金剛經纂要刊定記 5

English (machine translation) 5

Language: English

5.1

Recorded by the Śramaṇa Zixuan of Changshui.

5.2

Sixth: the commentary first marks the chapter section.

5.3

From "If the Dharma" downward points out where the doubt arises. This also derives from the earlier third [section].

From "How" downward forms the doubt. Since one undertakes efforts, activates practices, cultivates all six pāramitās together, and dedicates one's aspiration to adorn and purify the buddha lands—if this is not grasping, what is grasping? The doubt regarding the buddha body is also identical in meaning. Because these two retributions are inseparable, the text of the treatise sets forth both doubts together. However, this present heading only resolves one of them.

5.5

Raising the question: the sense of the sūtra is, does a bodhisattva grasp physical forms to adorn buddha lands or not?

5.6

"The Buddha's intent" and so forth: Subhūti originally doubted that there was grasping; the Buddha's intent was to reveal non-grasping, and grasping and non-grasping reside in the two lands of nature and form. Therefore, he tentatively raised the form and questioned him, testing whether he understood or not.

5.7

Explaining the answer: the sense of the sūtra is that one does not grasp forms to adorn buddha lands. The sense of the interrogation is: for what reason does one not grasp forms to adorn buddha lands? The sense of the explanation is: not adorning through forms is true adornment.

5.8

From "The verse states" downward: within this, the first three lines directly explain the sūtra, while the last line in turn explains the third line of the verse. Furthermore, the first two lines explain "adorning buddha lands" in the sūtra. "Not form" explains "is no adornment." "Foremost substance" explains "is called adornment." "Non-adornment" reveals "not form" in the verse. "Adornment" in intention reveals "foremost substance" in the verse. This merely matches the text; the doctrinal meaning is successively revealed in turn.

5.9

From "The explanation in the treatise" downward further explains the verse text.

5.10

From "The buddhas" downward up to "cannot be grasped" explains the first half of the verse. It means cultivating nirvikalpa wisdom and penetrating the real nature of consciousness-only. This accords wisdom with suchness and is called adornment, which is the meaning of non-grasping. What was doubted regarding having grasping is naturally resolved and dispelled from here.

5.11

From "Adornment is twofold" downward explains the second half. First, the two lands are listed: "physical form" refers to the land of phenomenal characteristics, namely golden grounds, jeweled ponds, and the like. To put it concisely, whatever is seen or heard belongs to physical form. "Paramārtha" refers to the land of dharmatā, meaning being free of all characteristics with nothing seen or heard, which is the principle of tathatā.

5.12

From "Non-adornment" downward directly explains. That is, the third line that follows provides the reason; through this, both non-adornment and adornment are obtained. "Non-adornment" excludes the land of phenomenal characteristics as not being what is presently adorned, corresponding in the sūtra to "is no adornment." The intention of "adornment" reveals the land of dharmatā as being what is adorned here, corresponding in the sūtra to "is called adornment." This refers to manifesting merits exceeding the sands of the Ganges to serve as adornment. Just as making utensils from gold—the utensils do not come from outside, but rather one uses these utensils to adorn the gold itself. Therefore, the treatise cited earlier states: "The buddhas have no such thing as adorning countries," and so forth. Thus, among all adornments none surpasses this, and hence it is called the "foremost adornment" and so forth.

5.13

The word "intention": this points to "not form" and "foremost substance" as being the intention of non-adornment and adornment. Intention means the reason.

5.14

Question: "For the bodies and lands of the buddhas, both nature and characteristics must be complete to be definitive teachings. Now since one speaks solely of the nature, does it not lack the characteristics?"

5.15

Answer: "The characteristics of bodies and lands are solely reflections of the mind; only when the mind is pure can they manifest. If one can purify their mind, bodies and lands will naturally manifest. It is like polishing a mirror: when dust is gone, images appear, naturally as such, and thus not of artificial contrivance. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratā states: 'The great perfect mirror wisdom is capable of manifesting and producing the wisdom-reflections of bodies and lands.' How much more so since this is reaching the absence of characteristics right within characteristics, not casting off characteristics to grasp nature; if there is merely no grasping attachment, how can it obstruct characteristics? However, because the fundamental tenet of the sūtra is signlessness, this meaning is slightly emphasized, being so from beginning to end. The characteristics of the application of mind are as explained next."

5.16

Exhortation to a pure mind: the sense of the sūtra is that for this reason, all you bodhisattvas should give rise to an unattached, pure mind.

5.17

From "If a person" downward first describes the mind that is to be blocked. The intention is that taking physical form to be the true buddha land, through this view, one then wishes to adorn through physical form; hence it says "I accomplish," etc.

5.18

From "Their abiding" downward reveals the error. The meaning clarifies that originally one wished to adorn and purify, so how could one instead produce a defiled mind? Because abiding in form and so forth is the mind of saṃsāra, how could it be called pure?

5.19

From "In order to block" downward follows from what was previously blocked and introduces the sūtra's meaning. Since non-abiding in form and so forth is taken as the pure mind, one should know that abiding in form and so forth is truly defilement.

5.20

"Correct wisdom": since the non-abiding mind is correct wisdom, one should know that the mind generated by having abiding is equally false consciousness. Here, when speaking of correct wisdom as being 'generated,' it refers to its uncovering and manifestation, not that it is generated anew. Therefore the Great Sūtra states: 'Not giving rise to any dharmas is the arising of the prajñāpāramitā.' Because this prajñā is unarisen and unceasing, it is called the true mind.

