere it, make prostrations, circumambulate it, and scatter various flowers and incense upon that place."
2.55
7. Transforming sin into Buddhahood.
2.56
"Furthermore, Subhūti, if a good man or good woman receives, upholds, reads, and recites this sūtra, and if they are reviled and disparaged by others, this person's sinful karma from past lives would have caused them to fall into the evil destinies; yet, because they are reviled and disparaged by people in this present life, the sinful karma from past lives is eradicated, and they will attain anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi."
2.57
"Reviled and disparaged" is an overarching term, encompassing whether being beaten or cursed. The Sui translation says: "reviled, extremely reviled." Asaṅga says: "Because these matters of humiliation have immeasurable approaches." He also says: "Being extremely reviled, they will attain bodhi because their sins are eradicated."
2.58
8. Surpassing deeds and having great veneration. The treatise says: "Because it reveals the teaching of swiftly realizing bodhi." The text has two parts: first, that among many offerings to Buddhas, merit is fully possessed.
2.59
"Subhūti, I recall that in the past, during immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas, before Dīpaṅkara Buddha, I met eight hundred and four thousand ten million nayutas of Buddhas, and I made offerings to and served all of them without exception."
2.60
As for "nayuta": ten koṭis make a lakṣa, ten lakṣas make a koṭi, and ten koṭis make a nayuta.
2.61
Second, that among many [offerings], upholding the sūtra has only a fraction of merit.
2.62
"If, moreover, someone in the subsequent latter age is able to receive, uphold, read, and recite this sūtra, the merit they obtain would not be equaled by even a hundredth part of the merit from my making offerings to all those Buddhas, nor a thousandth part, a ten-thousandth, a koṭi-th part, nor even what could be reached by calculation or metaphor."
2.63
9. Hearing it in full, they would doubt.
2.64
"Subhūti, if a good man or good woman in the subsequent latter age receives, upholds, reads, and recites this sūtra, if I were to speak in full of the merit they obtain, there might be someone who hears it whose mind would become wild and confused, harboring suspicion and disbelief."
2.65
10. General conclusion on its profound profundity.
2.66
"Subhūti, you should know that the meaning of this sūtra is inconceivable, and its fruition and retribution are also inconceivable."
2.67
Asaṅga says: "This shows that the substance of that merit and the substance of the fruit cannot be measured."
2.68
11. Severing the doubt that abiding in cultivation and subjugation is a self. The Buddha taught me to abide in cultivation and subjugation, and also not to abide in the faults of the previous ten kinds of doubtful attachments. If there is no self, who receives the teaching? Who abides in cultivation? Who departs from faults in this way, and so on? It is also said to eliminate subtle attachment, so the verse says: "Cultivating within the internal mind, retaining the self as a bodhisattva, / This obstructs the mind, and runs contrary to the path of non-abiding."
2.69
The text that severs it has two parts: first, the question.
2.70
At that time, Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, when good men and good women produce the mind of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, how should they abide, and how should they subjugate their minds?"
2.71
Second, the answer, in three parts: first, if called a bodhisattva, they must be without a self.
2.72
The Buddha told Subhūti: "If a good man or good woman produces the mind of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, they should give rise to such a mind: 'I should bring all sentient beings to nirvāṇa.' Yet when all sentient beings have been brought to nirvāṇa, there is not a single sentient being who has truly been brought to nirvāṇa."
2.73
Second, if there are marks of a self, one is not a bodhisattva.
2.74
"Why is this? If a bodhisattva has the mark of a self, the mark of a person, the mark of a sentient being, or the mark of a soul, then they are not a bodhisattva."
2.75
Third, both subject and object are bodhi itself.
2.76
"Why is this? Subhūti, there is truly no dharma that produces the mind of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi."
2.77
12. Severing the doubt that the cause of Buddhahood implies the existence of a bodhisattva. The treatise says: "If there is no bodhisattva, how did the Tathāgata Śākyamuni practice the bodhisattva path before Dīpaṅkara Buddha?" The text that severs it has four parts: first, raising the point of doubt.
2.78
"Subhūti, what do you think? Did the Tathāgata have any dharma by which he attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi before Dīpaṅkara Buddha?"
2.79
King Amitodana invited Dīpaṅkara Buddha to enter the city; everyone in the city, young and old, went out to welcome him. The road was muddy, and Sumati spread his hair; the Buddha bestowed a prediction upon him. Therefore, this question is raised.
