金剛般若波羅蜜經略疏 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

2.1

Composed by Śramaṇa Zhiyan of Zhixiang Monastery under the Tang

Regarding the second major section, revealing the three kinds of prajñā in terms of their marks of practice. Question: What is the difference between the teaching on practice explained below and the previous teaching on practice? Answer: The previous text was spoken in terms of seeing and hearing onwards, whereas this is spoken in terms of realizing contemplation onwards. In the text there are broadly three parts: first, stating four doubts and inquiring into the essence and marks of the three kinds of prajñā; second, from "The Buddha told Subhūti: 'When a bodhisattva sets forth..." onward, answering extensively to reveal the marks; third, from "Subhūti, setting forth anuttarā..." onward, confirming the preceding meaning.

2.3

At that time, Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, how should a bodhisattva who sets their mind on anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi give rise to the mind? How should they abide? How should they practice? How should they subdue their mind?"

2.4

Question: Why must it be explained in terms of practice? Answer: Although practitioners have clarity regarding hearing and thinking, they are confused about not progressing or not setting forth in practice; hence it must be explained again. In the second passage, answering extensively to reveal the marks, there are broadly two parts: first, explaining the essence and marks of the three kinds of prajñā in terms of practice; second, from "The Buddha said: 'Subhūti, the Tathāgata attaining anuttarā bodhi..." onward, explaining the remaining doubts in terms of practice. In the first part, there are broadly five sections: first, explaining the three kinds of prajñā in terms of the realm of sentient beings; second, from "Subhūti, what do you think? Did the Tathāgata at the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha..." onward, citing past practices as proof; third, from "Subhūti, if someone says..." onward, distinguishing the true and false in practice; fourth, from "Subhūti, just like a person..." onward, revealing the measure of practice; fifth, from "Subhūti, if a bodhisattva says: 'I shall adorn the Buddha lands'..." onward, integrating the marks into the real. Now, the reason for extensively clarifying the three kinds of practice with respect to practice is that previously one generated the understanding: 'I can practice the three kinds of practice like this,' which does not escape noisy, confused conceptualization; in order to eliminate this delusion, one must distinguish the three in terms of practice.

2.5

The Buddha told Subhūti: "A bodhisattva who sets their mind on anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi should give rise to a mind like this: 'I must deliver all sentient beings to nirvāṇa, causing them to enter the realm of nirvāṇa without remainder.' Having delivered all sentient beings in this manner, there is not a single sentient being who is truly delivered. Why is this? Subhūti, if a bodhisattva has a notion of a sentient being, a notion of a person, or a notion of a life-span, then they are not a bodhisattva. Why is this? Subhūti, in reality there is no dharma named 'one who sets their mind on anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi.'"

2.6

Regarding the first gate, the essence and marks of practice, there are five parts: first, generally distinguishing the arising of the bodhicitta; second, from "I must deliver..." onward, clarifying that toward which the mind is directed; third, from "having delivered in this manner..." onward, revealing its true mark; fourth, from "Why is this?..." onward, questions and answers revealing the fault; fifth, from "Why is this?..." onward, presenting reality to conclude. Question: Within this text, the three practices and the generation of the mind are analyzed; why are they explained together in one place rather than separately distinguished? Answer: The former was the Dharma of understanding, which had to be discussed separately; now in the gate of practice, one cannot make distinctions. Because sentient beings are non-existent and not different from the Buddha, understanding this Dharma is called the bodhicitta; because of knowing that sentient beings are non-existent and that the self is empty, it is called 'abiding in this manner'; accomplishing the realization of non-conceptual wisdom is called 'practicing according to reality'; and afflictions being originally non-existent is called 'subduing one's mind.'"

2.7

"Subhūti, what do you think? Did the Tathāgata attain anuttarasamyaksambodhi by means of any dharma in the presence of Dīpaṅkara Buddha?" Subhūti said to the Buddha, "No, World-Honored One. As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has said, the Buddha had no dharma by which he attained anuttarasamyaksambodhi in the presence of Dīpaṅkara Buddha." The Buddha said, "So it is, so it is. Subhūti, there was truly no dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarasamyaksambodhi in the presence of Dīpaṅkara Buddha. Subhūti, if there had been a dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarasamyaksambodhi, Dīpaṅkara Buddha would not have bestowed the prediction upon me: 'In a future age you will become a Buddha named Śākyamuni.' Because there was truly no dharma by which anuttarasamyaksambodhi was attained, Dīpaṅkara Buddha bestowed the prediction upon me, saying: 'Māṇava, in a future age you will become a Buddha named Śākyamuni.' Why is this? Subhūti, what is called the 'Tathāgata' is the reality of tathatā."

