金剛經纂要刊定記 4

English (machine translation) 4

Language: English

4.1

Recorded by the Śramaṇa Zixuan of Changshui

4.2

4. The Tathāgata's Main Exposition (two parts)

4.3

First, directly answering what was asked (two parts)

4.4

First, presenting the general and indicating the list to take up the query, the sūtra's words: "all bodhisattva-mahāsattvas."

4.5

Question: "Earlier, when presenting those of suitable capacity, it said 'good men and good women.' Coming now to the place of the answer, why does it say 'bodhisattva-mahāsattvas'?"

Answer: "Before generating the great mind, one is an ordinary person; once having generated the mind, one is named a bodhisattva. Subhūti's presentation was in terms of the time before generating the mind, hence he said 'good men and good women.' The World-Honoured One's reply is in terms of after having generated the mind, so he says 'all bodhisattva-mahāsattvas.'"

4.7

The commentary from "From this onward" has four parts. First, directly explaining the sūtra text. Because Subhūti asked with three [aspects], while the Buddha here in taking them up only speaks of subduing, this explanation is given.

4.8

The first two lines indicate, and from "abiding" downward explains. That delivering sentient beings is without self is the subduing within abiding. That giving does not abide in characteristics is the subduing within cultivation. By this meaning, subduing is the general.

4.9

Regarding "the intention of the sūtra lies here": it lies in presenting subduing to indicate abiding and cultivation, wishing to show that the text is concise while the meaning is rich, manifesting the profound subtlety. Although it begins with abiding and cultivation, it culminates in subduing; because grasping the intent is profoundly deep here, it only mentions the one.

4.10

From "There is an outline" downward: second, refuting others' erroneous divisions. This refers to the Dayun commentary. Qinglong indeed said: "Presenting the end encompasses the beginning; its meaning is also the same."

4.11

From "Then causing" downward: directly refuting the error. Regarding "the text does not flow smoothly": originally the earlier should embrace the later meaning, as form is an example for sound, etc.; why suddenly present the later to encompass the earlier, causing the text to lack smoothness? Lacking smoothness is entirely due to the outline not matching the sūtra text's original intent.

4.12

From "Furthermore, examining closely" downward: third, examining closely and determining the sūtra's import. Regarding "subduing is within abiding and cultivation": subduing within abiding is that in reality there is no one delivered; subduing within cultivation is giving without abiding; having no delivery and no abiding is simply departing from characteristics. Since departing from characteristics pervades abiding and cultivation, we know that subduing is the general.

4.13

From "Not separately" downward: fourth, taking up the objection and explaining it away.

4.14

The first line takes up the objection. The objection says: "Since Subhūti asked with an order, wherein abiding, cultivation, and subduing are clearly distinguished, why does the sūtra not answer them separately, but instead explains them lodged within abiding and cultivation?"

4.15

From "This sūtra" downward: directly resolving it. Regarding "departing from characteristics is subduing the mind": as quoted above, having no delivery, no abiding, and so on. Regarding "it must be revealed in terms of abiding and cultivation": if there is generating the mind and practicing cultivation, only then can subduing the mind be spoken of; if there were no abiding and cultivation, what subduing and restraint could be spoken of? This being so, it is only within abiding and cultivation that conceptual, deluded thoughts are subdued, hence it says 'they are originally not separate from each other.'

4.16

From "Asaṅga" downward: citing evidence, which can be understood.

4.17

Regarding the commentary's "In answering the question, dividing into 'peacefully abiding,' etc.": this refers to peacefully abiding in the four minds. Maitreya's verse says: "Vast, supreme, eternal, / their mind is not inverted; / abiding in the deep mind of benefiting, / the merits of this vehicle are complete." It is according to this outline and classification that the four minds are listed.

4.18

The commentary from "the first line" downward has two parts. First, explaining the indication.

4.19

Regarding "universally delivering the three realms": this explains the meaning of "vast." All sentient beings do not exceed the three realms; universally delivering the three realms is only then called vast. If a single sentient being is not delivered, it is not vast. Therefore the sūtra indicates: "whatever kinds of sentient beings there are," which encompasses them comprehensively. In Sanskrit it is bahujana, which here means "sentient beings." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Born amidst the aggregation of the five aggregates, they are therefore called sentient beings." The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says: "With intentional karma as cause, and egg, womb, moisture, and transformation as conditions, the initial arising of the five aggregates is called birth." "Kinds" means types or classes, namely the four such as womb-born and egg-born.

4.20

From "Whether egg-born" downward: second, explaining the list (three parts). In the first there are two. First, explaining the text.

4.21

The beginning of receiving life is called "taking birth," which is the time of initial arising. The four differences such as egg are why it says "distinctions." Namely: born from within an eggshell, born from within a womb, born dependent on moisture, and suddenly born by transformation; therefore they are not the same. However, sentient beings of the three realms do not go beyond the five destinies, and using the four [births] to subsume the five is also complete. Therefore the commentary next says "transformationally born in the heavens and hells, etc.," which makes clear proceeding from the narrower to the broader.

4.22

Regarding "transformationally born in the heavens and hells": in the heavens and hells, birth is exclusively transformational, which is the narrowest.

4.23

Regarding "ghosts encompass both womb-born and transformationally born": this is the next broader. That is: terrestrial rākṣasas and Hārītī are both womb-born. Thus a ghost mother said to Maudgalyāyana: "In the daytime and nighttime portions, I give birth to five hundred sons each; as soon as they are born, I eat them myself, and though I finish them, I am not sated." Therefore we know there are womb-born ghosts. The rest are all transformationally born.

