金剛般若經旨贊 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

[…] Praise says: Next, the following […] [an abode for] distancing from [the obstacle of] distraction that accords with external treatises […]. The comparison revealing the superior merit of the sūtra is subsumed under the eighth [abode, the abode of] severing doubts […]. The text of this abode uses a single section of meaning to cause one to know the superiority of the teaching, so that one gives rise to the contemplation that departs from distraction […], in order to advance in practice. First, the comparison of material wealth reveals the four superior virtues and initiates the previous three practices; later, the comparison of physical bodies […]. First, it reveals that they are accomplished based on the sūtra. The two superior virtues give rise to departing from distraction […]. Time […]. Sun […]. Causes […]. For […], [severing] the obstacle; subsequently it refutes clinging according to words. The first [part] also has two [sections]: first, the merit of giving is great; second, the merit of upholding the sūtra is superior. The first [part has] two: first, the merit of giving is great; second, the merit of upholding the sūtra is superior. The first has two: the question and answer about the small number in order to […] determine the realms; later, using the realms to uphold wealth directly to perform giving. The first again has two: first the question, then the answer. This is the first. Regarding the Ganges River: it is one of the four great rivers. It originally issues from Lake Anavatapta. On the south side it is both deep and wide, and its fine sand […] flows and spreads. Because the Buddha was often near it, it is cited in particular. The passage is straightforward and should be understood; no […] explanation [is needed].

2.3

Sūtra: 'Subhūti, […] [even more so the Ganges sands?]' Praise says: This is the answer.

2.4

Sūtra: 'Subhūti, […]' […] The text on performing giving […] manifests […] giving rise to […] speaking of abundant merit […] previously repeating […] for the sake of distinctive meanings. First, the meaning of gradual transformation: wishing to cause sentient beings to gradually have faith-and-understanding and enter into the supreme and sublime meaning, he again gradually makes comparisons with superior merit. Second, the accomplishment of superior virtues: previously it was stated that this sūtra can serve as the cause of Buddhahood, but it had not yet revealed what exceptional virtues it possesses; now, to clarify this, he makes comparisons again. Therefore, the verse in Vasubandhu’s commentary states regarding this meaning: 'Explaining multiple meanings with distinction, / Also accomplishing superior [virtues]; / The later merit surpasses the former, / Hence the superior analogy is repeated.'

2.5

Sūtra: 'The Buddha told [Subhūti,] […]' […] One encompasses […] first […] clarifies […] self and others; because it can exit the three realms; because it can sever ignorance; because it can purify the Dharma body. Merit is not like this, because merit is inferior. A verse spoken in the *Kāśyapa-parivarta* says: 'If worlds as numerous as the Ganges sands were filled with precious jewels / And these were given to all the Tathāgatas, / It would not equal a single dharma. / Though jewels are measureless, they do not equal the giving of a single dharma. / The merit of one gāthā is still superior; / How much more so is the abundance that is difficult to conceive!' Since it encompasses superior merit, the merit generated by upholding four lines surpasses the merit of giving.

2.6

Sūtra: 'Furthermore, […] like a stūpa of the Buddha.' Praise says: This is the offering made by devas and others. 'Stūpa' is Sanskrit […] meaning […]. 'Shrine' […] meaning of bodily form. That is, a neatly arranged place to set up the Buddha's […] is indeed the Dharma body relics, from which the Buddhas of the three times emerge […]. Whatever place it may be, that very place is a relic stūpa of the Buddhas. Because the three superior destinies of devas, humans, and asuras possess wisdom, they should make offerings. Since the place where the sūtra is spoken is venerable, the merit of upholding the sūtra surpasses the merit of giving.

2.7

Sūtra: 'How much more so if there is a person […] [achieve] the rarest dharma.' Praise says: Being able to do what is difficult to do. Even the merit of a single gāthā still surpasses the former, how much more so is fully receiving and upholding [the sūtra] truly rare! Receiving and upholding four lines is already difficult to attain; if one can fully uphold the verses, it is doing what is difficult to do. Since one can do what is difficult to do, one should know that this person can manifest the Dharma body, accomplish the reward body, and arise as the transformation body. Because one attains such fruit dharmas of the three bodies, it is said that one 'achieves the supreme, foremost, and rarest dharma.' Since the person who receives and upholds it is venerable, the merit of upholding the sūtra surpasses the merit of giving.

2.8

Sūtra: 'If this scripture […] [the Buddha and] his revered disciples.' Praise says: This is the fourth, giving rise to mindful regard for the Tathāgata. If there is a place where this scripture is upheld and explained, then it is the Great Master; it is where the Dharma body abides, and all are reward and transformation bodies expounding the Dharma here; therefore, in this place one gives rise to mindfulness of the Tathāgata, bodhisattvas, and others. Since the person who recites, receives, upholds, is mindful of, and explains it should be known to practice the conduct of Samantabhadra, one gives rise in regard to this person to mindfulness of the Buddha, bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, and others. Since the place where material wealth is given does not possess such virtues, the merit of upholding the sūtra surpasses the merit of giving. Therefore, the verse in Vasubandhu’s commentary states regarding this meaning:

2.9

'Reverence at the two places; / Through habituation one realizes the great substance. / That [wealth] is a cause of habituating afflictions; / This [sūtra] subdues defiled merit.'