2.8

Within the second part, adducing past events as proof, there are broadly six sections: first, examining and determining whether it is so or not; second, from 'Subhūti said to the Buddha' downward, there are two clauses answering and revealing the true mark; third, from 'The Buddha said, "So it is"' downward, confirming the correct principle; fourth, from 'Subhūti, if there had been a dharma' downward, inversely establishing the fault; fifth, from 'Because there was truly no dharma' downward, using principle to establish the event, which has two clauses; sixth, from 'Why is this?' downward, question and answer, revealing the characteristic of practice with respect to the Buddha, and also resolving the hidden doubt: 'If there is no bodhi, then there are no Buddhas, no Tathāgatas.' In order to resolve this doubt, the text says: 'is the reality of tathatā.'

2.9

"Subhūti, if someone says, 'The Tathāgata attained anuttarasamyaksambodhi,' that person does not speak the truth. Subhūti, there is truly no dharma by which the Buddha attained anuttarasamyaksambodhi. Subhūti, as for the anuttarasamyaksambodhi attained by the Tathāgata, in it there is neither truth nor falsehood. Therefore the Tathāgata says that all dharmas are the Buddha-dharma. Subhūti, what are called 'all dharmas, all dharmas' are not all dharmas; therefore they are called all dharmas."

2.10

Within the third section, distinguishing the genuineness and falsity of practice, there are five clauses: first, clarifying that speech does not correspond to reality; second, adducing the meaning to verify the statement; third, from 'Subhūti, as for [the anuttarasamyaksambodhi] attained by the Tathāgata' downward, revealing the sameness and difference of dharmas: it is not like the marks of the conditioned five aggregates, hence the text says 'not truth'; it is free of marks such as form, which is the mark of bodhi, hence the text says 'not falsehood'; fourth, 'Therefore the Tathāgata says that all dharmas...', analogously establishing the correct principle; fifth, 'Subhūti, what are called all dharmas...', concluding the correct principle. The text says 'all dharmas' because it is the substance of tathatā; again, 'all dharmas' because it is the realization of the Tathāgata; 'are not all dharmas' because marks such as form do not abide. Therefore, what is called 'all dharmas' is that the non-dharmas of all dharmas are the dharmas of all dharmas.

2.11

Within the fourth part, revealing the measure of practice, there are broadly two sections: first, adducing an example to establish the measure; second, from 'The Buddha said, "Subhūti, a bodhisattva is also like this"' downward, concluding the vastness of the measure.

2.12

"Subhūti, suppose there were a person whose body was wondrous and great." Subhūti said, "World-Honored One, what the Tathāgata calls a person's body being wondrous and great is not a great body; therefore the Tathāgata calls it a great body." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, a bodhisattva is also like this. If they speak thus: 'I will liberate immeasurable sentient beings,' they are not a bodhisattva." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? Is there really a dharma called a bodhisattva?" Subhūti said, "No, World-Honored One. There is truly no dharma called a bodhisattva. Therefore the Buddha says that in all dharmas there is no sentient being, no person, and no one with a life-span."

2.13

The preceding text has three clauses, which can be understood. The reason for establishing the measure of the dharma is that the substance of their practice is free from the affliction obstacle and the cognitive obstacle, ultimately being replete with the dharmakāya. Here, 'wondrous and great' has two kinds: first, pervading all places; second, greatness of merit; therefore it is called a great body. 'Pervading all and great' means that tathatā has no distinctions in all dharmas. When the text says 'is not a great body', it is a body free of all marks; 'is called a great body' means it is the substance of tathatā. Within the second, concluding the great body, there are four points: first, concluding the meaning of 'great'; second, from 'The Buddha said' downward, examining and determining whether it is so or not; third, from 'World-Honored One' downward, revealing the correct principle; fourth, from 'Therefore the Buddha says' downward, citing the sacred teaching to conclude the correct principle.

2.14

Within the fifth part, converging marks into reality, there are broadly four sections: first, directly clarifying the convergence of the two marks of circumstantial and direct retribution; second, from 'The Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? The sands in the Ganges..."' downward, clarifying the measure of the virtues of practice; third, from '"Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by means of the replete physical body?"' downward, distinguishing practice being free from marks; fourth, from 'Then the venerable Subhūti said to the Buddha' downward, revealing the supremacy of practice. Within the first text, there are broadly two parts: first, converging the marks of circumstantial retribution into real practice; second, from '"Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the physical eye?"' downward, converging his direct retribution into the reality of practice.