4.24

Regarding "humans and animals each have four": for humans having four, mother Viśākhā was egg-born with thirty-two sons; ordinary humans are womb-born; moisture-born is the Mango Maiden born from the moisture of a mango tree; transformationally born refers to humans at the beginning of the kalpa. Thus the Kośa says: "When the merit of the Second Dhyāna is about to end, they are born down into Jambudvīpa."

4.25

Regarding "animals possessing all four": the Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna Sūtra says: "Transformationally born garuḍas are able to eat the four kinds of born nāgas, up to moisture-born." However, although birds and beasts are distinct, all are subsumed under the animal destiny; the remaining beasts are all womb-born, and the remaining birds are all egg-born.

4.26

Regarding "all other minute [beings]," etc.: as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: "Exhausting the Dharma realm and space realm throughout the seas of worlds in the ten directions, all sentient beings have various distinctions: namely, egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, transformationally born; or those that are born and abide dependent on earth, water, fire, and wind; or those that are born and abide dependent on space and various plants and trees; various classes of beings, various physical bodies, up to and including all gods, dragons, the eight classes, humans, non-humans, and so on; footless, two-footed, four-footed, many-footed; with form, formless; with perception, without perception, neither with perception nor without perception, and so on." Since in the present sūtra there is no separate exposition, one must not fabricate words out of nothing. Therefore the commentary concludes: "their classes and categories cannot be fully divided."

4.27

From "Egg is inferior" downward: second, resolving the objection.

4.28

The objection would say: "Egg-birth is the most inferior, so why is it placed first? Transformational birth is the most superior, so why is it placed at the end?"

4.29

From "Two explanations" downward: resolving it.

4.30

Regarding "in terms of the objective realm," etc.: egg-born must possess womb, moisture, and transformation, because before being born it resides in a womb, and in the womb there is necessarily moisture; suddenly existing from non-existence is transformation. Womb-born must include moisture and transformation. Moisture-born must include transformation, while transformational birth does not necessarily include the others, being merely suddenly existing from non-existence. Thus, each prior one necessarily possesses each subsequent one, while each subsequent one does not possess each prior one; therefore this is the sequence.

4.31

Regarding "in terms of the mind proceeding from the root," etc.: sentient beings originally initiate karma due to causes; karmic consciousness is the fundamental ignorance combined with the fundamental nature, where subject and object are not yet divided, chaotic like an egg, an egg being an eggshell. Therefore the Bhaiṣajyaguru Sūtra says: "Shattering the shell of ignorance, exhausting the river of afflictions." Ignorance initiates karma, stored in the storehouse consciousness as the womb; taking birth is moisture; at the time of birth, suddenly existing from non-existence is transformation. By this meaning, therefore, this is the sequence.

4.32

Regarding "distinctions in support": "support" refers to the body of sentient beings. The body possesses support, and because the meanings of support differ, it is called "distinctions." Therefore the commentary next says: "with form, formless, etc." "With form" means taking form as the body; "formless" means taking the four aggregates as the body. Furthermore, the form realm has the four dhyānas, and so on, while the formless realm has the four immaterial attainments, and so on; because classes such as these are not the same, it is called "distinctions in support."

4.33

Question: "As a certain sūtra says: 'When the Buddha entered nirvāṇa, the devas of the formless realm shed tears like rain.' Since there were tears falling, how can it be formless?"

4.34

Answer: "What is called 'formless' means lacking the form of karmic fruitions; it does not lack the form produced by meditative concentration (samādhi). Therefore there is no contradiction."

4.35

Regarding "distinctions in cognitive spheres": although it says "cognitive spheres," the intention is to clarify the four stations such as infinite space.

4.36

Regarding "the two stations of space and consciousness": these are the first and second heavens of the formless realm.

4.37

Regarding "the station of nothingness": this is the third heaven.

4.38

Regarding "neither with perception nor without perception": this is the fourth heaven. Lacking coarse perception but having subtle perception, it is therefore the summit of the three realms of existence, hence called the 'Peak of Existence' (bhavāgra).

4.39

Question: "The lower two realms both have form; why does it speak only of the four dhyānas as the form realm? Furthermore, the form realm also has a heaven named 'Non-Perception' (asaṃjñin); why does it point solely to the station of nothingness as non-perception?"

4.40

Answer: "Speaking comprehensively of the three realms, they do not exceed five factors, namely: desire, form, perception, non-perception, and neither-perception-nor-non-perception. However, 'neither-perception-nor-non-perception' is confined specifically to the single heaven of the Peak of Existence. Although one heaven in the form realm is named 'Non-perception', because it is generally categorized as the form realm according to the majority [of its heavens], only the Sphere of Nothingness is designated as 'non-perception'. As for the other three factors, from the spheres of Space and Consciousness down to the realm of desire, their presence, absence, breadth, and narrowness differ in relation to each other. That is to say: the desire realm possesses all three; the form realm lacks desire; the formless realm has perception alone and lacks form and desire, and so the designation 'with perception' is established for it. Although the form realm has perception, lest it be confused with the name of the higher [realm], the designation 'with form' is established. Although the desire realm combines both form and perception, since the higher [realms] have already taken these two names, it is named simply the 'desire realm' to distinguish it from them. The lowest necessarily possesses what the highest has, but the highest does not include what the lowest has. Therefore, the principle for establishing names lies precisely in this. It is like three men: one understands the sūtras, vinaya, and abhidharma; one understands the sūtras and vinaya; and one understands only the vinaya. How their titles are established by way of distinction can be known accordingly. Furthermore, in the desire realm, the objects of the three desires and five sublime desires are prominent; in the form realm, subtle and sublime form is prominent; and in the formless realm, the mind of perception is prominent. For this reason, desire is found only in the desire realm, form extends through two realms, perception pervades all three realms, non-perception extends through the upper two realms, and neither-perception-nor-non-perception is confined to the highest realm alone. This, then, differs from the explanation of Guṇaprabha."