2.10

The first line explains the passage from 'Furthermore, wherever this sūtra is spoken' onward, which generally and specifically reveals the reverence at the two places. The remaining three lines explain the sūtra passage from 'The Tathāgata has nothing spoken' onward, all of which are comparisons revealing the superior merit of the sūtra. Since the inner scripture possesses such superior virtues, it is not comparable to those external treatises, which increase distraction and create extremely numerous obstacles. For this reason, bodhisattvas should not take pleasure in clinging to them, but should only rely on the sūtra to practice the conduct of the abode for departing from obstacles.

2.11

Sūtra: 'Then Subhūti […] how should we uphold it?' Praise says: Next is the second [section], refuting clinging according to words. Herein there are three: first, asking about the name and the substance to uphold; second, instructing to point it out; third, directly refuting that clinging. This is the first. Having heard of the superior merit, he gave rise to [the thought of it being] rare […]; before the end of the sūtra, he first submitted a inquiry: since it possesses such virtues, what should its name be? Furthermore, fearing that hearing of the abundance of merit might lead one to cling to literal reality according to words, he causes one to know that expounding is non-expounding, and that only when one departs from clinging and relies on receiving and upholding will the generated merit be abundant; therefore, it surpasses external treatises, revealing these two intentions as exceptionally distinct from other sūtras. For this reason, he raises the inquiry in the middle.

2.12

Sūtra: 'The Buddha told [Subhūti,] […] you should uphold it.' Praise says: This is the instruction to practice. The wondrous wisdom of the vajra can reach the other shore; relying on this name, you should diligently uphold it.

2.13

Sūtra: 'Why is this?' Praise says: Below, he directly refutes clinging. Herein there are three: first, the interrogation; second, the refutation; third, the question and answer confirming it again. This is the first. The Buddha always taught that one should not grasp and cling to dharmas according to names; yet now he says, 'By this name you should uphold it'—for what reason?

2.14

Sūtra: 'Subhūti, the Buddha told […] [prajñā]pāramitā.' Praise says: This is the refutation. The prajñā spoken by the Buddha is a conventional designation to dispel delusion; it is not the real prajñā that is realized, because in ultimate reality it is free from verbal expression. Therefore, although it is spoken, there is no speaking; it is merely conventionally designated prajñā. For this reason, one should not cling to reality according to words.

2.15

Sūtra: 'Subhūti, […] is there any dharma spoken?' Praise says: Below is the question and answer confirming it, first the question, then the answer. This is the first. Is it only that the real prajñā of this sūtra is free from verbal characteristics, so that expounding is non-expounding, or is there any other dharma in the ultimate noble truth that can be spoken?

2.16

Sūtra: 'Subhūti [said to the Buddha: "No, World-Honoured One, the Tathāgata has] nothing spoken."' Praise says: This is the answer. Not only is prajñā nothing spoken, there is also no other dharma that is spoken by the Buddha, because the substance of all dharmas is equal, being none other than the ultimate truth of prajñā. Therefore, all dharmas are also nothing spoken. This equal principle is equally realized by all Buddhas, and spoken just as it is realized; they also expound prajñā. Since it is not a dharma spoken solely by this Buddha, it is also said that the Tathāgata has nothing spoken. Because they equally realize and speak it, the Dharma is venerable. The merit of giving is not like this and cannot be compared to it. For this reason, the second line of the previous verse says: 'Through habituation one realizes the great substance.' Through habituating prajñā, one accomplishes the great substance, equally realizing and equally speaking it, and its merit is superior. However, the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* gives two meanings for the Buddha not expounding the Dharma: first, the internally realized dharma is free from verbal expression; second, the fundamentally abiding dharma is shared equally by all Buddhas. Since there are these two meanings, the two treatises each clarify one, both harmonizing and reaching ultimate truth, so the causes do not contradict each other.

2.17

Sūtra: 'Subhūti, […] are these many?' Praise says: Next is the sixth, departing from the characteristic of reflected images and lacking skillful means in sovereignty—the obstacle being the tenth among the eighteen: the abode of the practice corresponding to contemplating and breaking through the grasping of agglomeration in form and in the bodies of sentient beings. Within the comparison of material giving revealing the superiority of the sūtra, the third clarifies that the sūtra can remove afflictions, causing one to rely on the sūtra to initiate the practice of contemplative breakdown. Previously, he caused them to depart from the obstacle of delighting in external treatises, so that relying on the sūtra to receive and uphold it generates superior merit. However, one should realize the tathatā of twofold emptiness and initiate supernormal faculties to transform and guide the various kinds [of beings]. If one wishes to initiate superior supernormal faculties, one should contemplate the five aggregates as empty and nonexistent. When there are no obstructions, one is then able to manifest supernormal faculties. Because the physical body of the five aggregates is a reflected image of the mind, although it has conventional characteristics, its substance is not real. Yet bodhisattvas do not understand the emptiness of the aggregates and cling to them as truly existent—the composite characteristics of the aggregates. Once dharma-grasping arises, afflictions arise in its wake, producing various karmas and suffering various bitter fruits; hindered by this, they cannot manifest supernormal faculties. Since through this clinging they fail to attain skillfulness, this is the obstacle of lacking wisdom and skillful means. Now, in order to break through this obstacle of lacking skillful means and cause them to analytically contemplate the agglomerated characteristics of the five aggregates, he speaks of the fine dust particles in the world: the aggregates are a composite assemblage, just as the realm is an assemblage of dust particles; since dust and realm are both empty, how could the characteristics of the aggregates exist? Thus he cites dust particles and worlds to analogize the internal body, breaking through that grasping of agglomeration in the five aggregates. Since relying on the sūtra enables one to depart from afflictions, the previous verse said: 'That is a cause of habituating afflictions; / The sūtra can remove obstacles, so its merit is superior.' Therefore, bodhisattvas should rely on this sūtra to develop skillful wisdom, contemplate and break through the characteristics of grasping the agglomeration of the five aggregates, and manifest supernormal faculties. The word 'world' encompasses both the internal and the external: 'internal' refers to the bodily characteristics of sentient beings' five aggregates; 'external' refers to the characteristics of the physical vessel world of mountains and rivers. When the sūtra mentions the fine dust particles in the world, it has two intentions: first, as an analogy revealing that the merit of giving can produce many defilements, just as a realm gives rise to dust; second, for the contemplative breakdown of the bodily characteristics of sentient beings' internal composite aggregates. Since this text was spoken with two intentions, the commentators each clarify one meaning: Vasubandhu adopts the analogy to reveal the sūtra's name—his commentary says 'a cause of habituating afflictions'; Asaṅga takes the dharma to establish the name of the practice—'departing from the obstacle of lacking skillful means'. In the text there are three parts: first the question, next the answer, then the instruction. This is the first. Fine dust particles in the physical body and the world; giving is like the defiled dust produced in the world. Are the dust particles of these two realms many?