2.15

"Subhūti, if a bodhisattva speaks thus: 'I adorn the Buddha-land,' they are not called a bodhisattva. Why is this? What the Tathāgata speaks of as adorning the Buddha-land, adorning the Buddha-land, is not adorning; it is called adorning the Buddha-land. Subhūti, if a bodhisattva thoroughly penetrates selflessness and the selflessness of dharmas, the Tathāgata calls them a real bodhisattva-bodhisattva."

2.16

Within the first text, there are broadly four points: first, generally revealing the fault; second, demanding the reason; third, answering to reveal what is right; fourth, adducing contemplation and thorough penetration to conclude the characteristics of practice. As for the text saying that 'adorning the Buddha-land' is 'not called a bodhisattva', the verse in the treatise says: 'Not understanding the true realm of reality, / Giving rise to the intention to deliver sentient beings, / And to purify lands: / Giving rise to [such] thoughts is indeed inversion.' Therefore they are not called a bodhisattva. Moreover, when the text says that 'adorning the Buddha-land' 'is not adorning', if a bodhisattva thoroughly penetrates the selflessness of dharmas, they give rise to confidence from their own wisdom. Thus, this confidence and wisdom together encompass the arising of conventional-truth bodhisattvas and the arising of supramundane bodhisattvas; therefore the sūtra text repeats 'bodhisattva-bodhisattva.'

2.17

"Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the physical eye?" Subhūti said, "So it is, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata has the physical eye." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the divine eye?" Subhūti said, "So it is, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata has the divine eye." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the wisdom eye?" Subhūti said, "So it is, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata has the wisdom eye." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the dharma eye?" Subhūti said, "So it is, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata has the dharma eye." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the Buddha eye?" Subhūti said, "So it is, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata has the Buddha eye."

2.18

Within the text converging direct retribution, the five eyes constitute five sections, and within each section there are two clauses, which can be understood. The reason for the arising of this teaching is: if a bodhisattva does not see, then they have no superior capacity; to answer this doubt, the text says the Tathāgata has the five eyes. Being able to discern all dharmas and seeing that those inverted marks are ultimately unconditioned, they are therefore called the five eyes.

2.19

The Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? Regarding the sand in the Ganges River, did the Buddha speak of it as sand?" Subhūti said, "So it is, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata spoke of it as sand." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? If there were as many Ganges Rivers as there are sands in one Ganges River, and there were Buddha worlds numbering as many as the sands in all those Ganges Rivers, would those worlds be many?" Subhūti said, "Those worlds would be very many, World-Honored One." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, all the various abidings of mind of the sentient beings in that many worlds, the Tathāgata fully knows. Why is this? The Tathāgata speaks of all abidings of mind as non-abidings of mind; therefore they are called abidings of mind. Why is this? Subhūti, past mind cannot be apprehended, present mind cannot be apprehended, and future mind cannot be apprehended. Subhūti, what do you think? If someone filled the great trichiliocosm with the seven treasures and gave them in charity, would that good man or good woman obtain much merit on account of this?" Subhūti said, "So it is, World-Honored One. This person would obtain very much merit on account of this." The Buddha said, "So it is, so it is. Subhūti, that good man or good woman would obtain a great heap of merit on account of this. Subhūti, if the heap of merit had real existence, the Tathāgata would not speak of a heap of merit, a heap of merit."

2.20

Regarding the second, the measure of the virtues of practice, there are five points in the text: first, question and answer determining the number of dharmas; second, from 'The Buddha said, "Subhūti"' downward, question and answer on the quantity of worlds; third, from 'The Buddha told Subhūti' downward, analogously establishing the scope of the number of minds, which has three clauses that can be understood; fourth, from 'Subhūti, what do you think?' downward, establishing practice in relation to the object, which has four clauses that can be understood; fifth, from 'Subhūti, if the heap of merit had real existence' downward, establishing the measure of practice. When the text says 'The Tathāgata speaks of all abidings of mind as non-abidings of mind,' this clause demonstrates detachment from the four applications of mindfulness. What does this mean? 'Abidings of mind' means abiding in those applications of mindfulness. Moreover, when the text says 'if the heap of merit had real existence, the Tathāgata would not speak [of it],' having a real heap of merit is contaminated and inverted, and therefore he does not speak [of it]. 'A heap of merit, a heap of merit' means that an uncontaminated heap of merit is the root of wisdom, and therefore it is a heap of merit.