4.41

In the second part, 'I' in the sūtra refers to what is stated by a bodhisattva who has generated the bodhicitta; now the Buddha is stating it on their behalf.

4.42

"Nirvāṇa": the Qin translation rendered this as 'extinction and deliverance' (miedu). In the present sūtra, Sanskrit is above and Chinese below, hence it says, 'and cause them to attain nirvāṇa (miedu)'. If the complete Sanskrit pronunciation were given, it should be mahāparinirvāṇa, which is translated here as 'great complete quiescence'. In the present sūtras and treatises, it is mostly called nirvāṇa. However, according to the Cheng weishi lun, there are four kinds of nirvāṇa: First, nirvāṇa of intrinsically pure nature, possessed equally by ordinary beings and nobles. Second, nirvāṇa with residue, which is leaving behind the affliction hindrance while still having the physical body as a basis of suffering. Third, nirvāṇa without residue, where the physical body has emerged from the suffering of saṃsāra and has no basis. However, the Hīnayāna takes the ash-like body and extinguished intellect as 'without residue', and their 'without residue' has three aspects: 1. residue of afflictions, 2. residue of karma, and 3. residue of retribution in the realms. The Mahāyāna, on the other hand, takes the ultimate jewel-realm as 'without residue'; hence the Dazhidulun states: 'The exhaustion of afflictions of the four ground-states is called having residue; the exhaustion of afflictions of the five ground-states is called without residue.' Fourth, non-abiding nirvāṇa, where compassion and wisdom complement each other, so that one abides neither in saṃsāra nor in nirvāṇa.

4.43

The commentary's 'Namely without...': this is, among the four kinds of Mahāyāna nirvāṇa without residue, non-abiding nirvāṇa. That is to say, not abiding in a bodhisattva's transformational saṃsāra and not abiding in the two vehicles' ash-and-extinction nirvāṇa is the true non-abiding, termed 'without residue'. As for the Hīnayāna's without-residue, it is no different from sentient beings' annihilation. The present text is not like that, which is why it says 'not shared with the two vehicles'.

4.44

"Not shared": namely, it is not the third of those four; the words are identical, but the meaning is different. As the Lotus Sūtra says: 'When one succeeds in becoming a Buddha, endowed with the thirty-two marks, only then can it be called having forever extinguished all without residue.' This means that both hindrances are completely exhausted and both forms of death are permanently transcended.

4.45

"Supreme": this concludes by returning to the intention of the verse and also explains the heading of the outline. The meaning is: were it not for the 'without residue' of non-abiding, how could Maitreya have designated it as the 'supreme mind'?

4.46

The commentary's 'Asaṅga...': the first two lines raise an objection. The meaning is: sentient beings are differentiated into five spiritual natures; how could they all enter nirvāṇa without residue? Three-and-a-half portions of sentient beings cannot attain Buddhahood; hence it speaks of the 'unobtainable meaning'.

4.47

"Subsumed under sentient beings": this is the answer. This is Asaṅga's syllogism establishing that all can be liberated. The syllogism should be framed as: 'Three-and-a-half portions of sentient beings' is the subject (dharmin); 'definitely will all attain Buddhahood' is the thesis (pratijñā). The reason (hetu) is: 'Because they are subsumed under sentient beings.' The concordant example (dṛṣṭānta): 'The one-and-a-half portions of sentient beings.' The intention is that the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'Whoever has a mind will definitely become a Buddha.' The Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment states: 'Those with nature and those without nature equally achieve the Buddha Way.' This, then, is the sense of being obtainable; how could one say they cannot attain it?

4.48

It also says 'egg-born, moisture-born, etc.': this raises an objection based on the states of adversity. Egg-born and moisture-born are the adversity of animals; non-perception and the Peak of Existence are the adversity of the long-lived devas. Although two places are cited, the intention includes all eight adversities. The eight adversities are: the three wretched destinies, the Northern Continent, the long-lived devas, being born before or after a Buddha, worldly knowledge and debate, and being deficient in faculties. The meaning is: those in states of adversity cannot be liberated; how could they all enter [nirvāṇa]?

4.49

"There are three causes and conditions, etc.": this is the answer.

4.50

"In states of adversity awaiting the time": this is also to cause their seed to be formed. The meaning is: sentient beings in states of adversity cannot remain there perpetually; when they reach non-adversity, one liberates them. If they can form the seed, whether sooner or later, it must mature; because [the bodhisattva] gives rise to the vast mind, none should be left out.

4.51

"In non-adversity": although not yet liberated, one first causes them to mature. Those already matured can be inferred. This is somewhat similar to the earlier meaning of protecting and entrusting.