2.18

Sūtra: 'Subhūti said: "Very many, World-Honoured One."' Praise says: This is the answer. Analytically contemplating the body and the realm as fine dust particles, giving is like the defiled dust produced in the world: the dust particles of these two realms are both very many.

2.19

Sūtra: Subhūti, [...] is named fine dust particles. / Commentary: Below, the Buddha's admonition has two parts: first, he enjoins contemplating that the form-body is unreal; second, he enjoins contemplating the name-body as likewise [unreal]. Here is the first part. Now, the internal aggregates comprise two classes in total: first is form, which is the initial form-aggregate, because it possesses shape and substance and can be pointed out; second is name, which denotes the remaining four aggregates, because they are all mental dharmas and cannot be pointed out. These names and forms appear as a single mass, a composite bodily appearance; foolish people do not comprehend this and grasp it as real existence, because of the appearance of a single composite. Thus the two grasps arise. Now, desiring to break that grasping at a mass, [the sūtra] reveals that both form and name are unobtainable. Therefore, this first [part] refutes the form-body. However, refuting the form-body has two expedient means: first, the expedient of breakdown, which is breaking down coarse forms into subtle dust particles; second, the expedient of non-recollection, which is declaring that even the fine dust particles are also unobtainable. What was previously stated about "all the fine dust particles in the trichiliocosm" is the first expedient of breakdown, illuminating that this body and this realm are formed from many fine dust particles and are empty, false, and unreal, thereby bringing one to awaken to the emptiness of self. What this passage says about "the fine dust particles being non-particles," etc., is the second expedient of non-recollection, enjoining the contemplation that fine dust particles are not truly existent either inside or outside the mind, so that through non-recollection one awakens to the emptiness of dharmas. Because the Buddha caused them to break down and contemplate coarse form, he provisionally spoke of "a collection of fine dust particles"; but these are merely what appears to the mind-measure of the contemplator and are not truly existent fine dust particles outside the mind; they are only the provisional name "a collection of fine dust particles". Since the fine dust particles that can compose [the body] are already unobtainable, the body that is composed is not truly existent. This is refuting the mark of the form-body. Therefore the Yogācārabhūmi states that the Buddha's explanation of fine dust particles has five excellent benefits, which should be examined and recounted.

2.20

Sūtra: What the Tathāgata speaks of [...] is named world realms. / Commentary: This is the subsequent admonition, enjoining the contemplation that the name-body is also provisional. The "name-body" refers to the remaining four aggregates—feeling, conception, formations, and consciousness—which cannot be pointed out and are revealed only through names, hence generally called "name". The sūtra's word "world realm" refers precisely to this name-body. Although the word "world realm" applies to both form and non-form, here it refers only to the name-body of the four aggregates, because the form aggregate has already been refuted previously. Yet this name-body is not truly existent: conditionally assembled through the four conditions, shifting through the three characteristics, it is unobtainable in past, present, and future. Thus one knows there is no real name-body of the four aggregates. Now, as for the "sentient being realms" spoken of by the Buddha, in order to shatter the false grasping of sentient beings, he speaks of "world realms" following worldly convention; thus they are not truly existent world realms of the name-body, but merely world realms of the name-body as provisional names. This uses the expedient of non-recollection to refute that name-body as not truly existent. Because the former three kinds of form-bodies can be broken down, they possess both expedients; the present name-body cannot be broken down, so it relies solely on non-recollection. Having thus relied on the sūtra to cultivate the two expedients, shattered the mass grasping of the five aggregates' combination, generated expedient wisdom, realized the twofold emptiness, and aroused superior spiritual penetrations to transform and guide sentient beings, this is precisely the dharma of cultivating practice to abandon obstacles. Therefore it is called the abode of practice connected to contemplative refutation of grasping a mass in form and sentient beings' bodies. Thus it is also said that the sūtra can remove afflictions, unlike merit from material giving which can generate afflictions, just as the world realm can raise fine dust particles. It also uses the realm's dust to illustrate the causes and fruits of giving. Furthermore, when a realm raises dust, it does not produce afflictions; the dust merely soils form but does not defile the Dharma-body. The causes and fruits of merit from giving are still inferior to the realm's dust, so how could they compare with the superior merit of the function of upholding the sūtra? It has this distinct meaning in saying "is not", and so on; by explaining the sūtra with this, the meaning can be understood.