2.80
Second, severing the doubtful thought.
2.81
"No, World-Honoured One. As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has said, the Buddha had no dharma by which he attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi before Dīpaṅkara Buddha."
2.82
At that time, Sumati had nothing whatsoever attained and was free from all discriminations; it was because there was no dharma that he received the prediction. If there were a dharma, that would be a mind with marks, which does not accord with bodhi, and the Buddha would not have bestowed the prediction.
2.83
Third, confirming and determining.
2.84
The Buddha said: "So it is, so it is. Subhūti, there is truly no dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi."
2.85
The treatise says: "Among all the practices I cultivated at that time, there was not a single dharma by which anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi was attained." The *Guṇaprabhā Treatise* cites the Buddha's words, stating: "'If one sees the Buddha, one sees one's own body. Seeing the body as pure, seeing the Buddha as pure, seeing all sarvajñā-jñāna as pure, and within this, seeing that pure wisdom is also pure—this is called seeing the Buddha. Seeing Dīpaṅkara Tathāgata in this way, I attained the patience of non-arising, and all sarvajñā-jñāna became clearly manifest before me; thus I immediately received the prediction. The sound of this prediction did not reach my ears, nor was it something knowable by other wisdoms; at that time I was also not stuporous or unperceiving, yet there was nothing attained.'"
2.86
Fourth, explaining repeatedly.
2.87
"Subhūti, if there were a dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, Dīpaṅkara Buddha would not have bestowed the prediction upon me: 'In a future age, you will become a Buddha named Śākyamuni.' Because there is truly no dharma by which anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi is attained, Dīpaṅkara Buddha bestowed the prediction upon me, saying: 'In a future age, you will become a Buddha named Śākyamuni.'"
2.88
Asaṅga says: "If the dharma of correct enlightenment could be spoken, as spoken by that Dīpaṅkara, I would have attained correct enlightenment at that time, and Dīpaṅkara would not have predicted that I would attain it in a future age. Because the dharma cannot be spoken, I did not attain correct enlightenment at that time; therefore he predicted that I would attain it in a future age."
2.89
13. Severing the doubt that if there is no cause, there is no Buddha or Dharma. Within this there are three parts: first, severing the doubt that there are entirely no Buddhas. The treatise says: "If there is no bodhi, there are no Tathāgata Buddhas; there is such slander saying that there are entirely no Buddhas. In order to sever this doubt, it is said that the Tathāgata is indeed tathatā."
2.90
The text that severs it has two parts: first, showing that tathatā is the Buddha, hence it is not non-existent.
2.91
"Why is this? 'Tathāgata' means the tathatā of all dharmas."
2.92
Asaṅga says: "Because tathatā is pure, he is called the Tathāgata, just like pure gold."
2.93
Second, clarifying that the Buddha is bodhi itself, hence there is no attainment.
2.94
"If someone says, 'The Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi,' Subhūti, there is truly no dharma by which the Buddha attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi."
2.95
First, the erroneous understanding is indicated. The Wei translation says: "If someone says that the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-bodhi, this person speaks untruth." Next, the correct view is explained. The verse says: "Bodhi and that practice are equal." This means equal to the previous bodhisattva practice of non-attainment. Asaṅga says: "Someone might say that before Dīpaṅkara Tathāgata he did not attain correct enlightenment regarding dharmas, but the World-Honoured One later attained correct enlightenment on his own. To dispel this grasping, he says: 'If someone says...' and so on."
2.96
Second, severing the doubt that there are entirely no dharmas. The treatise says: "Someone slanders, saying: 'If there is no causal practice, the Tathāgata would not attain anuttarā-bodhi.' In order to sever this doubt, it says 'what the Tathāgata has attained,' and so forth."
2.97
The text that severs it has two parts: first, dispensing with attachment and warding off doubt.
2.98
"Subhūti, in the anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi attained by the Tathāgata, there is neither truth nor falsehood."
2.99
The treatise says: "Because there are no marks of form and so on, that itself is the mark of bodhi." Asaṅga says: "Because it reveals that tathatā is non-dual; that is, on account of verbal convention, meaning that that correct enlightenment is not without worldly verbal convention."
2.100
Second, explaining the meaning to sever doubt.