4.52

In the third part, the commentary's 'First, emptiness of nature': Sentient beings are conditionally arisen; conditionally arisen [phenomena] lack own-nature, and hence they are empty.

4.53

"Same substance": because they share the same tathatā-nature. Therefore the Treatise on the Awakening of Faith states: 'Namely, truly knowing that all sentient beings as well as one's own body are equal in tathatā without distinction.'

4.54

The commentary's 'Therefore the treatise says...': citing proof. These words are an inversion; it should say: 'The extinction and liberation of sentient beings is no different from one's own self; why would one give rise to notions of otherness toward one's own self?'

4.55

"Primordially quiescent": characteristics are primordially exhausted of themselves and do not wait to be extinguished. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: 'All sentient beings are already the mark of quiescence and extinction; they are not extinguished again.'

4.56

Question: "How does this differ from the emptiness of nature?"

4.57

Answer: "The former is merely identical with emptiness, whereas this is primordially achieving Buddhahood. Achieving Buddhahood is entering nirvāṇa, hence it is called 'primordially quiescent'. That the former is shallow and the latter deep can be known."

4.58

"Free of thought": if there is thought, there are sentient beings, just as when there is no cataract, flowers in the sky do not appear.

4.59

"Dharmadhātu": the one true dharmadhātu is equal and without distinctions. How could one perceive marks of self and other within it? Hence the verse says: 'In the equal, true dharmadhātu, / the Buddha liberates no sentient beings.' These above five meanings are the text of Dayun. However, among them, the first and third concern the object; the second concerns both subject and object; the fourth concerns only the subject; and the fifth encompasses both root and branch. The general intention is: if one sees sentient beings as something to be liberated, weariness arises and one cannot liberate them perpetually; reversing this is 'perpetual'. Furthermore, whether liberating or not liberating, one's mind is non-dual, which is termed 'perpetual'. Hence the Vajrasamādhi Sūtra states: 'If in transforming sentient beings, one gives rise neither to transformation nor to non-transformation, that transformation is immense.'

4.60

In the fourth part, the sūtra's 'Why is this?': this questions. The meaning is: suppose what is seen has sentient beings to be liberated—what fault is there in this? Next it resolves this: 'If a bodhisattva has the mark of a self, etc., they are not a bodhisattva.' This is an explanation by negation. The meaning is: a true bodhisattva definitely has no self as the liberating subject; how could they still perceive sentient beings attaining extinction and liberation? 'Distancing oneself from the support of the view of a self, sentient beings, etc.': 'support' is an alternative name for the view of a self; it is also called 'continuity'. In Sanskrit it is satkāya[-dṛṣṭi], translated here as 'view of a personal entity' (shenjian), which is equivalent to self, person, living being, etc.

4.61

"This is called the view of a personal entity": because this view arises supported by the body, it is said: 'distancing oneself from the support of the view of a personal entity, sentient beings, and other marks'. Furthermore, the view of a personal entity is the root, and all other views arise in reliance upon this; now that all are distanced, it says 'and other marks'.

4.62

The commentary's 'Having already severed, etc.': internally having no self means having no mark of self; having no mark of self means equality; equality is the meaning of emptiness.

4.63

The commentary's 'Faith and understanding, etc.': comparing others to oneself. Because internally there is no mark of self, externally there is no mark of others; the 'because' in the middle naturally provides the reason. Since there are no marks of self and other, self and other are equal. Master Baozhi said: 'Because my body is empty, all phenomena are empty; / thousands of grades and myriad kinds are all the same.'

4.64

The commentary's 'Displaying the subduing, etc.': according to Asaṅga's commentary: 'The vast and supreme should abide in the perpetual mind, should cultivate non-distortion, should subdue and abide peacefully.' A single passage thus contains three meanings. Now this passage directly corresponds to the meaning of subduing, hence it says 'displaying the subduing, etc.'

4.65

"Not turning": 'turning' means arising. The meaning is: the view of self and so forth does not arise. The self not arising is precisely the meaning of subduing the mind.

4.66

"Jñeya": a Sanskrit word, translated here as 'mother of gnosis', which is fundamental gnosis able to give rise to subsequent gnosis, hence called 'mother of gnosis'. Because although fundamental gnosis internally realizes the true principle, it has no mind that is the realizing subject; and now although subsequent gnosis externally liberates sentient beings, it has no thought of being the liberating subject; hence it says 'like jñeya'. Directing the mind like this is called the non-distorted mind; the opposite is distorted.

4.67

2. Answering Practice (Five parts)

4.68

1. General indication

4.69

The commentary's 'Indicating comprehensively with respect to phenomena': because the six, such as form and sound, are all generally called 'phenomena'. Hence the Wei translation states: 'not abiding in things.'

4.70

"The myriad practices of a bodhisattva": namely, benefiting oneself, benefiting others, practices of phenomena, practices of principle; such practices are limitless and boundless. Now saying 'myriad' merely gives a large round number.

4.71

"Collectively named giving": namely, the first is the giving of material necessities; the second and third are the giving of fearlessness; the fourth, fifth, and sixth pāramitās are all called the giving of the Dharma.

4.72

The commentary's 'The verse states...': citing the verse to explain. Within it, the first two lines indicate, the third line correlates, and the fourth line concludes.

4.73

"One, two, three": namely, one subsumes one, two subsume two, and three subsume three. Thus the three givings are the subsuming agents, and the six pāramitās are the objects subsumed.