5.21

From "If entirely" downward reveals the intent to block errors. Fearing that one might lapse into the view of emptiness, it causes one to give rise to this true mind. The naturally real mind originally lacks arising and ceasing, but merely by conditioning abiding objects it fails to accord; nor is it annihilation. If the mind does not abide, prajñā is luminous and clear, nor is it a newly produced arising; fearing that people are confused about this, it is revealed and blocked. Thus, previously enjoining not to abide in form and so forth blocks existence, and subsequently enjoining to give rise to the mind blocks non-existence; since it is free from both existence and non-existence, it is called the Middle Way. Comprehending in this manner is true adornment; what buddha land would not be purified? Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: 'One who wishes to purify the buddha land should purify their mind; according as their mind is pure, the buddha land is pure.' Purifying one's mind means being free from existence and non-existence.

5.22

Seventh: the commentary first marks the chapter section.

5.23

The intention behind the arising of the doubt has already been set forth in the previous chapter.

5.24

Question: "How does this differ from the third?"

5.25

Answer: "The former was the transformation [body], while this is the reward [body]; hence they are not the same. Because they previously heard that the nirmana body is not real and thus has no grasping, they then said that the sambhogakāya is real and should have a mind of grasping. Therefore this doubt arises following upon that third [section]."

5.26

Severing the doubt: the question and answer in the sūtra can be known. The sense of the interrogation is: for what reason is it called great? The sense of the explanation is: it is not a body with outflows and saṃskṛta, but a body without outflows and asaṃskṛta. If according to Asaṅga, it is entirely different from this; by and large, from beginning to end, all is explained based on the two truths. Now in this commentary, some follow Vasubandhu and some follow Asaṅga; this section tentatively follows Vasubandhu.

5.27

The commentary has two parts: first, a general explanation of the metaphorical purport.

5.28

"Towering and distant, etc.": this means that it rests below on the golden wheel, rises eighty thousand yojanas high, and has sixty thousand mountains as its retinue; thus it is called "great." Hence the Commentary on the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: "Sumeru traverses the ocean, towering above the multitude of peaks."

5.29

"Yet without grasping, etc.": although that mountain is great, it is formed of the four precious substances; among the five categories of dharmas it is subsumed under physical matter (rūpa), and within the three natures it is included under the indeterminate nature (avyākṛta). How could it possess conceptual discrimination (vikalpa) so as to grasp itself as king?

5.30

"The reward buddha, etc.": this directly clarifies the tenor of the metaphor. It means that through cultivating and advancing across many kalpas, merit and wisdom are completely fulfilled and luminous; being purely clean and undefiled, nothing further surpasses this, hence it is said to be "unsurpassed." Uniquely reigning over the dharmadhātu, he is therefore styled the Dharma King. "Great" has two meanings: first, in terms of essence, because his body and wisdom encompass all; second, in terms of rank, because none of the nobles can match him.

5.31

"Non-discriminating (nirvikalpa)": it is not like physical matter being of an indeterminate nature; rather, solely through three asaṃkhyeya kalpas of cultivation and practice, the myriad thoughts are completely forgotten, and knowing conforms to stillness; therefore it is non-discriminating.

5.32

"The verse states, etc.": concluding by means of the verse.

5.33

"No body, etc.": second, distinct explanation of "no body," in two parts:

5.34

First, citing the sūtra text and briefly pointing it out.

5.35

"Uncontaminated (anāsrava) and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta)": "uncontaminated" sets it apart from the mundane; "unconditioned" signifies that it is free from arising and ceasing.

5.36

Question: "Now in clarifying the reward body (saṃbhogakāya), it ought to be conditioned and uncontaminated. Why is it said here to be unconditioned?"

5.37

Answer: "This is based on the definitive teaching (nītārtha) and not on the provisional school; therefore it is unconditioned. Hence the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra states: 'The Buddha's body is unconditioned and does not fall into categories; the Buddha's body is uncontaminated, all contaminations being exhausted.'"

5.38

"Hence the verse states, etc.": second, citing the treatise to explain at length, in two parts:

5.39

First, citing the original verse.

5.40

This verse indicates distance from the conditioned and contaminated; its intention is to reveal solely the uncontaminated essence of dharma.

5.41

"The treatise states, etc.": second, citing the treatise text, in three parts. First, paired presentation.

5.42

"If it is like this": pointing to the sūtra to raise the question so as to present it.

5.43

"Because solely, etc.": second, paired explanation. The pure body is the dharmakāya. This explains the phrase "there being an entity," which corresponds in the sūtra to "this is called a great body."

5.44

Question: "This speaks of the reward body; why does it say 'dharmakāya'?"

5.45

Answer: "Because the dharmakāya and saṃbhogakāya are spoken of jointly, the two bodies being no different; because in this definitive teaching principle and wisdom are non-dual, it is permissible to say this."

5.46

"Because of being free from, etc.": this explains the phrase "there is no entity." This corresponds in the sūtra to "the Buddha explains as no body." Since the dharmakāya is unconditioned, it is free from conditioned arising and ceasing. Conditioned existence already being left behind, how much more so contamination! Therefore this explanatory text does not mention the contaminations (āsrava).

5.47

"Because of this, etc.": third, paired conclusion. It means that through this being free from and solely existing, it reveals the realization of the dharmakāya's true self: uncontaminated and unconditioned, neither arising nor ceasing, serenely pure, and therefore having real substance, it is called 'having an entity.' It is not like the imagined self of ordinary beings, which is contaminated and conditioned, immediately arising and immediately ceasing, like a dream or an illusion, devoid of real substance.