2.21

"Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by means of the replete physical body?" Subhūti said, "No, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the replete physical body. Why is this? What the Tathāgata speaks of as the replete physical body is not the replete physical body; therefore the Tathāgata calls it the replete physical body." The Buddha said to Subhūti, "What do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of being replete with all marks?" Subhūti said, "No, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of being replete with all marks. Why is this? What the Tathāgata speaks of as being replete with all marks is not replete; therefore the Tathāgata calls it being replete with all marks." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, what do you think? Do you suppose that the Tathāgata has this thought: 'I should have a dharma to teach'? Subhūti, do not have this thought. Why is this? If someone says, 'The Tathāgata has a dharma to teach,' they slander the Buddha, because they cannot understand what I teach. Why is this? Subhūti, what the Tathāgata speaks of as teaching the Dharma, teaching the Dharma, has no dharma to teach; this is called teaching the Dharma."

2.22

Regarding the third [part], the text on the virtues of practice transcending marks, there are broadly three sections: first, four phrases explaining the transcendence of marks in terms of the physical form body, in which six phrases may be recognized; second, from 'The Buddha told Subhūti' downward, four phrases explaining the transcendence of marks in terms of mental karma's virtues; third, from 'The Buddha said: Subhūti, what do you think' downward, explaining the transcendence of marks in terms of vocal karma's exposition of the Dharma, wherein there are seven phrases. As for the text's statement, 'saying that the marks are complete is not being complete,' the completion of the physical form body is not the completion of the dharmakāya. Because the physical form body and the body of marks are not separate from the dharmakāya, the text states, 'is therefore called the completion of all marks.' Furthermore, regarding the text's statement 'speaking the Dharma, speaking the Dharma,' there are two kinds: first, the Dharma that is spoken; second, the meaning that is possessed; hence it says 'speaking the Dharma, speaking the Dharma.' Furthermore, regarding the text's statement, 'there is no Dharma that can be spoken, this is called speaking the Dharma,' speaking the Dharma is not separate from the dharmadhātu; speaking the Dharma has no self-mark; hence it says that having nothing spoken is speaking the Dharma.

2.23

At that time, the Venerable Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honored One, will there be any sentient beings in future ages who, upon hearing this Dharma being spoken, will give rise to faithful conviction?" The Buddha said: "Subhūti, they are neither sentient beings nor non-sentient beings. Why is this? Subhūti, sentient beings, sentient beings—the Tathāgata says are not sentient beings, therefore they are called sentient beings."

2.24

Regarding the fourth [part], the text showing the supremacy of the Dharma, there are broadly four [sections] to be recognized. Further, regarding the statement 'neither sentient beings nor non-sentient beings': if someone has faith in this sūtra, that person is not a sentient being, because they are not without a noble essence; they are 'not non-sentient beings' because they possess a noble essence. That person is not an ordinary sentient being, nor are they not a noble-essence sentient being. Furthermore, it says: 'Sentient beings, sentient beings—the Tathāgata says are not sentient beings, therefore they are called sentient beings.' When the Tathāgata says 'not sentient beings,' he means they are not ordinary sentient beings.

2.25

Regarding the second major section, resolving remaining doubts about practice, there are two parts: first, resolving remaining doubts; second, from 'Subhūti, what do you think? Do you suppose the Tathāgata...' downward, integrating marks into reality. In the first text, there are broadly two parts: first, directly resolving remaining doubts; second, from 'the great trichiliocosm' downward, comparative appraisal demonstrating supremacy.

2.26

The Buddha said: "Subhūti, what do you think? Has the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi?" Subhūti said: "No, World-Honored One! World-Honored One, there is no least dharma through which the Tathāgata has attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi." The Buddha said: "Just so, just so, Subhūti! I, with respect to anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, have not even the least dharma that can be attained, and this is called anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. Furthermore, Subhūti, this Dharma is equal without high or low; this is called anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. Because there is no sentient being, no person, and no one with a life-span, equal anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi is attained; through all wholesome dharmas, anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi is attained. Subhūti, as for the wholesome dharmas, wholesome dharmas spoken of, the Tathāgata says they are not wholesome dharmas, therefore they are called wholesome dharmas."

2.27

The first text has five parts: first, verifying whether it is permissible or not; second, from 'Subhūti' downward, the reply revealing and establishing the correct meaning, having two phrases; third, from 'The Buddha said' downward, the Tathāgata endorsing and establishing the correct meaning; fourth, from 'Furthermore, Subhūti' downward, displaying the characteristics of the correct meaning, wherein three passages constitute three meanings; fifth, from 'Subhūti, as for what are called wholesome dharmas' downward, rejecting the false and revealing the true. What does this mean? Because the dharmadhātu neither increases nor decreases, this Dharma is equal; hence there is no one who realizes and attains bodhi. As for the text's words 'wholesome dharmas, wholesome dharmas': the former 'wholesome dharmas' are wholesome dharmas with outflows, not pure wholesome dharmas without outflows; the latter 'wholesome dharmas' are wholesome dharmas without outflows, not wholesome dharmas with outflows; therefore they are called wholesome dharmas.