4.74

The commentary's 'Asaṅga...': the reason for the subsumption. The first two meanings are obvious, while the meaning of the giving of Dharma is concealed; hence the commentary clarifies it.

4.75

However, the Yaolüe clarifies 'material necessities': necessities are external wealth.

4.76

"Fearlessness": through observing precepts and patience, one has no intention to harm beings; even if there are enemies, one does not retaliate with vengeance.

4.77

The commentary's 'Without vigor, etc.': The Awakening of Faith states: 'Toward all good deeds, the mind does not slacken or regress; one establishes a firm resolve and stays far away from cowardice and weakness,' etc.

4.78

The commentary's 'Without dhyāna, etc.': The lower text states: 'How should one explain it to others? By not grasping at marks, unmoving like tathatā.' Unmoving means undefiled. Even stirring the mind is erroneous and is still called defilement; how much more so craving faith, respect, fame, and gain—how could that not be a fault?

4.79

The commentary's 'Without wisdom, etc.': to say that fire is wet, water is hot, earth is mobile, and wind is solid is called distorted. If one speaks of facts as facts and speaks of principle as principle, then it is not distorted. Therefore, unfolding one giving makes three givings; unfolding three givings makes six pāramitās; unfolding six pāramitās makes myriad practices. The myriad practices do not go beyond the six pāramitās; the six pāramitās do not go beyond the three givings; the three givings do not go beyond the single dāna. Therefore, here it speaks only of giving.

4.80

2. Distinct explanation

4.81

The commentary's 'Points to three matters': Although the six sense objects differ, collectively they are only three matters.

4.82

The commentary's 'Namely self...': lists them. 'The verse states...': explains them.

4.83

The first two lines indicate. 'Not clinging to these': 'these' means these things; not letting oneself cling to these three matters.

4.84

The next two lines explain. 'Cherishing oneself and not giving': explains 'one's own body' above. Because one is attached to one's own body, one does not practice giving.

4.85

"Seeking different matters": explains 'repaying kindness' and 'karmic reward' above. These are not the correct practices performed by a bodhisattva, hence they are called 'different matters'. Repaying kindness requites past kindness; karmic reward looks forward to future retribution; not giving due to one's own body corresponds to the present. 'Guarding' also means preventing. The intention is to cause one to guard against and completely avoid clinging to the matters of these three times; this is precisely giving without abiding in form and so forth.

4.86

In the third part, the commentary's 'Previously merely...': The meaning is: the previous three matters did not exhaustively cover all faults; it does not prevent someone who does not cling to their own body, does not cling to karmic reward, and does not practice giving to repay kindness, from still not being without abiding.

4.87

Regarding "now, however, etc.": this reveals the intention of the present sūtra. The mind is the conditioning agent; the object is the conditioned realm. "Existence" encompasses both mind and object; and whatever remains of mind and object that is not fully covered is entirely subsumed under the word "existence". "Emptiness" means being free from the marks of mind, object, and so forth.

4.88

Question: "Dwelling on objects deviates from principle; what fault is there in departing from the mind?"

4.89

Answer: "The two phenomena of emptiness and existence are designated in mutual dependence; both existence and emptiness are marks. Falling into either mark is not the eternal mind; therefore, this requires that both be utterly dispelled."

4.90

"Dispelling them to the most subtle degree" means that, regardless of mind or object, emptiness or existence, giving rise to a thought or moving the mind deviates from the body of reality; therefore, one is made to completely dispel all of them. Only when practicing giving, one's mind is impartial and does not give rise to conceptual discrimination, is non-abiding accomplished.

4.91

Question: "If that is so, then giving rise to a thought or moving the mind is not non-abiding. Moreover, the mental activities of sentient beings spontaneously arise and are inconstant; if one waits for accord, one will ultimately have no part in it. If one does not give at all, one will not establish the cause of Buddhahood; but if one practices giving, one falls into abiding in marks. Advance and retreat are both blocked; how should this matter be handled?"

4.92

Answer: "If one wishes to seek bodhi, one must practice giving. When first practicing giving, it is difficult to accord suddenly; one must use the mind with skillful means to conform with it: when thoughts arise spontaneously, make a conscious effort to distance oneself from them. After applying the mind for a long time, one will naturally and spontaneously attain accord with the principle, progressing gradually from subtle to manifest in correspondence. As the Awakening of Faith says: 'Tathatā is free from words, speech, and names, beyond the reach of the conditioning mind.' Thereupon a question was raised: 'If such is the meaning, how should sentient beings conform with it so as to be able to enter?' Therefore the answer states: 'If one knows that although all dharmas are thought, there is neither a thinker nor that which can be thought, this is called conforming. If one is free from thought, this is called attaining entrance, and so forth.'"

4.93

Regarding "the verse states, etc.": this quotes to substantiate the above meaning. Hence we know that mind, object, emptiness, existence, and the like are all nothing but marks.

4.94

Regarding "the treatise states, etc.": this explains the above freedom from marks in terms of relinquishing the two attachments and the three wheels. The gift is a dharma; the giver and the receiver are persons. Now, perceiving neither, one relinquishes the two attachments, which is called the twofold emptiness. Relinquishing both emptinesses is the emptiness of the substance of the three wheels. 'Wheel' is a metaphor: just as a cartwheel must be empty inside in order to turn. Laozi says: 'Where there is nothing, the cart finds its use.' When the three factors are empty in substance, they can bring about the fruit of Buddhahood; if the three substances are taken as real, one falls into the worldly realm. This is using the markless wheel to crush the marks of the three realms of existence and transcend the world.