5.48

"Because it does not rely, etc.": concluding on 'having no entity.' This also re-clarifies the reason. Because it does not abide by relying on the conditioned conditions of the five aggregates, and solely suchness (tathatā) and the wisdom of suchness uniquely endure, there is a true self. One should know that ordinary beings all abide by relying on the conditioned conditions of the five aggregates; if the five aggregates are already provisional, how much more so the self they imagine! Conditioned dharmas are not oneself, hence it is said to 'rely on the other.'"

5.49

"Distinguishing the sand": the meaning of the sūtra is evident.

5.50

"Lake Anavatapta": in this Jambudvīpa, going north from the centre, there are nine Black Mountains, next there is the Great Snow Mountain (Himālaya), and next there is Mount Gandhamādana; north of the Snow Mountain and south of Gandhamādana is Lake Anavatapta. Here it translates as 'free from fever and distress.' It is fifty yojanas in length and breadth, filled with waters of the eight qualities. From within it, a great river emerges on each of the four sides: to the east is named the Gaṅgā River, which circles the lake once and flows into the eastern sea; to the south is the Sindhu River; to the west is the Vakṣu; to the north is the Sītā; all circle the lake once and enter respectively the southern, western, and northern seas. The 'Héng River' in the present sūtra is precisely the Gaṅgā; saying 'Héng' is an error of the translators.

5.51

"Forty li in circumference": this refers to the place where it first emerges from the mouth of the lake.

5.52

"The Buddha mostly, etc.": gives the reason for taking the metaphor. When speaking this sūtra, he was only in the Jetavana, but when speaking the Dharma at other times he was mostly near that [river], hence it is used as a metaphor.

5.53

"Manifesting the merit": the meaning of the sūtra is evident.

5.54

"The treatise states, etc.": raising the question. It means that after the three doubts and before the four fruitions, the metaphor of the gift of jewels has already been spoken; now speaking it again, is it not repetitive?

5.55

"The verse states, etc.": the explanation. It means that previously there was the gift of jewels of one three-thousandfold world system, while here it speaks of the gift of jewels of immeasurable three-thousandfold world systems; although both are numerous and both are superior comparisons, the latter is the most numerous among the numerous and the most superior among the superior, hence it is spoken again. Thus the verbal expression is repeated, but the doctrinal meaning is not repeated.

5.56

"Why, etc.": shifting the objection. The meaning is: why was this metaphor not spoken right in the preceding passage?

5.57

"In order to gradually, etc.": resolving in terms of persons. It means that the faculties are shallow while the Dharma is deep; if spoken suddenly, faith is difficult to inspire, so they are enticed gradually to make them aware of the superior virtues.

5.58

"Furthermore, previously, etc.": resolving in terms of dharmas. It means that before the metaphor, it had not yet been spoken that the four fruitions are without mind, Śākyamuni has no attainment, the adornment and purification of the buddha-lands is non-adornment as adornment, and the cultivation and realization of the buddha-body is non-realization as realization. Therefore, the metaphor of comparison could not yet be superior. Afterwards, having clarified these meanings, the principle of the Dharma is also deep; consequently, the metaphor of comparison is likewise extraordinary. Or it may be that the meaning of generating the Buddha's teachings is also after the previous metaphor. Moreover, the five passages of sūtra text in the subsequent explanation of the reason also pertain to this. Consider this.

5.59

"Revealing superiority": the meaning of the sūtra is evident.

5.60

"The general meaning is the same as before": namely, that merit does not tend toward bodhi, while the second can tend toward bodhi.

5.61

"Worthy of veneration": the sūtra is evident.

5.62

"The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, etc.": citing events as evidence. Śakra repeatedly preached the teaching of the prajñāpāramitā to the heavenly hosts in the Hall of the Good Dharma (Sudharmā). Sometimes when he was not present, whenever the devas arrived, they all paid homage and bowed respectfully toward the seat; because they esteemed the Dharma, they venerated the place.

5.63

"Therefore elevated and prominent": because of honoring the person, they cause the place to be elevated and prominent, so that those far and near may see it, show reverence, and generate merit.

5.64

"Form and appearance, etc.": inside a stūpa there is the form and appearance of the Buddha; when people see it, a reverent mind is bound to arise; seeing the place where the Dharma is preached is also like seeing the Buddha's form and appearance. In Sanskrit caitya translates here as 'numinous shrine', or as 'place worthy of offerings', which is largely the same as this.

5.65

"Attaining benefit": the meaning of the sūtra is: if the place where a four-line verse is proclaimed still receives the offerings of gods and humans, how much more so being able to uphold this entire sūtra text! As related in the sūtra.

5.66

"The previous four lines, etc.": according to the meaning of this sūtra, looking back at the preceding passage, there are two kinds of superiority and inferiority. What are they? The former spoke of the place, while this speaks of the person. The former clarified a four-line verse, while this clarifies upholding it entirely. Therefore the former is the most inferior among the inferior, while this is the most superior among the superior. Speaking by contrast, it therefore says 'how much more so.'"},Objectively speaking: "最上" is the dharmakāya, "第一" is the saṃbhogakāya, and "希有" is the nirmāṇakāya.

5.67

"Most supreme": the dharmakāya. Being uncontaminated and unconditioned, it surpasses all that is superior.

5.68

"Foremost": the saṃbhogakāya. Venerated among the assembly of nobles, nothing further surpasses it.