2.21

Sūtra: Subhūti, [...] can one see the Tathāgata? / Commentary: Next below is the seventh, abandoning the obstacle of lacking the merit provision, which is the eleventh abode, that of making offerings to and serving the Tathāgata. Within the comparative assessment of material gifts, it corresponds to the fourth, subduing defiled merit and cultivating the true practice of making offerings as the merit provision. In order to proceed toward bodhi, the bodhisattvas cultivate the two provisions on the ground of faith-practice; like a bird's wings or a cart's wheels, neither can be missing. If one wishes to accomplish the provision of merit, nothing surpasses making offerings to and serving the Buddha, because this is the most supreme among the fields of merit. If one practices making offerings, one should contemplate the Dharma-body, because it is the boundless, unobstructed, and real essence; thus practicing service accomplishes the merit provision. Previously, although they were caused to abandon the obstacle of lacking expedient means within the shadow-images of the aggregates and consciousnesses and arouse spiritual penetrations, they had still not yet abandoned dharma-grasping, and greedily grasped at form, dividing food-portions to offer to the Tathāgata; thus they could not complete vast merit, which is the obstacle of lacking the merit provision. Now the Buddha wishes them to contemplate the Dharma-body and render service, shattering their grasping and obstacle; therefore he says that the Tathāgata cannot be seen by means of marks. Since through the sūtra one accomplishes the merit provision and will naturally realize the formless true essence of the Dharma-body, the merit of upholding the sūtra surpasses the merit of giving. To reveal these two intents, this passage is spoken. Therefore, the two treatises each rely on one meaning: Asaṅga relies on abandoning the obstacle and calls it "abandoning the obstacle of lacking the merit provision"; Vasubandhu relies on the comparative assessment and calls it "upholding the sūtra attains a pure, superior recompense". The text is divided into four: question, answer, challenge, and explanation. This is the first. Since the Dharma-body is the formless true essence, he asks Subhūti whether one can contemplate the thirty-two marks of the physical body as the Tathāgata's true Dharma-body.

2.22

Sūtra: No, World-Honoured One. / Commentary: This is the answer: one cannot contemplate the thirty-two marks of the physical body as the Tathāgata's true Dharma-body.

2.23

Sūtra: Why is this? / Commentary: This is the challenge: why is it that one cannot see the Tathāgata by marks of form?

2.24

Sūtra: What the Tathāgata speaks of [...] thirty-two marks. / Commentary: This is the explanation. The thirty-two marks spoken of by the Tathāgata are the unreal, provisional marks of the transformation body, because the Buddha's true essence is the Dharma-body. Since the Dharma-body is markless, the thirty-two are non-marks; they are called the provisional bodily marks of responsive transformation. Yet the fruit of the marks and characteristics is summoned by distinct causes of merit, whereas the true Buddha's Dharma-body is brought about by the merit of upholding the sūtra. Since discussing the Dharma-body in terms of the fruit shows that the true Buddha's marks of form are not real, one knows that in terms of the cause, the merit of upholding the sūtra surpasses the merit of the causes for the marks. The merit of material giving brings contaminated recompenses and is still not equal to the causes of merit for those marks of form; how much less could it attain the virtue of upholding this sūtra! Therefore the treatise verse states: "This subdues defiled merit." Hence bodhisattvas should receive and retain it to complete the merit provision and realize the fruit of the Dharma-body.

2.25

Sūtra: Subhūti, [...] that merit is extremely abundant. / Commentary: Next below is the eighth, abandoning the obstacle of savoring indolence, gain, and so forth, which is the twelfth abode: staying far away from gain, weariness, and feverish vexation, when vigor either retrogrades or fails to arise. Within that eighth division on resolving doubts, the comparative assessment of inner wealth demonstrates the superiority of the sūtra's merit, causing them to arouse vigor based on the sūtra. Previously, in order that they might fulfill the merit provision, when they studied and practiced based on the sūtra, making offerings to the Tathāgata and cultivating the cause of merit, they had to abandon indolence and gain, and constantly cultivate practices such as upholding and expounding. But when practicing, they savor gain, the body experiences weariness, and the mind suffers feverish vexation; thus indolence arises and vigor is not generated. Consequently, they are unable to practice the superior upholding and expounding, cannot draw near [to the Buddha], make offerings to the Tathāgata, their provisions remain incomplete, and bodhi is difficult to fulfill. Now, in order to counteract these faults and obstacles and cause them to diligently rely on the sūtra to cultivate superior meritorious practice, [the sūtra] raises inner wealth for comparative assessment. Since it is through the sūtra that one can abandon this obstacle, the two treatises each elucidate one meaning: Asaṅga refers to the obstacle removed, naming it "abandoning indolence and gain"; Vasubandhu refers to the superior teaching that can remove it, naming it "comparative assessment of inner wealth". The text is divided into five parts: 1. Contrasting the merit of renouncing the body to break indolent attachment to the body; 2. Breaking the grasping at the literal meaning of marks that arises after hearing of the merit; 3. Causing lesser bodhisattvas to generate shame and urge diligence; 4. Shattering the fright and lack of vigor of the practitioners of the two vehicles; 5. Causing them to generate non-negligence. The second is the place of shame. The first has two parts: first, the Tathāgata's comparative assessment; second, Subhūti's sorrowful response. This is the first. The meaning here is: although renouncing bodily life surpasses previous giving, in actual virtue it does not equal the merit of upholding a four-line verse of this sūtra. For presently renouncing the body causes suffering to body and mind; how much more so when one further seeks the fruit of future suffering dharmas and performs renunciation and giving! Cause and fruit are both suffering, so how could they compare with the superior merit of upholding the sūtra? Because this sūtra has seven kinds of superiority, when upholding and expounding the sūtra cause and fruit are both blissful; therefore it surpasses the virtue of renouncing the body. Therefore Vasubandhu's treatise verses this meaning, stating:

2.26

[Though] tormenting the body, [this] surpasses that; / Rare, and having the supreme meaning; / That shore of wisdom is hard to fathom, / And is also unlike other dharmas; / Resolute understanding of the profound meaning, / Surpassing the other sūtras; / Great cause and purification, / The superior merit among merits.

2.27

The first line explains this sūtra passage, clarifying that the sūtra's merit is superior. The next six lines explain the sūtra passages below, raising seven kinds of causes to explain why it is superior. The final line concludes generally that the merit is superior.

2.28

Sūtra: At that time, [...] such a sūtra. / Commentary: This is Subhūti's sorrowful response. Having heard that renouncing many bodies does not equal the sūtra's merit, he grasped that this sūtra is the cause of bodhi; at the utmost peak of the profound, marvelous principle and Dharma joy, he was deeply moved and gave way to tears of sorrow. He thought: "Formerly, when I attained the true wisdom of the path of seeing and realized the unconditioned, though I was called possessor of the wisdom-eye, I had never heard such a rare dharma." This refers to the rareness of the dharma-door among the [seven] meanings. According to other recensions of the sūtra, below this there is further: "Why is this? The prajñāpāramitā spoken of by the Buddha is precisely non-prajñāpāramitā." This is the first of the seven meanings: the dharma-door. In the verse, "the supreme meaning, the shore of wisdom hard to fathom" explains this passage. "Why is this?" questions the reason for not having heard it. "The Buddha spoke of..." and below explains the reason for not having heard it. Because this shore of wisdom has two meanings, even with the wisdom-eye he had not heard it: first, because it is the superior, supreme meaning of the shore of wisdom, hence it says "the Buddha spoke of prajñāpāramitā"; second, because the shore of wisdom is hard to fathom, hence it says "is precisely non-prajñāpāramitā". Because of these two meanings it is distinctly different from other sūtras, so it is generally spoken of as the supreme dharma-door.

2.29

Sūtra: World-Honoured One, [...] rare virtue. / Commentary: Next, this breaks the grasping at conceived marks according to the literal meaning that arises after hearing of the merit. Within this there are two parts: first, a general indication of superior capability; second, sweeping away those feelings and thoughts. This is the first. In order to break that indolence and gain and cause vigor to arise, it was said that upholding the sūtra surpasses the merit of renouncing the body; one should not grasp at actual virtue according to the words. If one can rely on this sūtra of the true mark, generate true-mark wisdom, and arouse diligent vigor, one should know that this person is the foremost and most rare.

2.30

Sūtra: World-Honoured One, [...] is called the true mark. / Commentary: This sweeps away feelings and thoughts. What is called the true mark takes marklessness as its mark; it is for the purpose of abandoning false graspings, not meaning that there is this actual true mark. If one abandons false [discriminations] and accords with marklessness, therefore the Buddha merely speaks of it as the true mark. Since this sūtra expounds the principle of the true mark, which other sūtras have not yet spoken, it is unlike other sūtras; this corresponds in the verse to the one among the seven meanings: "And is also unlike other dharmas".

2.31

Sūtra: World-Honoured One, [...] is not sufficient to be difficult. / Commentary: Next, this causes lesser bodhisattvas to generate shame and urge diligence. Within this there are two parts: first, encountering the Buddha's teaching at present, faithfully receiving it is not difficult; second, faithfully upholding it in the future is truly rare. This is the first. Because a class of bodhisattvas harbored indolence, to make them generate shame and urge diligence, he says that even in an evil age there will still be those who uphold and expound it, so how could one fail to arouse diligent vigor when the Buddha is present in an auspicious age? Intending to stir them so that shame arises and a mind of encouragement is produced, he says: "For me now to have faith-and-understanding, receive, and retain [it] is not sufficient to be difficult."

2.32

Sūtra: If in a future age [...] foremost and most rare. / Commentary: Faithfully upholding it in the future is truly rare. Within this there are two parts: first, the indication; second, the explanation. This is the first. In an age of many obstacles and difficulties, where the land is base and capacities are slight, if one merely generates a mind of faith, or profoundly understands the principle, reciting the text with one's mouth and retaining the meaning in one's mind, one should know that this person is the foremost and most rare.

2.33

Sūtra: Why is this? [...] mark of a life-span. / Commentary: Below is the explanation of the reason. The text is further divided into three parts: first, penetrating the emptiness of self; second, awakening to the emptiness of dharmas; third, according with all Buddhas. Now, all three passages have a challenge and an explanation. This is penetrating the emptiness of self. For what reason is a person who has faith-and-understanding, receives, and retains it the foremost and most rare? Because they can sever and subdue the marks of person and self.