4.95

Regarding "Asaṅga, etc.": this merely substantiates the above meaning. 'Mark' is the object; 'thought' is the mind.

4.96

Regarding "some say, etc.": this points out and refutes the erroneous judgment, as in the text.

4.97

IV. Revealing the Benefit

4.98

In the sūtra, this also separately resolves a doubt, which should be called the doubt that without abiding there is no merit. In Dayun's twenty-seven doubts, this is taken as the very first, called the doubt about non-abiding having merit. Here, however, it is not adopted as one of the major categories of doubts. Why? Because it is a subsidiary division of doubt within the questions and answers. Therefore the treatise states: 'Because the mind has been subdued, the benefits of giving are subsequently explained.'

4.99

Regarding "not abiding in marks": this refers to the meaning of the fulfillment of giving. Only thereafter does the textual trajectory begin, stating: from here on down, all the sūtra passages manifest the severing of doubts that arise.

4.100

The commentary has two parts: 1. Outlining and explaining the meaning of the text.

4.101

Regarding "if free from, etc.": this explains the meaning of the inquiry. Because the Wei translation states 'not abiding in marks or thoughts,' a doubt subsequently arose: 'If the thought of giving is retained, there is a cause of giving; only with a cause of giving can there be a fruit of giving. Since there is no thought of giving, there is no cause of giving. When the cause is not even established, how can the fruit stand? Just as in lending money one must record it, for if forgotten, who will repay it?' This doubt equates giving with doing so with an indeterminate mind. The same applies to the dharma.

4.102

Regarding "incalculable": because it is the merit of markless giving, it is incalculable. In the metaphor, the east is the foremost of all directions, so it is clarified first; south, west, and north are exemplified in order. Both the dharma and the metaphor are equally incalculable. The intention is: it does not mean there is no space; this relative space holds its meaning within the application of the metaphor.

4.103

Regarding "empty space, etc.": 2. Separately discerning the purport of the metaphor.

4.104

Regarding "pervading all places": this means that space exists within both the physical and the non-physical.

4.105

Regarding "meaning abiding, etc.": this is the application to the dharma. Because merit exists within both abiding and non-abiding: proximate, it evokes the abiding merit of the ten kings; ultimate, it brings about the non-abiding merit of bodhi. Furthermore, proximately it obtains the abiding merit of the physical form body; ultimately it obtains the non-abiding merit of the dharmakāya. Although space has no marks, it does not mean there is no space; although merit does not abide, it does not mean there is no merit. Second, its breadth and vastness means it horizontally pervades the ten directions; its height vertically exhausts the three times; its greatness encompasses both horizontal and vertical. According to the above meaning, both dharma and metaphor are great.

4.106

Regarding "exceptionally supreme": as a metaphor, it is not destroyed by the three catastrophes; as a dharma, it is not moved by the four marks. Third, it is endless and ultimately inexhaustible, which is fundamentally a single meaning. However, worlds have an end while space is inexhaustible; the defiled has an end while the undefiled is endless. The three kinds of constancy reside precisely in this. The overall point is: the merit of non-abiding fills all; the merit of non-abiding is lofty, vast, and exceptionally supreme; the merit of non-abiding is ultimately inexhaustible, just like empty space beyond calculation. Because it accords with the dharmadhātu, such benefit is brilliantly clear; what doubt could remain?

4.107

In Section 5, the sūtra states: "one should only abide as taught."

4.108

Question: "Previously it commanded not abiding, yet here it commands abiding again; between abiding and not abiding, which is right and which is wrong?"

4.109

Answer: "Previously it commanded not abiding in the application of the mind; here it commands abiding in non-abiding. Abiding without abiding is precisely abiding in true emptiness. It is like a bird that does not dwell in the sky and yet can stay in the sky; if it were to dwell in the sky, it could not stay in the sky. Therefore the Wei sūtra states: 'One should only practice giving in this manner.'"

4.110

According to this, having answered the three questions, the sūtra should have concluded and entered the transmission section. But because Subhūti gave rise to doubts regarding what the Tathāgata answered, they were severed for him; once severed, they arose again, multiplying and proliferating. Only when attachments were exhausted and doubts eliminated through the twenty-seven sections did the sūtra text continue further below.

4.111

Regarding the commentary's "2. Following the traces, etc.": the text has two parts. First, dividing the text according to the treatise.

4.112

"Following the traces to sever doubts" means following the traces of the previous words to sever those doubtful states of mind. Although the sūtra does not explicitly state words of doubt, they are implicit within the text; hence it only speaks of severing and not of arising. Maitreya's verses also agree with this, as his verse states: 'In subduing those matters, / one distances oneself from the mind that grasps at marks, / severs various doubts, / and also prevents the arising of conceptual thoughts.'

4.113

Regarding "manifestation": there are two meanings: first, Subhūti's hypothetical presentation; second, indicating and making manifest.

4.114

For the first [doubt], the commentary begins by stating the heading.

4.115

Regarding "for the sake of seeking, etc.": this points to the origin of the doubt. This arises from giving without abiding in marks: having heard earlier that not abiding in the marks of the three times, emptiness, existence, and so on is alone called true giving, one subsequently doubted: 'All practice of giving is done to seek Buddhahood; since there is something sought, how can there be non-abiding?'