5.69

"Rare": the transformation body (nirmāṇakāya). This is because of the four kinds of matters spoken of previously. The intention is to clarify that upholding, reading, and reciting fully obtains the complete merit of the three bodies. Some say: being able to tend toward bodhi, it is called 'most supreme'; surpassing all vehicles, it is called 'foremost'; being incomparable in the world, it is called 'rare.'"},Objectively speaking: "有佛" is having the Buddha.

5.70

"There is a Buddha": the meaning of the sūtra is that wherever this sūtra text is present, in whatever location, there is a Buddha and his disciples.

5.71

"The sūtra reveals, etc.": clarifying the reason why there is a Buddha and his disciples. It means that the reward and transformation bodies must rely on the dharmakāya, and the dharmakāya is in turn revealed through the sūtra. Since there is the teaching that can reveal, there must be the Buddha who is revealed. Furthermore, the sūtra is the dharma of teaching, while the Buddha is the dharma of fruition; fruition is revealed through principle, and principle is attained through practice. Thus the three buddhas are fully provided and the four dharmas are completely fulfilled; how could one give rise to slighting or disparagement toward the place where it is located?

5.72

"Furthermore, all, etc.": clarifying the reason why there are disciples. The worthies and nobles of the three vehicles have the unconditioned as their essence; the sūtra reveals the unconditioned, and therefore there are worthies and nobles.

5.73

"Venerated": those who realize suchness are all noble ones who have entered the principle, and are therefore worthy of honor and veneration. According to the Wei translation of the sūtra, it merely says that having a Buddha causes people to venerate it, without mentioning that there are separately disciples. Hence that text says: 'There is immediately a Buddha, who is venerated like a Buddha.'"},Objectively speaking: "名勝" is superiority of the name.

5.74

"Superiority of the name": the intent of the sūtra's question is: I do not yet know what title this sūtra has? If it has no title, how are we to uphold it? The answering text is evident. The intent of raising the question is: the Tathāgata always preaches that the names and marks of all dharmas are empty; now why specifically establish this name? The explanatory meaning is: what I establish is that a name is immediately non-name; how could a nameless name contradict the meaning of emptiness? For the sake of upholding, a name is merely forcibly established within the nameless.

5.75

"The Buddha establishes, etc.": explains the cause for establishing the name. 'Cause' means what is relied upon. 'Vajra' has the meaning of being able to destroy; 'prajñā' has the function of contemplative illumination. Teaching and metaphor are both displayed, hence it is called Vajraprajñā. In fact, it is also established in terms of the meaning of being able to be adamantine; here it is provisionally explained with respect to function, fully as spoken in the title and in the seven categories of meaning.

5.76

"Superior because of severing defilements": sentient beings transmigrate because they meet with defilement and affliction; if they sever defilement and affliction, there is no doubt they will become buddhas—is this not superior!

5.77

"Antidote, etc.": revealing the meaning through the name; the meaning is real while the name is empty. If one clings to the empty name, how can one obtain the real meaning? Fearing there might be such grasping, it is therefore superior as an antidote against deviant preachings.

5.78

The intent of the sūtra's question is: do you suppose that apart from the Dharma realized, the Tathāgata has any other, different preaching? The intent of the answer is: apart from the Dharma realized, the Tathāgata has no other, different preaching. This passage follows from the preceding place of establishing the name; the meaning is that not only is this sūtra's name established such that the name is immediately non-name, but whatever is preached is completely like this. Moreover, it is not I alone who am thus; all buddhas are also like this.

5.79

"No difference, etc.": this means that what the single Buddha Śākyamuni preached in the beginning, middle, and end has ultimately no difference, increase, or decrease; however, this is solely based on reality being without discrepancy, not in terms of words having differences.

5.80

"Solely conforming, etc.": gives the reason. Whenever there is preaching, it is always in accordance with his realization; within realization there is no preaching, so how could there be any difference?

5.81

"The three periods of time, etc.": concluding by applying it generally to all buddhas. Because all buddhas share the same realization, there are ultimately not two sources; if one has not realized, that is that, but once realized, there is no difference. If one has not reached the ultimate stage and remains on the causal ground, whatever is preached has individual differences. Why is this? Because what is realized is not the same. Just as before the bhūmis, on the bhūmis, and across the ten bhūmis the gradations are different; for this reason, one who has attained the fruition definitely has no divergent preaching.

5.82

"Hence it says, etc.": establishing the above meaning. Since one buddha and many buddhas, past and future, all preach the same, each conforming to their realization, is not the preaching that accords with realization superior?

5.83

"Hence the treatise states, etc.": citing evidence. "Uniquely, etc.": preaching that prajñā can sever afflictions, there is not a single buddha who does not make this preaching; all others are like this.

5.84

"Paramārtha, etc.": because the truth-principle is free from the marks of words and free from the marks of names, it cannot be spoken. This proves the preceding point that since it conforms to what is realized, there is nothing spoken. Although the words of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu seem different, their meaning is really the same. Since it conforms to what is realized, how could it not be the paramārtha?

5.85

"Dust being superior": the text of the questions and answers is evident. The explanatory meaning is: what is called dust is not the dust of afflictions, but merely earth-dust. What is called a world is not the realm of defiled causes, but merely a realm of earth-dust. This follows from the preceding comparison. Because it was previously stated that a gift of jewels equal to the sands of the river does not equal upholding the sūtra, the confused who heard it could not yet genuinely believe. Therefore the Tathāgata specifically preached this meaning to make them clearly see superiority and inferiority and thereby cleanse their doubts. It is fully and clearly evident in the commentary text.