2.101
"Therefore, the Tathāgata says that all dharmas are Buddha dharmas. Subhūti, what are called all dharmas are not all dharmas; therefore they are called all dharmas."
2.102
The treatise says: "'All dharmas' are all the substance of tathatā, hence they are all Buddha dharmas. 'Are not' means that because dharmas such as form are tathatā, they are not the dharmas of form and so on; tathatā is eternally free from marks such as form. 'Are called' means that it is indeed the intrinsic nature of the dharma of tathatā."
2.103
Third, revealing the true Buddha and the true substance of dharmas.
2.104
"Subhūti, it is like a person's body being huge." Subhūti said: "World-Honoured One, what the Tathāgata speaks of as a person's body being huge is not a great body; this is called a great body."
2.105
The verse says: "Relying on that dharmakāya Buddha, / The metaphor of a great body is spoken; / The body is free from all obscurations, / And pervades all realms." Because of merit and the great substance, it is said that the great body is non-body, which is indeed the body, and therefore it is called a great body. The treatise says: "'Non-body' means having no marks whatsoever. 'A great body' means having the substance of tathatā." Asaṅga says: "Because it gathers all sentient beings into a great body, established within that body, it is neither self nor other."
2.106
14. Severing the doubt that there is no person who liberates beings and purifies realms. The treatise says: "If there are no bodhisattvas, Buddhas would also not accomplish bodhi, sentient beings would also not enter nirvāṇa, and there would also be no pure Buddha lands. Why do bodhisattvas produce the mind wishing to cause sentient beings to enter nirvāṇa, and generate the mind to cultivate pure Buddha lands?" The text that severs it has three parts: first, warding off the thought of liberating beings, which has three parts: first, explaining the loss of mindfulness.
2.107
"Subhūti! A bodhisattva is also like this: if they say, 'I shall liberate immeasurable sentient beings,' they are not called a bodhisattva."
2.108
The verse says: / "Not understanding the true dharma realm, / Generating the intention to liberate sentient beings / And to purify the realm— / To give rise to such thoughts is inversion."
2.109
Second, explaining that there is no person.
2.110
"Why is this? Subhūti, in reality there is no dharma called a bodhisattva."
2.111
Since no dharma is named a bodhisattva, how could there be a self that liberates sentient beings?
2.112
Third, citing the prior teaching.
2.113
"Therefore, the Buddha taught that all dharmas are devoid of self, devoid of person, devoid of sentient being, and devoid of soul."
2.114
Second, refuting the thought of adorning the realm, in two parts: first, explaining the loss of mindfulness.
2.115
"Subhūti! If a bodhisattva says: 'I shall adorn the Buddha lands,' they are not called a bodhisattva."
2.116
Second, explaining the reason.
2.117
"Why is this? What the Tathāgata speaks of as adorning the Buddha lands is not adorning; it is named adorning."
2.118
Third, explaining what constitutes a bodhisattva.
2.119
"Subhūti! If a bodhisattva penetrates the dharma of selflessness, the Tathāgata calls them a true bodhisattva."
2.120
The commentary says: "If generating the mind to liberate sentient beings and adorn the lands is inversion and not being a bodhisattva, then what kind of mind must be generated to be called a bodhisattva? Therefore the sūtra says 'penetrates', etc." Asaṅga says: "This refers to selflessness of persons and selflessness of dharmas."
2.121
Fourteen: Severing the doubt that the Buddhas do not see dharmas. The commentary says: "It was previously stated that the bodhisattva does not see that they are sentient beings, does not see myself as a bodhisattva, and does not see a purified Buddha land; if so, then the Buddhas do not see any dharmas." In the text severing it, there are two parts: first, explaining the purity of seeing based on the five eyes that can see. The verse says: / "Though not seeing dharmas, / It is not that they lack eyes that clearly perceive the realms; / The five types of reality of the Buddhas / Are by seeing their inversion." / The text has five parts: first, the fleshly eye.
2.122
"Subhūti! What do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the fleshly eye or not?" "Yes, World-Honoured One! The Tathāgata has the fleshly eye."
2.123
Having pure physical matter within the fleshy lump that sees forms within obstructions is called the fleshly eye. Because the Buddha possesses all the sense faculties, he has the fleshly eye.
2.124
Second, the divine eye.
2.125
"Subhūti! What do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the divine eye or not?" "Yes, World-Honoured One! The Tathāgata has the divine eye."