2.34

Sūtra: "Why is that?" up to "is precisely not a mark." Commentary: This is awakening to the emptiness of phenomena. Why are they without [the mark of] self and so forth? Because by relying on the sūtra they are able to awaken to the emptiness of phenomena. Since that grasping at a self arises dependent on the grasping at phenomena, when grasping at phenomena is already removed, how could a view of self remain? All marks being not marks is precisely the emptiness of phenomena.

2.35

Sūtra: "Why is that?" up to "are called all Buddhas." Commentary: This is according with all Buddhas. Why are they able to leave behind views of self and phenomena? Because the person who retains the sūtra accords with all Buddhas. The Buddha is free from false marks; his wisdom is firm and real, capable of tallying with the profound and marvelous, and he therefore preached this sūtra. Hence that which the sūtra expresses is firm, real, profound, and marvelous; and those who receive and retain it act in accord with the Buddha, generating firm and marvelous wisdom capable of eliminating the two graspings. Therefore, to believe, understand, receive, and retain it in future ages is foremost and most rare. This corresponds to the "firm, real, understanding, profound, and marvelous" among the seven meanings in the verse.

2.36

Sūtra: "The Buddha told" up to "is exceedingly rare." Commentary: Next is refuting the alarm, fear, and lack of vigor of the people of the two vehicles. Formerly, in the teachings of the two vehicles, the Tathāgata spoke of existing phenomena—namely the aggregates, sense bases, and so forth—and spoke of empty phenomena—namely selflessness and so forth—speaking of both the conditioned and unconditioned as existing. Now he expounds this sūtra to dispel both existence and emptiness. Upon hearing this, when they abruptly hear that existing phenomena do not exist, they dread and think that this sūtra is not the correct path; like walking where one should not, such as into pits and valleys, they then give rise to alarm and panic. Furthermore, hearing that empty phenomena also do not exist, their minds vacillate and cannot resolve doubt, which is why they are frightened. Having later reflected on it, their alarm and fear deepen further, and without turning around at all, they develop dread and terror across the board. Now this sūtra also addresses the two vehicles, causing them to turn their minds toward supreme awakening. Since due to alarm and so forth they cannot exert themselves, it now refutes these to cause them to arouse vigor. That is to say, the real principle is far removed from the two extremes; if one clings to existence or emptiness, one does not tally with the middle way. In order to break attachment to marks, the twofold non-existence is preached; it is not meant that phenomena such as existence and emptiness are utterly non-existent. That the two vehicles and others can awaken to this principle without alarm or fear is therefore rare. Moreover, this sūtra reveals the three non-natures to shatter the mind that clings to the imagined nature as empty or existing, not to repudiate the dependent and perfected natures. Therefore, when the two vehicles and others hear of the nature of the lack of self-nature of marks, they are not alarmed; when they hear of the nature of the lack of self-nature of arising, they are not frightened; and when they hear of the nature of the lack of self-nature of ultimate truth, they are not terrified. All of these are rare.

2.37

Sūtra: "Why is that?" up to "pāramitā." Commentary: Next is generating non-negligence, the second locus of shame and remorse. In the text's inquiry and explanation, for what reason are those who are not alarmed or frightened said to be rare? It is because this sūtra has three superiorities, which makes those who hear it without alarm or fear rare. First, it surpasses other sūtras. That is, among the meanings expressed in the six pāramitās, it solely expresses the pāramitā of wisdom as guide and so forth; this corresponds to "surpassing other sūtras" among the seven meanings in the verse. Second, it is able to serve as a great cause. "Great" refers to the Buddha-fruit of bodhi and nirvāṇa; because the non-conceptual wisdom expressed by this [sūtra] can give birth to the Dharma and reward Buddhas, this is the meaning of "great cause" among the seven meanings. Relying on these two meanings, the sūtra says, "The Tathāgata speaks of the foremost pāramitā," and so forth, because both the expressing [text] and the expressed [meaning] are extraordinary. When it says "is precisely not," this shatters the mind that grasps at marks. Third, all Buddhas preach it together. That is, another recension says, "Those countless Buddhas also preach the foremost pāramitā"; this is the meaning of "purity" among the seven meanings. Because the Buddhas jointly realize this pure principle, just as they jointly realize it, so do they jointly preach it. Since this sūtra possesses such superiorities, and the two vehicles can now believe and retain it without alarm or fear, how could you bodhisattvas be negligent and not cultivate it diligently? The preceding second passage had already exhorted the bodhisattvas who are attached to the taste of gain and are indolent to arouse shame and remorse. Now this further causes the negligent bodhisattvas who do not arouse vigor to arouse shame and remorse, so it is named the second locus. Since this sūtra is said to have seven kinds of causes that surpass the merit of sacrificing the body, bodhisattvas should abandon indolence and gain, and always vigorously cultivate the sūtra of superior causes.