5.86

The commentary states: [...] This fully explains the meaning. The meaning is: if one reduces a world to dust motes, defilements do not arise upon dust motes; whereas through the gift of treasures one gains merit, [from which] there arise greed, anger, and self-indulgence in the five desires, leaving no evil uncommitted. Therefore, tradition says: "Giving is the enemy in the third life." Hence dust motes and worlds are superior to gifts of treasure. Furthermore, dust motes and worlds are superior merely by not giving rise to faults; how much more so is upholding this sūtra, which inevitably brings about the fruit of Buddhahood—how could it ever be considered inferior? Therefore, viewing them in mutual comparison, there are three tiers of superiority and inferiority: gifts of treasure are inferior to dust motes and worlds; dust motes and worlds are inferior to upholding the sūtra. Since upholding the sūtra is superior even to dust motes and worlds, how could it fail to surpass gifts of treasure? It is like commoners being inferior to the prime minister, and the prime minister being inferior to the emperor; since the emperor is superior even to the prime minister, how could he fail to surpass the commoners? In the metaphor, the emperor is the most supreme; in the Dharma, upholding the sūtra is the most supreme. Is not the reason for the sūtra's superiority entirely evident?

5.87

[The commentary] states, "Great cloud..." This merely matches the sūtra text to distinguish the Dharma from the metaphor, containing no other distinct meaning.

5.88

As for its meaning: fine dust motes are called "dust", and greed and the like are also called "dust", because both share the meaning of defilement. The trichiliocosm is called a "realm", and the cause of defilement is also called a "realm", because both share the meaning of being a cause. It can also be that the trichiliocosm is the realm of the vessel (the physical world), whereas defilements constitute the realm of sentient beings. Here it singles out and excludes the dust of greed and the like, as well as the realm of defiled causes; it refers only to the dust of the earth and the trichiliocosm realm. This concludes the explanation of the above meaning, entirely as previously stated.

5.89

The superiority of the fruit. The text of the question and answer in the sūtra is clear. The intent of the query is: on what basis is the Tathāgata of the Dharmakāya not to be taken as the thirty-two marks? The intent of the explanation is: the thirty-two marks spoken of by the Tathāgata are not the asaṃskṛta marks of the Dharmakāya, but merely the saṃskṛta marks of the Nirmāṇakāya.

5.90

[The commentary] states, "Fearing that giving..." This recounts the intention behind the arising of the sūtra text. Fearing that their thought would be: "If giving is done without seeking the Buddha, defilements will arise; but if it is originally done to seek the Buddha, how could there be defilements?" What they seek is precisely the body with the thirty-two marks; in order to shatter this view, [the Buddha] questions it again.

5.91

[The commentary] states, "Upholding and explaining..." This provisionally marks the superiority and inferiority. That is to say, the gift of treasures merely attains physical form, whereas upholding the sūtra attains bodhi; hence it says that it surpasses that merit.

5.92

"Why is this?": the intent of the query is: having attained the thirty-two marks, why does one not attain bodhi?

5.93

[The commentary] states, "Those marks..." This is the explanation. The Dharmakāya of principle is the mark of bodhi; those thirty-two marks are not the mark of bodhi. The reason for this is that bodhi is markless; because the Dharmakāya is precisely the mark of bodhi, that which is not the mark of bodhi is empty. Furthermore, between them, the Dharmakāya is superior, and the form-body is inferior. Why is this? Because the Dharmakāya is the unconditioned true nature, while the form-body is the conditioned reflection-mark. Moreover, because the cause of upholding and explaining is superior, in the fruit one obtains the Dharmakāya; because the cause of the gift of treasures is inferior, in the fruit one obtains the form-body. Therefore, it was initially marked above: upholding and explaining this sūtra surpasses that merit.

5.94

[The commentary] states, "The merit of the sūtra..." This turns to ward off mistaken interpretations. It was feared that those who give treasures, hearing what was said above, would say: "Although I know the form-body is inferior to the Dharmakāya, and the gift of treasures is not equal to upholding and explaining, since I am unable to uphold and explain, I do not want the Dharmakāya; I will constantly use the gift of treasures to accomplish the form-body, and once the marks and signs are complete, is that not wondrous?" To ward off this view, this was said. That is, previously causes and fruits were distinguished provisionally according to a particular meaning, so it was said that giving induces the body of marks. But if discussed according to the true meaning, empty giving does not accomplish the fruit of the marks. Why? Because without wisdom, emotions arise in pursuit of marks; though what is given is abundant, it only brings about the contaminated. Even if one attains the thirty-two marks, one is merely a wheel-turning king; although the physical marks are identical, one is not called a Buddha. If one can uphold and explain this sūtra, then wisdom will arise completely; practicing giving reliant on wisdom, one abides neither in existence nor in emptiness, and with an uncontaminated cause one obtains an uncontaminated fruit—only with thirty-two marks like these can one finally be called a Buddha.

5.95

[The commentary] states, "The intent clarifies..." This concludes the explanation of the above meaning, not going beyond what was previously stated.

5.96

Comparative assessment. The meaning of the sūtra is clear from the text. The words "very much" simply reveal that it surpasses the merit of sacrificing one's life.

5.97

"Renouncing the body..." means: it was feared that upon hearing that the gift of treasures does not equal upholding [the sūtra], people would say that because treasures are wealth external to the body, they are inferior to the merit of the sūtra, but if one gives one's body and life, it must surely surpass upholding [the sūtra]. To shatter this view, there is this passage. If [renouncing bodies equal to] sands [of the Ganges] is still inferior, how much more so a single body?