2.126
Beside the fleshly eye, the pure divine eye is brought forth to see forms beyond obstructions. According to the Great Prajñā: "The Buddha's fleshly eye can see countless worlds among humans, not only within obstructions. But the Buddha's divine eye can see all the subtle forms of the devas; aside from seeing the devas, seeing the affairs of humans and so forth is called the fleshly eye." The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "Only the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, has attained the true divine eye, illuminating and seeing Buddha lands as numerous as the sands of the Ganges without dual characteristics."
2.127
Third, the wisdom eye.
2.128
"Subhūti! What do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the wisdom eye or not?" "Yes, World-Honoured One! The Tathāgata has the wisdom eye."
2.129
Because it illuminates the true principle by fundamental wisdom.
2.130
Fourth, the dharma eye.
2.131
"Subhūti! What do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the dharma eye or not?" "Yes, World-Honoured One! The Tathāgata has the dharma eye."
2.132
Through subsequently attained wisdom, he expounds the Dharma and liberates people.
2.133
Fifth, the Buddha eye.
2.134
"Subhūti! What do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the Buddha eye or not?" "Yes, World-Honoured One! The Tathāgata has the Buddha eye."
2.135
The prior four in the Buddha are collectively named the Buddha eye. Furthermore, seeing the Buddha-nature completely and consummately is named the Buddha eye. Asaṅga says: "To make knowledge and vision pure and superior, five eyes are shown; in brief there are four, namely: subsumed under form, subsumed under the ultimate truth, subsumed under worldly truth, and subsumed under all types of everything that ought to be known." An ancient virtuous one's verse says: / "The divine eye penetrates without hindrance; the fleshly eye is obstructed and does not penetrate. / The dharma eye only contemplates the conventional; the wisdom eye directly relates to emptiness. / The Buddha eye is like a thousand suns, / Illuminating differences, yet its essence is the same."
2.136
Second, explaining the purity of wisdom based on all the minds that are known, in five parts: first, counting the sands based on one single Ganges River.
2.137
"Subhūti! What do you think? As to the sands in the Ganges River, did the Buddha speak of them as sands or not?" "Yes, World-Honoured One! The Tathāgata spoke of them as sands."
2.138
Second, counting rivers based on the sands in one river.
2.139
"Subhūti! What do you think? Just as with the sands in one Ganges River, there are as many Ganges Rivers as those sands;
2.140
Third, counting realms based on the sands in those sand-rivers.
2.141
would the Buddha worlds numbering all the grains of sand in these Ganges Rivers be many?" "Very many, World-Honoured One!"
2.142
Fourth, based on all the beings in that many realms.
2.143
The Buddha told Subhūti: "Of all the sentient beings in that many lands,
2.144
Fifth, based on all the minds of each and every sentient being, in three parts: first, generally clarifying defilement and purity to indicate complete knowledge.
2.145
however many kinds of minds they have, the Tathāgata completely knows them."
2.146
Asaṅga says: "'However many kinds of minds' are of two types: defiled and pure, namely minds with desire, minds free from desire, and so forth."
2.147
Second, reconciling the deluded with the true to explain complete knowledge.
2.148
"Why is this? The Tathāgata explains that all minds are not minds; this is named mind."
2.149
Dayun says: "Because all deluded minds rely on the substance of tathatā and have no nature at all, the Buddha realizes tathatā and therefore completely knows them. 'All minds' points them out. 'Not minds' means that deluded consciousness is fundamentally empty. 'Named mind' means that the true mind is not annihilated." But the commentary's explanation differs from this; the verse says: / "Various inverted consciousnesses, / Being separate from true mindfulness, / Do not abide in that true wisdom; / Therefore they are called inverted."
2.150
Third, investigating and refuting defilement to explain "not minds".
2.151
"Why is that? Subhūti! Past mind cannot be apprehended, present mind cannot be apprehended, and future mind cannot be apprehended."
2.152
Asaṅga says: "Because the past has already ceased, because the future does not yet exist, and because the present is the ultimate truth."
2.153
Sixteen: Severing the doubt that merit follows the mind in being inverted. The commentary says: "It was just said that the mind's abiding and inversion are all unapprehendable. If so, merit is also inverted; why is it called a wholesome dharma?"
2.154
In the text severing it, there are two parts: first, asking about merit and answering about merit.