2.28

"Subhūti, if there were a person who took heaps of the seven jewels equal to all the Mount Sumeru kings in the great trichiliocosm and gave them in charity; and if a person takes even as little as a four-line gāthā of this Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, accepts, upholds, reads, recites, and explains it for others, then compared to the former merit, it does not reach one-hundredth part, does not reach one-thousandth part, does not reach one-hundred-thousand-myriadth part, does not reach one kalā part, does not reach one count part, does not reach one upaniṣad part, even unto being beyond the reach of calculation and analogy."

2.29

Regarding the second [part], the text of comparative appraisal, there are broadly three sections. As for why this teaching arose: doubters say, 'If all wholesome dharmas attain bodhi, then the Dharma that is spoken cannot achieve Buddhahood, because it is an indeterminate (avyākṛta) dharma.' To sever this doubt, this teaching has now arisen. Although the Dharma that is spoken is indeterminate, it is nonetheless capable of achieving Buddhahood, because being separate from the Dharma that is spoken, one cannot attain Buddhahood. Furthermore, this language of 'indeterminate' accords with the Hīnayāna exposition; now, in this Mahāyāna, it is wholesome and not indeterminate. Speaking generally of the superiority in comparative appraisal, there are four kinds: first, superiority in number; second, superiority in power; third, superiority in dissimilarity; fourth, superiority in cause. 'Superiority in number' is as in the text's 'does not reach one-hundred-thousandth part,' etc. 'Superiority in power' is as in the sūtra's 'does not reach a kalā part.' 'Superiority in dissimilarity' means that in this merit, the numbers are not alike. 'Superiority in cause' means cause and effect are not alike, as in the sūtra's 'even unto not reaching an upaniṣad part.'

2.30

Regarding the second major section, the approach of integrating marks into reality, there are broadly four parts: first, integrating the three marks so as to follow reality; second, from 'Subhūti, if a good man or good woman' downward, comparatively appraising its virtue; third, from 'Subhūti, if there is a person' downward, revealing the depth of the substance of practice; fourth, from 'Subhūti, if a good man or good woman' downward, revealing the measure of the virtues of practice. The reason this teaching arose is that doubters say: they believe the understanding of marks in practicing contemplation is external and does not enter into the principle of practice. In the first [part], integrating the three marks, there are broadly three sections: first, in terms of the mark of liberating sentient beings, integrating it to follow the principle of practice; second, from 'Subhūti, what do you think? Can [the Tathāgata] be seen by the perfection of marks' downward, in terms of his bodily marks, integrating it to follow the substance of practice; third, from 'Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata...' downward, in terms of the mark of cause fulfilling effect, integrating it to follow the principle of practice.

2.31

"Subhūti, what do you think? Do you suppose the Tathāgata forms this thought: 'I liberate sentient beings'? Subhūti, do not form this thought. Why is this? In reality there are no sentient beings whom the Tathāgata liberates." The Buddha said: "Subhūti, if there were real sentient beings whom the Tathāgata liberates, the Tathāgata would possess the notions of a self, a person, a sentient being, and a life-span. Subhūti, what the Tathāgata speaks of as having a self is not having a self, yet childish ordinary beings take it to be having a self. Subhūti, childish ordinary beings the Tathāgata speaks of as non-beings; therefore they are called childish ordinary beings."

2.32

In the first text, there are broadly five sections: first, four phrases revealing and establishing the real meaning; second, from 'The Buddha said: Subhūti' downward, revealing the fault through the inverse; third, from 'Subhūti, what the Tathāgata speaks of' downward, integrating with his noble intention; fourth, from 'yet childish...' downward, clarifying that delusion does not recognize truth; fifth, from 'Subhūti, childish...' downward, clarifying the integration and endorsement following correctness. Therefore the treatise gāthā says: 'In the equal, true dharmadhātu, / the Buddha does not liberate sentient beings; / because designations together with those aggregates / are not separate from the dharmadhātu.' Because conventional designations and the dharmadhātu are without distinction, the Tathāgata does not liberate a single sentient being; if he were to liberate sentient beings, that would be apprehending marks within the five aggregates. As for the text saying 'speaks of as non-beings,' because they do not give rise to noble dharmas, it therefore says 'non-beings.'

2.33

Regarding the second [part] of the major section, the text on integrating bodily marks, there are broadly two parts: first, the prose generally reveals it; second, from 'At that time the World-Honored One' downward, spoken gāthās specifically clarify it.