5.98

Weeping and praising. The meaning of the sūtra is: when Subhūti heard what was said above, his extreme joy turned to sorrow and his tears flowed continuously, as he disclosed his inner feelings: having been an arhat for a long time, though his wisdom-eye had opened, he had never before heard such a teaching.

5.99

[The commentary] states, "Renouncing the body..." This explains the reasons for weeping. There are three meanings: First, grieving that those who renounce their bodies do so in vain. The meaning is: sacrificing lives [equal to] the sands of the river is inferior to upholding and explaining; failing to grasp the profound principle, they toil without merit. Second, lamenting that in past kalpas he did not encounter it. The meaning is: not hearing it while an ordinary person was fitting for his status, but even after ascending to the noble fruit he still had not heard it. Third, rejoicing that he now gets to hear it, his extreme joy turning into sorrow. Hearing the profound Dharma for the first time was beyond Subhūti's original expectation; his tears flowed copiously to express his supreme joy. Here in this commentary, it provisionally clarifies the first of these.

5.100

The commentary states: [...] This adduces the proof. Regarding "the wisdom-eye" and so forth: Subhūti, blending his traces and lodging his rank in the Small Vehicle, ever since directly realizing the emptiness of persons, had never heard the principle of the emptiness of phenomena, because the emptiness of phenomena is the sphere realized by the Great Vehicle.

5.101

However, using this as the reason for the sūtra's superiority has two levels of meaning: First, if the teaching were crude and shallow, hearing it would be ordinary; since it induced weeping, one knows it to be profound and wondrous. Second, an ordinary person's weeping would not be sufficient to be extraordinary; when Subhūti grieves, one should know [the teaching] to be supreme. Is not the reason for its superiority clear?

5.102

Directly clarifying. The intent of the sūtra is: if someone hears this and is able to produce faith, once this faith arises, they do not believe in phenomena, hence it is called "pure". Since all phenomena are eliminated, dharmatā arises, and the merits of the three bodies are from this point fully complete; is it not superior?

5.103

"The foremost..." is as clarified above. The sūtra text retains brevity, so it marks two. Here it is the prajñā teaching; the other refers to the teachings of the two vehicles, humans, and devas prior to the preaching of prajñā.

5.104

What is called "dharmatā" is the mark of marklessness; that is, the absence of the marks of self and phenomena. In short, being free from all marks is called dharmatā. Therefore the lower text states: "Being free from all marks is called all Buddhas."

5.105

Regarding "not possessed by other teachings": in the teachings for humans and devas, both attachments are fully present; within the Small Vehicle teachings, the marks of phenomena still remain. One cannot take the marks of the two attachments to be dharmatā; hence it says the others are not dharmatā. "Not" is equivalent to "lacking".

5.106

Regarding "this has": it means suddenly eliminating the two attachments and doubly revealing the two emptinesses; the illness of emptiness is also emptied, both extremes are abandoned, and the Middle Way is thereby revealed—this is called dharmatā. Hence it says that this [teaching] has it.

5.107

Question: "The principle of dharmatā is merely what the teaching signifies; how does faith give rise to dharmatā?"

5.108

Answer: "Being able to believe in this sūtra definitely entails freedom from the two attachments; where there are no two attachments, that is precisely dharmatā. It does not mean that there is a separate dharmatā that arises."

5.109

The trace of the Buddha. The intent of the sūtra is: this dharmatā, its essence pertains to paramārtha and is solely markless, while its name relies on conventional truth; hence it is called dharmatā.

5.110

"In order to be free..." means: it was feared that hearing the name of dharmatā, one would form a conception of dharmatā. Conception is conceptualization (vikalpa). Because dharmatā is truly wondrous, beyond words and thoughts, although words and thoughts are used provisionally, it corresponds only to direct realization. If one generates [a concept] within the mind, it is merely an image; fearing that one would mistake this for it, it says "is not."

5.111

Faith and understanding. The intent of the sūtra is: "As an arhat receiving the Buddha's words directly, it is not difficult for me to believe, understand, and uphold them. If in future ages, in a defiled and evil world, far removed from the Sage, [beings] do not hear the Buddha's personal preaching, yet read this bequeathed teaching, believe and understand the emptiness of phenomena, accept, uphold, and put it into practice according to that understanding—are not those of such a sort difficult to find?"

5.112

"The future..." means: Asaṅga appeared in the world during the True Dharma; thus he cited the superior persons of future ages to admonish the inferior ones of his own time, so that we know that base persons and noble gentlemen exist in every era. This points to those who keep the precepts and cultivate merit in the latter five hundred years, spoken of in the second doubt.

5.113

The three emptinesses. The intent of the sūtra's query is: supposing there are those who can believe, understand, and uphold it, on what basis are they considered rare? The intent of the explanation is: because they are free from the marks of a self and so forth; this is the emptiness of self.

5.114

The intent of the query is: what does it mean to cause them to be free from the marks of a self and so forth? The intent of the explanation is: because the marks of a self and so forth are non-marks; the essence of the mark of a self is mind and mental factors, and since this essence is absent, this is the emptiness of phenomena.

5.115

Again, the intent of the query is: on what basis are they made free from the marks of self and phenomena? The latter intent of the explanation is: because being free from all marks is called a Buddha; though marks are many, they do not exceed self and phenomena. Here they are gathered comprehensively, hence it says "all"; this means that when all marks are abandoned, both are empty. The principle of both being empty is called a Buddha; since the Buddha is accomplished from this, it is called superior. The meaning of the two graspings of person and phenomena is evident.

5.116

"Manifesting..." means: the two emptinesses of person and phenomena are the share of bodhisattvas; only when free from all marks is one a Tathāgata.