2.38

Sūtra: "Subhūti," up to "the pāramitā of forbearance." Commentary: Next, the ninth point below is leaving behind the obstacle of the inability to endure suffering, which is the thirteenth abiding place, "enduring suffering." It resolves the eighth [doubt], the doubt that the sūtra produces a fruit of suffering, among three kinds of doubtful minds, cultivating the practice of forbearance in reliance on the sūtra. The preceding locus of making offerings caused one to practice offerings in reliance on this sūtra to cultivate the merit provision; the locus of leaving behind indolence caused one to arouse vigor by adducing the superior benefits of the sūtra to exhort and encourage. Although [vigor] is attained, one must be able to endure suffering. If when cultivating one cannot endure suffering, there will be regression, which turns into an obstacle. There are three kinds of forbearance that can eliminate three kinds of suffering. First is the forbearance of examining phenomena, because one closely observes the principle of the twofold emptiness, does not see the suffering marks of saṃsāric transmigration, and is able to arouse the great mind to seek the supreme fruit. Second is the forbearance of accepting suffering, because being able to accept cold, heat, and so forth, one does not see sufferings such as fatigue, aging, and sickness, and is able to arouse vigor to realize the superior fruit. Third is the forbearance of enduring hostility and harm, because being able to patiently endure hostility and harm from others, one does not abandon compassion, has no mark of distress, and can broadly gather and transform [beings] to quickly accomplish the great fruit. It is precisely through the first forbearance that the latter two can be aroused, because through examining the principle of emptiness, there is no hostility and so forth. If the mind gives rise to marks of self, phenomena, and so forth, and perceives thoughts of suffering, without giving rise to this [forbearance] one would delight in transmigration, or delight in abiding in quiescence and not arouse the great mind, or fail to endure fatigue and not arouse vigor, or see the suffering of hostility and harm and give rise to a regressive mind, which then becomes an obstacle to the Buddha-fruit. But because bodhisattvas are unable to rely on the sūtra to leave behind the marks of self and person and arouse the three forbearances, they instead suspect that this sūtra can bring about a fruit of suffering. [They might think:] If one says that sacrificing the body torments body and mind, so both cause and fruit are painful, and thus the merit is inferior, then if one performs practices in reliance on the sūtra and encounters cold, heat, and so forth, this also torments body and mind; how could the merit be superior? Due to attachment, they cannot arouse forbearance in reliance on the sūtra; due to doubt, they take no joy in the sūtra that arouses forbearance. Now, wishing to sever that doubtful and grasping mind so that they accomplish the practice of forbearance in reliance on the sūtra, it speaks of dismemberment without self, person, and so forth. Asaṅga, in terms of removing the obstacle of attachment, names it "leaving behind the obstacle of the inability to endure suffering"; Vasubandhu, with respect to severing the first doubt, names it "severing [the doubt that] the sūtra produces a fruit of suffering." According to Asaṅga's section on leaving behind non-forbearance, the text is divided into four: first, forbearance as it is capable of being endured, which is the essence of forbearance; second, clarifying the marks of forbearance and the loci where forbearance arises; third, the distinctions of forbearance, which is forbearance of kind; fourth, clarifying the antidotes to the causes and conditions of non-forbearance. This is the first. In the text there are two clauses. The first clause causes one to practice capable forbearance in accord with the true sphere realized. That is, in accord with the principle of the selflessness of phenomena realized, one arouses the three kinds of the perfection of forbearance explained before, because they can all arise dependent on the true sphere. The essence of forbearance is non-anger, diligence, and wisdom, because in accord with the sphere realized, there is no anger and so forth. Hence it was designated before as "forbearance as it is capable of being endured": practicing true forbearance by relying on the true sphere is the essence of the pure wholesome roots of the pāramitā. Therefore the sūtra says "the pāramitā of forbearance." The latter clause causes one, in accord with the true sphere realized, to be free from its marks of forbearance. Because one is free from marks, it is the other shore, its virtue is immeasurable, and it is the supreme truth: it is able to be free from the mark of self and the mark of hatred, without the mark of distress. Not only is there no suffering, but there is also compassion united with shared joy. Because of these reasons, the sūtra says "is precisely not forbearance," and so forth. Since one practices markless forbearance in accord with what is realized, the treatise says "forbearance as it is capable of being endured." Since this markless forbearance exists, ascetic practice in reliance on the sūtra is wholesome; therefore Vasubandhu's treatise verses this meaning, saying:

2.39

"One who can endure ascetic practice, / Because ascetic practice has what is wholesome, / That merit is immeasurable, / Being like this, the supreme truth; / Free from marks of self and hatred, / In reality free from distress, / In shared joy there is compassion: / Such is the fruit of ascetic practice."

2.40

"That merit is immeasurable" and so forth mentioned before are all the fruits of suffering obtained through ascetic practice in reliance on the sūtra here. Therefore, although one practices forbearance, there is the perfection of forbearance; it is not like sacrificing the body, which merely has a fruit of suffering.

2.41

Sūtra: "Why is that?" Commentary: Below clarifies the marks of forbearance and the loci where forbearance arises. In this there are two parts: first an inquiry, then an explanation. This is the first. In what locus does the mark of forbearance arise? Since it causes forbearance to arise, yet goes on to say "not," why is that?

2.42

Sūtra: "Subhūti," up to "dismembered my limbs." Commentary: Below, the explanation has two parts: first clarifying the loci where forbearance arises, and later directly clarifying the marks of forbearance. This is the first. Now, there are three kinds of loci where forbearance arises: namely, arousing the forbearance of hostility and harm toward others, arousing the forbearance of accepting toward cold, heat, and so forth, and arousing the forbearance of examining toward phenomena, self, and so forth. Here, the loci where the three forbearances arise should be clarified, and under the marks of forbearance below, the three forbearances should be clarified. Yet as to what can arise and what gives rise to it, only enduring hostility is mentioned; because the text is abbreviated, it adduces the first to reveal the rest. It reveals that in the past, when he was the Forbearance-Seer and his limbs were dismembered by the Contentious King, he was able to endure this suffering without giving rise to an angry mind. Therefore, the place where one encounters hostility and harm from others is simply the locus where the forbearance of enduring hostility arises.