2.34

"Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen through the perfection of marks?" Subhūti said: "As I understand the meaning of what the Tathāgata has spoken, one cannot see the Tathāgata through the perfection of marks." The Buddha said: "Just so, just so, Subhūti, one cannot see the Tathāgata through the perfection of marks." The Buddha said: "Subhūti, if one were to view the Tathāgata through the perfection of marks, a wheel-turning sage king would be a Tathāgata; therefore, one cannot see the Tathāgata through the perfection of marks."

2.35

The first text has five parts: first, verifying whether it is permissible or not; second, from 'Subhūti' downward, the reply revealing the real meaning; third, from 'The Buddha said: Just so' downward, endorsing and establishing the correct meaning; fourth, from 'The Buddha said: Subhūti' downward, inversely establishing and showing the fault; fifth, from 'therefore, not through the marks...' downward, concluding in accordance [with the argument].

2.36

At that time, the World-Honored One spoke this gāthā: / "Whoever sees me by form, / seeks me by sound, / this person walks a deviant path / and cannot see the Tathāgata."

2.37

That marvelous substance of the Tathāgata is the dharmakāya of all Buddhas; / the substance of the Dharma cannot be seen, and that consciousness cannot know it.

2.38

The gāthā text has four [parts]: the first half-line cites the substance of the fault; the next half-line reveals the meaning of the fault; the next half-line cites the substance of the Dharma; the next half-line reveals the meaning of the Dharma's virtues. As for saying 'that consciousness cannot know it,' it refers to that consciousness of ordinary beings.

2.39

"Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata attain anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi through the perfection of marks? Subhūti, do not form this thought: 'The Tathāgata attains anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi through the perfection of marks.' Subhūti, if you form this thought: 'A bodhisattva who gives rise to the mind of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi speaks of the mark of annihilation of all dharmas'—Subhūti, do not form this thought: 'A bodhisattva who gives rise to the mind of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi speaks of the mark of annihilation of all dharmas.' Why is this? Because a bodhisattva-mahāsattva who gives rise to the mind of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi does not speak of the mark of annihilation regarding dharmas."

2.40

Regarding the third [part], integrating the mark of cause fulfilling effect, in the text there are five: first, verifying whether it is permissible or not; second, from 'Subhūti, do not form this thought' downward, checking the view of the mark of the maturation of bodhi; third, from 'Subhūti, if you form this thought' downward, establishing the faulty mark of the mind that can generate it; fourth, from 'Subhūti, do not form this thought' downward, reproving that putative notion; fifth, from 'Why is this' downward, question and answer revealing virtue. Doubters from outside say: 'If the bodhi mind does not produce the fruit, that means one does not attain true bodhi relying on merit.' To eliminate this doubt, the sūtra therefore says: 'A bodhisattva who gives rise to the bodhi mind does not speak of the mark of annihilation regarding dharmas,' because they are capable of accomplishing the adornment of wisdom and the adornment of merit.

2.41

"Subhūti, if a good man or good woman were to take the seven jewels filling as many worlds as the sands of the Ganges and give them in charity; and if there is a bodhisattva who knows that all dharmas are selfless and attains the endurance of the non-arising of dharmas, this merit surpasses the former acquired merit. Subhūti, this is because bodhisattvas do not grasp merit." Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honored One, do bodhisattvas not grasp merit?" The Buddha said: "Subhūti, bodhisattvas receive merit, but do not grasp merit; therefore, bodhisattvas take merit."

2.42

Regarding the second [part], within comparatively appraising its virtue, there are broadly five sections: first, presenting the dharmas capable of being comparatively appraised; second, from 'if there is a bodhisattva' downward, revealing superiority through comparative appraisal; third, from 'Subhūti' downward, revealing the virtue of being free from grasping; fourth, from 'Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying' downward, endorsing and establishing the preceding meaning; fifth, from 'The Buddha said: Subhūti' downward, revealing identity and difference in the Dharma and concluding to establish the correct meaning. As for the text's words 'attains the endurance of the non-arising of dharmas,' there are two kinds of selflessness; they do not give rise to the marks of the two kinds of selflessness. Therefore, when the text says 'receives but does not grasp': that [former] merit obtains an outcome with outflows, and therefore that merit is reproachable; this merit has no outcome with outflows, and therefore this merit is received but not grasped.

2.43

"Subhūti, if anyone were to say: 'The Tathāgata comes or goes, sits or lies down,' that person does not understand the meaning of what I have explained. Why is this? The Tathāgata has nowhere from which he comes, and nowhere to which he goes; therefore he is called the Tathāgata."