5.117

"Now manifesting this meaning" is to cause all bodhisattvas through skillful means to conform, learn, and practice it, seeing the worthy and emulating them to swiftly accomplish Buddhahood; hence it says "all Buddha World-Honoured Ones... learn in this way."

5.118

Seal of confirmation. The intent of the sūtra is clear from the text. From "At that time Subhūti, having heard this sūtra..." up to "being free from all marks is called all Buddhas", all are the words of Subhūti, within which there are successively six tiers: namely, hearing the Dharma and weeping, faith giving rise to dharmatā, contrasting to reveal difficulty and ease, clarifying the absence of self and person, the cessation of grasping at phenomena as well, and all accomplishing Buddhahood. What has been spoken like this are all true and sincere words, so the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, sealed them, saying: "So it is."

5.119

The repetition of the words expresses that the statement is fitting in the highest degree.

5.120

Unmoving. The intent of the sūtra is: this sūtra is profound and wondrous, difficult to understand and difficult to know; if some people hear it, they mostly give rise to alarm and fear; if they can avoid giving rise to alarm and fear, is that not rare? Such a person is truly rare because of the sūtra's superiority; the meaning of the sūtra's superiority is clearly evident.

5.121

"Alarm and fear": these three mental activities differ. "Alarm" (jing) means being startled and bewildered; "terror" (bu) means flustered wavering between advancing and retreating; "fear" (wei) means sheer dread. It is like someone wishing to go to the capital and traveling on a main highway: having never experienced it before, they are suddenly alarmed, thinking to themselves: "Why have I come here?" Either advancing or retreating, doubting right and doubting wrong, they ultimately have no resolute mind, thinking this road was never correct from the start; or they turn back and do not advance, or in terrifying madness they fall into a gorge or cast themselves over a cliff, failing to complete their natural lifespan. It is also like this in the Dharma: because the Buddha taught emptiness and taught existence in the teachings for humans, devas, and the Small Vehicle, those who do not grasp the intention cling to the words. When this sūtra is spoken, it reveals the principle of the Middle Way that is neither empty nor existent; those who clung to earlier teachings are all alarmed and afraid, regarding it as wrong instead and unable to advance, either falling among ordinary people or sinking into the Small Vehicle, permanently losing the true emptiness of bodhi. The present intent of the sūtra is: if someone hears this difficult-to-believe Dharma of neither existence nor emptiness and does not give rise to an alarmed and fearful mind, they can avoid abandoning bodhi and advance toward the Great Way. Its purport is profound and wondrous, and few are such persons; if there are any, they are rare indeed.

5.122

The great cause. The intent of the sūtra's query is: on what basis is hearing without alarm and so forth considered rare? The intent of the explanation is: because this Dharma-door is the foremost pāramitā among all pāramitās. Yet this pāramitā, if considered according to paramārtha, cannot be spoken of, hence it says "is not the foremost" and so forth. What is currently spoken is said according to conventional truth; is not the meaning of its superiority precisely so? Hence it says "is called..." and so forth.

5.123

The second [section], below "All...": Because both preceding comparative assessments stated that the sūtra is superior, and in explaining the reason for this superiority nine headings were already set out, each conveying a distinct point—yet one does not yet know fundamentally why it is called superior. This, then, queries further within the reason for its superiority into the reason for its superiority.

5.124

"Great cause" refers to the sixth, prajñāpāramitā. Because the Buddha possesses three bodies, and the Dharma body is the greatest, and because this [pāramitā] can attain it, it is termed the "great cause"; and as it is the most supreme among the six, it is called the "foremost".

5.125

"Superior to the rest": This means that the teachings of humans, devas, and the two vehicles do not signify this teaching, whereas this [sūtra] now signifies it. In their case, because the signified is inferior, the signifier is also inferior; here, because the signified is superior, the signifier is also superior.

5.126

"Pure...", etc.: With teachings that accord with characteristics, formulations in speech are necessarily divergent; but with the principle that is free from characteristics, when expounded it is without discrepancy, because it is of uniform, single flavour. Uniform, single flavour is precisely the ultimate truth; and because it is the ultimate, it is pure.

5.127

"Therefore that...", etc.: Comprehensively explains the intention of the overall query. Dāna is giving, which extends to both internal and external wealth; hence it says "etc."

5.128

"Lacking such merit and virtue": This means that in the causal stage there is no efficacy in shattering delusions, and in the fruition stage there is no virtue of the Dharma body. Hence "this blessing" refers to upholding, reading, and reciting. Although every preceding heading demonstrated the superiority of the sūtra, the fundamental basis of that superiority does not exceed this heading—namely, being able to accomplish the pure Dharma body. For this reason it is called superior; how could giving external and internal wealth ever compare?

5.129

The eighth [section]: The commentary first states the heading. "Previously stated...", etc., points to the origin of the doubt. This arises from the previous comparative assessment of internal wealth: although giving one's life as many times as the sands of the Ganges entirely surpasses external wealth, it still results in a body of suffering and is therefore termed inferior.

5.130

"If so": Confirms the previous statement.

5.131

"Relying on this...", etc., formulates the doubt. It means that relying on this sūtra to uphold and explain it without shunning toil and suffering is precisely the bodhisattva's practice. In the bodhisattva's practice there is nothing they will not do: gouging one's flesh to burn lamps, slicing one's thigh to rescue a dove, leaping into fire for a single line, giving up one's life for half a verse, burning one's body to make offerings to the Buddha, and renouncing one's form to feed a tiger. Practices such as these are all termed causes of suffering. Since their practice is quite the same, how could their fruition and realization differ? When cause and fruition are both equal, what superiority or inferiority could there be?