2.43

Sūtra: "At that time, I" up to "the mark of a life-span." Commentary: Below clarifies the marks of forbearance. In this there are two parts: first explaining in accordance [with the affirmative], then revealing [by the negative]. This is the first. Because at that time he was free from [the marks of] self and so forth, when the marks of his own body were already separated from the marks of others, there was also no seen distress that could be hated, so he was able to arouse that forbearance of enduring hostility and harm. As the "Bodhisattva Bhūmi" of the Yogācārabhūmi says: If one encounters harm from another, one should reflect thus: "This past karma of mine should rightly meet with harm from another; if I do not endure it now, I will further increase the causes of suffering. Since I would be bound by suffering, how could that be self-love?" Having reflected thus, one should cultivate five perceptions: first, the perception of gathering; second, the perception of close friendship; third, the perception of mere phenomena; fourth, the perception of suffering; fifth, the perception of impermanence. Not giving rise to a mark of self toward harm from another is precisely the mark of mere phenomena among the five marks. Because he cultivated selflessness and the mark of mere phenomena, he did not retaliate against that hostility and gave rise to the first forbearance.

2.44

Sūtra: "Why is that?" Commentary: In the passage below revealing [by the negative], it is again divided into two: first an inquiry, then an explanation. This is the first. For what reason is it known that at that time he was without marks of self and so forth?

2.45

Sūtra: "In the past, when I" up to "should have given rise to anger and resentment." Commentary: This is the explanation. Anger arises from the self; if there had been a view of self, he would have given rise to anger and resentment. Resentment is established based on anger; harboring malice without letting go, forming hostility is its nature. Since anger and resentment were absent, it is clear that there was no mark of self; therefore, when practicing forbearance, he was without marks of self and so forth.

2.46

Sūtra: "Subhūti," up to "the mark of a life-span." Commentary: Below clarifies the distinctions of forbearance, which is forbearance of kind. Regarding "forbearance of kind," this enduring of suffering continuously for five hundred lifetimes belongs to the same kind as the previous forbearance of extreme suffering when dismembered. Or, because he constantly practiced it life after life for five hundred lifetimes, with earlier and later being similar, it is called forbearance of kind. Because they are not one, they are called distinctions. "The Forbearance-Seer" is the Compassionate Seer.

2.47

Sūtra: “Therefore … the mind of [anuttara-samyak-]sambodhi.” Commentary: Below reveals the causes and conditions for counteracting non-forbearance. The causes of non-forbearance are the three notions of suffering; because one has notions of suffering, one is unable to bear [it]. As for the three notions of suffering: first, the notion of the suffering of abiding in saṃsāra; second, the notion of the suffering of abiding in the adversity of sentient beings; third, the notion of the suffering of abiding in the lack of necessities for enjoyment. Due to the first notion, seeing the suffering of saṃsāra, one cannot bear birth-and-death and does not arouse the great mind; thus, one cannot give rise to the forbearance of discerning phenomena. Due to the second notion, seeing the suffering of malice and harm, one cannot endure it; facing adversity from sentient beings, one cannot give rise to the forbearance of enduring malice and harm. Due to the last notion, seeing that one lacks necessities, one cannot endure cold, heat, and the like; thus, one cannot give rise to the forbearance of accepting suffering peacefully. Now, to counteract these three notions, the three superior kinds of forbearance—discerning [phenomena] and the rest—are generated to counteract the three notions; thus [the text] is divided into three parts. First, within the causes and conditions for counteracting the suffering of saṃsāra, the text is further divided into four: a general statement, a specific explanation, an additional confirmation, and a concluding exhortation. This is the first. However, the three sufferings and forbearances have both general and specific aspects. The general suffering refers to the first, the notion of the suffering of saṃsāra. Because one does not discern the principle of the twofold emptiness, one sees the suffering of birth-and-death, sees adversity and harm, and sees the lack of necessities for enjoyment; due to this, one cannot arouse the bodhi-mind, constantly remaining in birth-and-death and bearing the suffering of saṃsāra. Therefore, that treatise says: “Those who have not generated the supreme bodhi-mind have such faults, etc.” The general forbearance refers to the first, the forbearance of discerning phenomena. Because one is able to discern the principle of the twofold emptiness, one does not see birth-and-death, does not see weariness and lack, and does not see harm from others; due to this, one is able to arouse the bodhi-mind, jointly realize bodhi, and together transcend saṃsāra. Therefore, that treatise says: “Because there is no mark of a self, one can arouse the mind, cultivate the practice of forbearance, and so forth.” The specific sufferings and forbearances refer to the other two notions and two forbearances, each arising based on its respective object and each abandoning its mark. Now, intending to lead them to abandon the general notion of suffering, [the Buddha] takes the general forbearance as the counteragent; thus he says that one should abandon all marks and arouse the bodhi-mind. That is, by discerning the principle of selflessness, one is able to abandon the three notions of suffering—self and the rest—and arouse the mind to cultivate the perfection of forbearance. Therefore, Vasubandhu’s treatise provides a verse, saying:

First 47 of 267 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

金剛般若經旨贊 — Classical Chinese