2.44

Regarding the third [part], revealing the depth of the essence of practice, there are three [sections] in the text, which may be understood: First, the response, reward, and transformation bodies have function, [whereas] those dharmakāya Buddhas neither come nor go; hence ordinary persons do not understand. Second, 'Why is this?' is an interrogation. Third, it reveals that the characteristic of the dharmakāya constantly abides thus, unchanging and not different, and is therefore profound. Thus the verse in the treatise says:
'The Buddhas of the transformation body come and go;
The Tathāgata is constantly unmoving.
In this realm of reality (dharmadhātu),
They are neither one nor different.'

2.45

"Subhūti, suppose a good man or good woman were to take the motes of dust of a great trichiliocosm, and further crush that many dust-mote worlds into an asaṃkhyeya of motes of dust. Subhūti, what do you think? Would that collection of dust motes be numerous?" Subhūti said, "That collection of dust motes would be extremely numerous, World-Honored One. Why is this? If this collection of dust motes were real existents, the Buddha would not speak of a collection of dust motes. Why is this? What the Buddha speaks of as a collection of dust motes is not a collection of dust motes; therefore the Buddha speaks of a collection of dust motes. World-Honored One, what the Tathāgata speaks of as a great trichiliocosm is not a world; therefore the Buddha speaks of a great trichiliocosm. Why is this? If worlds were real existents, they would be an integrated composite (saṅghāta-lakṣaṇa). What the Tathāgata speaks of as an integrated composite is not an integrated composite; therefore the Buddha speaks of an integrated composite." The Buddha said, "Subhūti, an integrated composite is ineffable, yet ordinary persons grasp greedily at its affairs. Why is this? Subhūti, if a person were to say: 'The Buddha taught the view of a self, the view of a person, the view of a sentient being, and the view of a life-span'—Subhūti, what do you think? Would what that person said be correct speech?" Subhūti said, "No, World-Honored One. Why is this? World-Honored One, what the Tathāgata spoke of as the view of a self, the view of a person, the view of a sentient being, and the view of a life-span is not the view of a self, the view of a person, the view of a sentient being, and the view of a life-span; this is named the view of a self, the view of a person, the view of a sentient being, and the view of a life-span."

2.46

Regarding the fourth [part], revealing the measure of the virtues of practice, there are five [sections] in the text: First, there are four sentences citing the number of finely crushed dust motes to reveal that defilement is exhausted and purified, because within the dharmadhātu there is not a single abiding mark. The 'collection of dust motes' is presented as a metaphor for non-oneness. Second, 'Why is this?' is a question and answer explaining the intent behind the arising of the teaching. Third, from 'Furthermore, why' onward explains the purport of the holy teaching, within which there are successively five sentences that may be understood. Fourth, from 'The Buddha said, Subhūti' onward reveals its correct meaning. Fifth, from 'yet ordinary persons' onward harmonizes with the holy intent, within which there are eight mutually generating sentences that may be understood. The text says that if worlds and an integrated composite were real existents, the Tathāgata would not speak of them. Why is this? Because ordinary persons would be right and the holy ones would be wrong; the rest should be gauged accordingly. As for the text saying 'an integrated composite', it is like discriminately seeing a single real mark. If one wishes to recognize the meaning of the text, one must first open up two marks concerning the positions of ordinary persons and holy ones in relation to the words of the text: First, regarding sentient beings: seeing an integrated composite, it is an integrated composite, and it is not an integrated composite. Second, regarding holy ones: speaking of an integrated composite, it is not an integrated composite, and it is named an integrated composite. Relying on these two gates, it is easy to grasp the understanding. What is its meaning? Sentient beings seeing an integrated composite: because they rely on seeming [dust] to form an understanding of real dust, they do not see that seeming dust depends on numerous conditions and does not abide when produced; thus it does not form an integrated mark. Deludedly seeing real dust, they only see a single existence. That it 'is an integrated composite' is because they see real dust as having a definite nature; thus it is integrated. That it 'is not an integrated composite' is because they see the reality of dust as lacking real principle, being no different from nonexistence; thus it is not integrated. That the Buddha speaks of an integrated composite: the Buddha knows that seeming dust is formed by temporary combination, not existent yet seeming to exist; therefore he speaks of an integrated mark. That it 'is not an integrated composite' has two meanings: first, it is not that integrated composite of real dust alleged by those ordinary persons; second, because those various conditions do not abide and do not produce when producing, it is not a seeming integration. That it 'is named an integrated composite': because those various conditions seem to combine to form dust, it is not nonexistent; hence it is named an integrated composite. Now, the holy intent in speaking of an integrated composite reveals that ordinary discrimination is its error and blindness. The integrated composite seen by the holy ones is free from discrimination and conforms to its correct principle; therefore there are these two statements providing an expedient means of access. What is its meaning? There are two kinds of expedient means: First, because of seeming production, one is free from the discrimination of nonexistence, since seeing seeming existence, it cannot be nonexistent—if one sees it as nonexistent, that is discrimination; because of seeming non-production, one is free from the discrimination of existence, since seeing seeming nonexistence, it cannot be existent—if one sees it as existent, that is discrimination. Second, because of seeming production, one is free from the discrimination of nonexistence, since seeing seeming existence, it cannot be nonexistent—if one sees it as nonexistent, that is discrimination; because of seeming production, one is free from the discrimination of existence: now seeing seeming existence is not real existence—if one sees real existence, that is discrimination. Because of seeming non-production, one is free from the discrimination of existence, since seeing seeming nonexistence is not real existence—if one sees real existence, that is discrimination; because of seeming non-production, one is free from the discrimination of nonexistence, since seeing seeming nonexistence is not real nonexistence—if one sees real nonexistence, that is discrimination. This should be pondered. Why is this? Because the meaning here is not identical with the subsequent eight metaphors.