5.132

"Why...", etc.: The intention is to clarify: if previously relinquishing one's body and life resulted in a fruition of suffering, and now upholding the sūtra is likewise an ascetic practice, why does it not result in a fruition of suffering?

5.133

The essence of forbearance: The sūtra's meaning is that within the ultimate truth there are no such characteristics of the pāramitā of forbearance; hence it says "is not forbearance", etc.

5.134

The intention in resolving the doubt: If, as you say, upholding this sūtra and a bodhisattva's engagement in ascetic practice were the same as relinquishing the body and both resulted in a fruition of suffering, this would not be correct. Because previously relinquishing the body did not comprehend signlessness, it resulted in a fruition of suffering; but by upholding and expounding this teaching, a bodhisattva's ascetic practice comprehends the absence of self and person, knows that forbearance is non-forbearance and that the other shore is not a shore, directly reaching the fundamental source—how could it result in a fruition of suffering? Therefore it says: "forbearance is not forbearance", etc.

5.135

"Forbearance reaching...", etc.: Since this takes transcending forbearance as its essence, one must understand the five levels of the fundamental and derivative; only then, upon opening the commentary, will one clearly see its principle. The five levels are: 1. The mind of the fundamental source, neither active nor quiescent. 2. Non-forbearance, which means repaying resentment with resentment. 3. Forbearance where, although one does not retaliate, one is not yet able to let go of the thought—this is forbearance that has not yet reached the other shore. 4. Forgetting emotional attachments and cutting off discursive thoughts, remaining still and unmoving—this is forbearance that has reached the other shore. 5. Neither active nor quiescent—this is forbearance transcending the other shore. To remedy an active mind, one provisionally abides in a quiescent state; yet since the active is not real, how could the quiescent be true? Only when measured against the five approaches is it ultimate; with the first [approach] there are not two different sources, and its essence and characteristics remain eternally so without any alteration. Now, the term "pāramitā of forbearance" refers to the fourth approach, while "is not the pāramitā of forbearance" refers to the fifth approach.

5.136

Being free from the characteristics of suffering already transcends the third [level], where the other shore is not a shore, and moreover surpasses the fourth; since it even goes beyond the quiescent state, how could there be an active mind? The initial and concluding ends directly correspond to the essence of forbearance.

5.137

Directly elucidating: The query in the sūtra implies: by what principle can one practice such forbearance? The explanation implies: because of the absence of the characteristics of a self, a person, and so on. Regarding King Kali and the rest, according to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: "I recall that in the past, I was born in South India in the city of Pota into a brāhmaṇa family. At that time there was a king named Kali, whose nature was violent, cruel, arrogant, and self-indulgent. At that time, for the sake of sentient beings, I was outside that city engaged in tranquil dhyāna-contemplation. Then that king, during the blooming of spring trees and flowers, went out of the city to sightsee with his retinue, palace attendants, and court maidens, indulging in the five desires beneath the forest trees to amuse himself. The maidens, wandering away from the king at play, arrived at my place. Desiring to sever their craving, I expounded the Dharma for them. When the king saw me, an evil thought arose in him, and he asked me, saying: 'Have you now attained the fruit of an arhat?' I said: 'I have not.' He said again: 'Have you attained the fruit of a non-returner (anāgāmin)?' I said: 'I have not.' He said again: 'Since you are young and have not attained these two fruits, you are fully possessed of the afflictions of craving and desire; how can you look at my women with abandon?' I then replied, saying: 'Great King, you should know that although I have not yet severed the fetters of craving and desire, internally my mind is truly without lustful attachment.' The king said: 'Foolish man! In the world there are ṛṣis who feed on air and eat fruits, yet seeing forms they still feel craving; how much more so for you in the prime of youth who have not severed craving and desire—how could you see forms and not be attached?' I said: 'Great King! Seeing forms without craving truly does not depend on feeding on air or eating fruits; it is entirely due to fixing mindfulness on impermanence and impurity.' The king said: 'If one disparages others and generates slander, how can one be called a keeper of pure precepts?' I said: 'Great King! If one has a jealous mind, that is slander; I have no jealous mind, so how can you call it slander?' The king said: 'Great Being! What is called a precept?' I said: 'Forbearance is called a precept.' The king said: 'If forbearance is a precept, I shall cut off your ears; if you can endure it, I will know you keep precepts.' He then cut off my ears. When I was mutilated, my expression did not change. When the king's ministers saw this, they admonished the king, saying: 'One should not harm such a great being.' The king said to the ministers: 'How do you know he is a great being?' The ministers said: 'Seeing that when he undergoes suffering, his expression does not change.' The king again said: 'I shall test him further to see whether it changes or not!' He then cut off his nose and severed his hands and feet. At that time, the bodhisattva had already cultivated loving-kindness and compassion over immeasurable and boundless lifetimes, pitying suffering sentient beings. At that moment, the Four Heavenly Kings harboured rage and rained down sand, gravel, and stones. Seeing this, the king was terrified; he came again to where I was, knelt down, and said: 'I only beg you to have pity and allow me to repent.' I said: 'Great King! My mind is without anger, just as it is without craving.' The king said: 'Venerable one! How can this be known?' I then made a vow: 'If I am truly free of anger and resentment, let this body of mine be restored as before.' Having made this vow, my body was immediately restored." When the present commentary mentions asking about attaining the four fruits, it is speaking generally.

First 137 of 311 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

金剛經纂要刊定記 — Classical Chinese