2.155
"Subhūti! What do you think? If someone were to fill the great trichiliocosm with the seven jewels and use them in giving, would that person, on that account, gain much merit or not?" "Yes, World-Honoured One! This person, on that account, would gain very much merit."
2.156
Because of this cause and condition of practicing giving free from marks and without inversion, uncontaminated merit is accomplished, free from the two obscurations; since it is not inverted, one therefore gains much merit.
2.157
Second, negative explanation and positive explanation.
2.158
"Subhūti! If merit were real, the Tathāgata would not say one gains much merit; because merit is non-existent, the Tathāgata says one gains much merit."
2.159
The verse says: / "With the Buddha's wisdom as the basis, / It is merit that is not inverted." / The commentary says: "Showing that merit is not inverted and has Buddha-wisdom as its basis, 'merit being existent' means grasping marks; 'merit being non-existent' means being free from marks." Question: If merit is much because its nature is empty, previously it was said that the nature of deluded mind is empty, so delusions should also be many. Answer: Merit has Buddha-wisdom as its basis and accords with the emptiness of nature; thus when awakening to the emptiness of nature, merit is very great. Mental consciousness is inverted and contrary to the emptiness of nature; thus when awakening to the emptiness of nature, mental consciousness is entirely exhausted.
2.160
Seventeen: Severing the doubt of why the unconditioned has marks and signs. The commentary says: "If the Buddhas receive their name from the unconditioned, why do the Buddhas accomplish the marks and signs to be named Buddhas? This doubt is raised with reference to the dharmakāya Buddha."
2.161
In the text severing it, there are two parts: first, manifesting a body because of having no body.
2.162
"Subhūti! What do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by means of the complete physical body or not?" "No, World-Honoured One! The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the complete physical body. Why is this? What the Tathāgata explains as the complete physical body is not the complete physical body; it is named the complete physical body."
2.163
This refers to the minor signs. Just as when a mirror is empty of objects it can then manifest objects, the commentary therefore says: "The dharmakāya is ultimately not a physical body, nor is it the marks; yet the two kinds, marks and signs, are also not non-Buddha, because these two are not separate from the dharmakāya. Therefore these two can also be said to be non-existent, and thus it speaks of 'not a body'; they can also be said to be existent, and thus it speaks of 'accomplishment'."
2.164
Second, manifesting marks because of having no marks.
2.165
"Subhūti! What do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of the complete marks or not?" "No, World-Honoured One! The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the complete marks. Why is this? What the Tathāgata explains as the completeness of all marks is not completeness; it is named the completeness of all marks."
2.166
This refers to the thirty-two marks, each and every one being as explained before regarding the physical body.
2.167
18. Severing the doubt: 'If there is no body, how can the Dharma be taught?' The treatise states: 'If the Tathāgata's physical form and marks cannot be perceived, why is it said that the Tathāgata teaches the Dharma?'
2.168
The text that severs it has three [parts]: First, refuting mistaken understanding.
2.169
"Subhūti, you must not say that the Tathāgata has this thought: 'I should teach some dharma.' Do not think this."
2.170
This is because in a valley there is no person who can produce sound.
2.171
Second, explaining the reason.
2.172
"Why is this? If someone says that the Tathāgata has taught a dharma, they slander the Buddha, because they cannot understand what I have taught."
2.173
The World-Honoured One thoroughly realized the emptiness of all dharmas and is ultimately without clinging; to say now that he has taught [something] is to slander the Buddha by clinging to dharmas.
2.174
Third, showing the correct view.
2.175
"Subhūti, in teaching the Dharma, there is no dharma that can be taught; this is called teaching the Dharma."
2.176
The verse says: / 'As with the Buddha, so it is with the Dharma; / the two that are spoken of are distinct, / yet not separate from the dharmadhātu; / the teaching of Dharma has no intrinsic mark.' / Dayun says: 'If one says that non-teaching is the true teaching of the Dharma, [then] if one says there is teaching, it is not called teaching the Dharma, because it slanders the Buddha.'
2.177
19. Severing the doubt: 'If there is no dharma, how does one cultivate and realize it?' The treatise states: 'If the Tathāgata does not attain a single dharma, how does he, apart from successively higher realizations, successively attain anuttarā-[samyak-sam]bodhi? To sever this doubt, it is demonstrated that non-realization of dharma is called anuttarā-[samyak-sam]bodhi.'