2.47

Regarding the third major section, concluding the text, there are five [parts]: First, directly concluding the previous section. Second, 'Why is this?' is an interrogation. Third, answering to reveal the correct meaning. Fourth, from 'Subhūti, if there is a bodhisattva' onward compares the virtues. Fifth, from 'How should it be expounded for others' onward explains the supreme function of practice through the merit of benefiting others.

2.48

"Subhūti, a bodhisattva who resolves upon anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi should thus know, thus see, thus believe, and thus not abide in the marks of dharmas. Why is this? Subhūti, what are called marks of dharmas, the Tathāgata has said are not marks of dharmas; these are named marks of dharmas. Subhūti, if a bodhisattva-mahāsattva were to take the seven treasures filling measureless asaṃkhyeya worlds and give them in alms; and if a good man or good woman who resolves upon the bodhisattva mind were to accept, uphold, read, recite, and explain for others even as little as a four-line verse from this Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, their merit would surpass the former by measureless asaṃkhyeyas."

2.49

The previous text says 'thus know': because one thus knows that dharmas are unproduced, this concludes the resolve of the previous practice. 'Thus see': one sees the true mark, concluding the 'thus abiding' in the previous practice. 'Thus believe': one believes that practice can be completed, concluding the 'thus practicing' in the previous practice. 'Thus not abide in the marks of dharmas': because one is free from discrimination, this concludes the 'subduing one's mind' in the previous practice.

2.50

"How should one expound it for others? Without taking it as an expounding, it is named expounding." At that time, the World-Honored One spoke a verse, saying:
"All conditioned dharmas
Are like stars, cataracts, lamps, illusions,
Dewdrops, bubbles, dreams, lightning, and clouds;
One should contemplate them thus."

2.51

Regarding the fifth [part], the supreme function of teaching the Dharma to benefit others, there are two [sections] in the text: First, the prose, generally stating the arising [of the teaching]. Second, the verse, explaining and completing it. Within the verse text, there are three segments of the sūtra: The first single line introduces the dharmas. Next, there are two lines using nine meanings to reveal their contemplative marks. Finally, there is one line concluding with the completion of the contemplation. As for the nine meanings: 1. Outshone by stars and unseen: an analogy for the mental dharmas capable of seeing being present yet unseen. 2. Cataracts: seeing hair-nets and other forms; conditioned dharmas are also like this, because of inverted views. 3. Lamps: consciousness is also like this, because it abides relying on the dharma of craving. 4. Illusions: the places depended upon for dwelling are also like this, because the various distinctions of the container world are without a single real substance. 5. Dewdrops: the body is also like this, because it abides for a brief time. 6. Bubbles: things that are loved are also like this, because the three dharmas of sensation, conception, and volition are impermanent. 7. Dreams: past dharmas are also like this, because there is only memory. 8. Lightning: present dharmas are also like this, because they do not abide for a kṣaṇa. 9. Clouds: future dharmas are also like this, because at the time of the seeds, the ālayavijñāna serves as the fundamental seed for all dharmas, without prior causal marks, hence it is like clouds. The rest of the text is understandable. Manifesting differently like stars, lacking reality like cataracts, swiftly extinguished in a kṣaṇa like lamps. Formed by conditions compared to illusions, impermanence likened to dew, empty of substance compared to bubbles, seeing reality like dreams, having function like lightning, lacking foundation like clouds—in both dharmas there are nine meanings that are not real.

2.52

When the Buddha had spoken this sūtra, the Elder Subhūti, along with the bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, upāsikās, bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, and the entire world of devas, humans, asuras, gandharvas, and others, heard what the Buddha said, rejoiced greatly, and believed, accepted, and practiced it.

Linked texts (1)

金剛般若波羅蜜經略疏 — Classical Chinese