4.116

Regarding "moreover, not abiding, etc.": this is a concessive objection. Even if the cause were accomplished through non-abiding, this too would be unreasonable; hence it states next: 'because cause and fruit are not of the same kind.' A cause and its fruit must be of the same kind: if existent, both are existent; if empty, both are empty; defiled and pure are both like this. Since the marks of physical form are the fruit, how could non-abiding be the cause? A cause that is empty and a fruit that is existent would hardly be reasonable. Now, examining the cause by the fruit, the cause ought to have abiding; when the Buddha speaks of non-abiding, is he deceiving me?

4.117

Raising the cause of doubt: the sūtra's meaning is: 'In your opinion, can the dharmakāya Tathāgata be seen by means of the body with thirty-two marks, or not?' These marks are the cause of the doubt arising, so they are raised to question him.

4.118

Regarding "originally only, etc.": this explains the cause of the doubt arising. Because practitioners of the two vehicles only take the sixteen-foot physical form to be the true Buddha, taking this form as the fruit, they therefore do not believe in the cause of non-abiding, because cause and fruit are not of the same kind. Now the Buddha raises the fruit to question him, enabling him to know that the ocean of the fruit is markless, so that naturally he will have no doubt regarding the cause of non-abiding.

4.119

Preventing marks in response: the sūtra's meaning is that Subhūti, seeing the Buddha raise marks to question him, immediately knew that one must not seek [the Buddha] through marks, and therefore answered 'No.'

4.120

Regarding "warding off and preventing, etc.": the concern is that sentient beings of the latter age will not comprehend this principle and take marks as the truth; therefore, this remotely wards off deluded views. According to the meaning, it directly severs Subhūti's manifest activity and wards off future seeds. The meaning of warding off and severing is fully presented in the introductory discussion.

4.121

Regarding "the treatise states, etc.": citing substantiation.

4.122

Question: "The sūtra says 'seeing', but the treatise explains it as 'accomplishing'; how does that accord with the Buddha's intention?"

4.123

Answer: "Having such a view, one inevitably attains such realization; hence there is no contradiction."

4.124

Differing from the saṃskṛta: the sūtra's inquiry means: for what reason can one not see the dharmakāya Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks? The explanation means: because the physical marks of the thirty-two marks spoken of by the Tathāgata are precisely not the marks of the dharmakāya. 'Precisely' means 'is'; 'not' means 'is not'. The original text is slightly inverted; it directly means 'is not'.

4.125

Regarding "marks are, etc.": this means the thirty-two marks are merely reflected images appearing upon the mirror-like wisdom; since they fall into the category of the saṃskṛta, they are subject to change by the four marks. Moreover, their presence or absence varies depending on the capacities of beings; how could this be taken as the dharmakāya? Therefore it says that marks are saṃskṛta, etc.; this explains 'the physical marks spoken of by the Tathāgata' in the sūtra.

4.126

Regarding "the Buddha's substance differs from this, etc.": the substance of the dharmakāya Buddha differs from this saṃskṛta; therefore it states that the thirty-two marks are not the marks of the dharmakāya. This explains 'are precisely not physical marks'.

4.127

Regarding "the verse states, etc.": citing substantiation. The full verse says: 'Discriminating the saṃskṛta substance, / to prevent them from attaining realization; / because the three marks have a different substance, / free from them is the Tathāgata.' Among these, the meaning of the first two lines corresponds to the previous section, the last line corresponds to the next heading, and the third line precisely corresponds to this text, which is why it is specifically cited as substantiation.

4.128

Regarding "the Buddha's substance, etc.": further explaining the verse text. This is what the sūtra calls 'are precisely not physical marks'.

4.129

Regarding "abiding and difference, etc.": explaining the meaning of the three marks. While four marks were indicated earlier, here the verse mentions only three because arising belongs to the past and cessation belongs to the future, whereas the two of abiding and difference dwell together in the present. Furthermore, these two marks do not part from each other: abiding is differing, and differing is abiding. Because they share the same time and place, they are combined into one; lest it be confused with permanent abiding, only difference is indicated.

4.130

Regarding "if finely, etc.": finely divided according to the meaning, there are four. This cites Consciousness-Only to explain the marks: proceeding from non-existence to existence is called arising; proceeding from existence to non-existence is cessation; changing from before to after is difference; continuing for a brief moment is abiding. However, the dharmakāya Tathāgata does not arise in the past and does not cease in the future; having no change, it cannot be destroyed, and therefore it differs from this.

4.131

Sealing marklessness: the sūtra's meaning is: all marks arise from false thoughts; therefore, the Buddha's marks are also empty and false. If conceptual discrimination does not arise, marks naturally have no origination; one then sees non-marks. When all marks have vanished, there is only the body of enlightenment, which is called seeing the Tathāgata. From this, one knows that the Buddha's body is markless.

4.132

The commentary has two parts: 1. Explaining the first two lines, which has two parts:

4.133

First, the main explanation.

4.134

Regarding "not only": it means not solely. 'Ordinary' refers to sentient beings of the six paths; 'noble' refers to worthies and nobles of the three vehicles. The dependent environments have pure and impure; the primary [retributions] are the ordinary and the noble. To contrast with the dependent retribution, it is reiterated here. Although the many dharmas are numerous, they do not exceed these four; although four dharmas are mentioned, they encompass everything. This explains 'all marks whatsoever are empty and false' in the sūtra. Lest people hearing that the physical marks are not marks assume this applies solely to the Buddha's body, the word 'all' is used here to ward off a narrow view.