2.178
The text that severs it has three [parts]: First, taking the absence of dharma as correct awakening.
2.179
Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, is the attainment of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi without anything attained?" The Buddha said: "So it is, so it is. Subhūti, in anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi there is not even the slightest dharma that can be attained; this is called anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi."
2.180
The verse says: / 'In that state there is not the slightest dharma; / know that bodhi is unsurpassed.' / The treatise says: 'In that state of bodhi there is not a single dharma that can be realized; this is called anuttarā-[samyak-sam]bodhi.'
2.181
Second, taking equality as correct awakening.
2.182
"Furthermore, Subhūti, this dharma is equal, without high or low; this is called anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi."
2.183
The verse says: / 'The dharmadhātu neither increases nor decreases.' / The treatise says: 'This dharma is equal, therefore it is called unsurpassed, because there is nothing further superior to it.'
2.184
Third, cultivating correct awakening by means of the primary and auxiliary.
2.185
"Cultivating all wholesome dharmas through selflessness, non-personhood, non-sentient-being, and non-living-being, one then attains anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. Subhūti, as for what are called wholesome dharmas, the Tathāgata says they are not wholesome dharmas; these are called wholesome dharmas."
2.186
Selflessness and the like are the revealing cause (vyaktiketu), which is the primary path. Cultivating all wholesome dharmas is the contributing cause (pratyayaketu), which is the auxiliary path. 'Then attaining anuttarā-[samyak-sam]bodhi' is correct awakening. 'What are called wholesome dharmas' is the designation. As for 'are not [wholesome dharmas]' and so forth, the treatise says: 'Those dharmas have no contaminated dharmas, hence they are called non-wholesome dharmas; because they possess uncontaminated dharmas, they are called wholesome dharmas.'
2.187
20. Severing the doubt: 'What is spoken is unexpressed/indeterminate and not a cause.' The treatise states: 'If one attains anuttarā-[samyak-sam]bodhi by cultivating all wholesome dharmas, then the spoken Dharma cannot attain bodhi, because it is an indeterminate (avyākṛta) dharma.'
2.188
The severing [text]:
2.189
"Subhūti, if a person took heaps of the seven precious jewels equal to all the Mount Sumeru kings in the trichiliocosm and gave them in generosity, and if another person receives, upholds, reads, recites, and explains to others even as little as a four-line verse from this Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the former merit would not reach a hundredth part of this, nor a thousandth, a ten-thousandth, a hundred-millionth part, nor could it be matched by calculation or metaphor."
2.190
The verse says: / 'Though called an indeterminate dharma, / it is taught to be its cause; / therefore, a single dharma-jewel / surpasses immeasurable rare treasures.' / The treatise says: 'Because apart from the spoken Dharma one cannot attain great bodhi, this Dharma can serve as the cause of bodhi.' It also says: 'Your dharma is indeterminate, but my Dharma is determinate, therefore it surpasses the relinquishment of immeasurable seven jewels.'
2.191
21. Severing the doubt: 'If it is equal, how are sentient beings liberated?' The treatise states: 'If dharmas are equal without high or low, how does the Tathāgata liberate sentient beings?'
2.192
The text that severs it has four [parts]: First, refuting their mistaken understanding.
2.193
"Subhūti, what do you think? You all must not say that the Tathāgata has this thought: 'I should liberate sentient beings.' Subhūti, do not think this."
2.194
Second, showing the correct view.
2.195
"Why is this? Truly, there are no sentient beings who are liberated by the Tathāgata."
2.196
The verse says: / 'In the equal, true dharmadhātu, / the Buddha does not liberate sentient beings; / because the designation shares the skandhas, / it is not separate from the dharmadhātu.' / The treatise says: 'The nominal designation of sentient beings is shared with the five skandhas and is not separate from the dharmadhātu.'
2.197
Third, inversely explaining the reason.
2.198
"If there were sentient beings liberated by the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata would possess [the notions of] self, person, sentient being, and living being."
2.199
The treatise says: 'If the Tathāgata had the thought: "Among the five skandhas there are sentient beings to be liberated," this would be the fault of grasping at marks.' Asaṅga says: 'The Tathāgata knows in accord with the cognizable (jñeya); therefore, if there were the idea of a sentient being, that would constitute grasping at a self.'
2.200
Fourth, progressively sweeping away traces.
First 200 of 288 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 金剛般若經疏論纂要 — Classical Chinese