4.135

Regarding "because from, etc.": explaining the reason. Although ordinary and noble, defiled and pure, superior and inferior differ, all arise from thought and none are not empty and false. Thought has no intrinsic mark and is not separate from the enlightened nature. When thought does not even possess an intrinsic nature, how could the marks manifested by it truly exist? Because thought is that upon which things depend, and marks are that which depends; when the support is already empty, how can that which depends exist? It is just as when the skin no longer exists, where could the hair attach?

4.136

Regarding "Awakening of Faith, etc.": 2. Citing substantiation. Within it, both direct and inverse elucidations are detailed and complete.

4.137

Regarding "if one sees, etc.": 2. Explaining the latter two lines, which has two parts: first, the main explanation.

4.138

Regarding "excluding separation, etc.": because form is identical to emptiness and emptiness is identical to form, seeking emptiness apart from form is a great error; hence this is excluded.

4.139

Regarding "not only, etc.": fearing further that when people hear that marks are identical to non-marks and this is the Tathāgata, they might suppose this is said only regarding the marks of the Buddha's body and that marks outside the Buddha's body are not the Tathāgata, it therefore states that all marks are without [marks]. This explains the word "all" (諸) in the sūtra. Just as when a mirror reflects a human image along with other objects, not only is the empty locus of the human image the mirror, but the empty loci of the other objects are also all the mirror; applying this to the Dharma can be known accordingly. If one understands in this manner, one will know that the seeing and the conditions for seeing, which appear as the object before us, are originally our luminous awakening.

4.140

"Therefore the Awakening of Faith..." below: second, citing treatises to explain, in four [parts]. First, citing the Awakening of Faith.

4.141

This has two meanings: first, proving the principle that all marks are devoid of marks. Because marks arise dependent on thought, the essence of awakening is already free from thought, how much more so from marks? Second, proving the principle that the loci where all marks are absent are everywhere the Tathāgata. The mark that is free from thought is called the dharmakāya. Since the dharmakāya is equal to empty space, how could empty space ever have marks? Being signless and impartial, it gathers all marks, which is precisely the dharmakāya. Later the text says, "Being free from all marks is called the Buddhas," and it also says, "The Tathāgata is the meaning of the suchness of all dharmas"; hence it says "not only, etc."

4.142

"Sengzhao says..." below: second, citing Sengzhao's commentary. This is precisely the mental activity of seeing the dharmakāya Buddha. Fearing that when people hear that all marks are non-marks they will see the Tathāgata, and so they will hope for a signless Buddha brightly apparent before their eyes—if it were like this, how would it differ from those marks? Hence he says "practice accords, etc." Wisdom merges with principle, and mind unites with spirit; hence he says "practice accords."

4.143

Regarding "understanding penetrates": as previously explained, understanding that all marks are non-marks. The former is true seeing; this is semblance seeing. Therefore the Awakening of Faith states, "The dharmakāya has no physical marks of self or other that see one another reciprocally."

4.144

"The verse states..." below: third, citing the root treatise.

4.145

This is the remaining verse from earlier; here it is explained according to Vasubandhu's treatise.

4.146

"Asaṅga..." below: fourth, citing Asaṅga.

4.147

Regarding "free from the imagined": not grasping false marks as real. Hence the Vijñaptimātratā states, "The thoroughly established nature is, with respect to that, perpetually free from the former nature." Regarding the "true physical body": there are two meanings. First, taking the false as false, simply according with the fact, without necessarily grasping the unarisen and unceasing as true. Just as taking the moon in the water as the moon in the water, though resembling [the true], it is not true. Hence the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states, "Seeing the real in what is real, seeing the unreal in what is unreal; understanding the marks of dharmas like this is what is called a Buddha." Second, it means that marks are identical to marklessness and share the same dharmakāya; gathering the branch back to the root is called the true physical body, which is true, wholesome, wondrous form. Hence the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states, "My present body is indeed the eternal body, the dharmakāya, the adamantine indestructible body."

4.148

Question: "Earlier you eradicated marks, but here you preserve marks; why do they contradict each other?"

4.149

Answer: "Earlier revealed the dharmakāya, hence it said that marks are non-marks; here it clarifies the physical body, hence it says that non-marks are marks. This is because the fruition Buddha must possess both bodies; the two bodies are mutually identical like waves and water. Each of the two treatises reveals one meaning; the words seem contrary, but the intent truly accords. The bodhisattva's skillful means is wondrously found in this."

4.150

Regarding "Therefore that..." below: both passages corroborate and reveal the meaning of the physical body. Now, within this doubt, clarifying the true and responsive bodies from subtle to prominent has six levels in all: first, clarifying that the Buddha's marks are non-marks; second, clarifying that the Buddha's marks are not immediately the Tathāgata; third, clarifying that all marks are non-marks; fourth, clarifying that all marks being non-marks is everywhere the Tathāgata; fifth, clarifying that only in corresponding realization is there no Buddha to be seen; sixth, clarifying that the mark of marklessness is the true physical body. In these six levels, the earlier ones are shallower and the later ones become progressively deeper. Although the text cannot be written down all at once, the principle manifests suddenly; what the realized person sees must be simultaneous, without before or after.

First 150 of 364 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

金剛經纂要刊定記 — Classical Chinese