金剛經疏 1.2

Next below, there should be an explanation of proceeding to the ultimate ground, unsupported prajñā, and the Tathāgata's merit. In this section, first Subhūti briefly inquires, and next the Tathāgata explains at length. Within this, there are two [parts]. First, citing the opening text:

Citing: "At that time Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Bhagavat, when a kulaputra or kuladhitā sets their mind on anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, how should they abide, and how should they subdue their mind?'" This is the initial brief inquiry. "Kulaputra" refers to a person who makes the cittotpāda. Setting the mind on anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi means generating the great mind. This serves as the basis. There are four kinds of cittotpāda: first, generating the mind of faith; second, generating the mind of understanding; third, generating the mind of practice; fourth, generating the mind of realization. The preceding three kinds of cittotpāda have been explained in the previous text; from this point on, one enters into realization. Śākyamuni replies:

Citing: "The Buddha told Subhūti: 'A kulaputra or kuladhitā who has set their mind on anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi should give rise to a mind such as this: "I must bring all sentient beings to parinirvāṇa."'" Because sentient beings cannot bring themselves to parinirvāṇa, the bodhisattva must undertake the parinirvāṇa of sentient beings. This is the great matter of the Buddha; therefore, a bodhisattva should abide in this mind. The Tathāgata explains at length: what kind of deliverance is made, and how are they delivered?

Citing: "'Yet when all sentient beings have thus been brought to parinirvāṇa, there is not a single sentient being who has truly been brought to parinirvāṇa.'" This answers subduing the mind. Within this, there are three [aspects]: first, practicing the bodhisattva practice, subduing the ātmasaṃjñā, because the mind enters into selflessness; second, in the Tathāgata ground, subduing the dharmasaṃjñā, because the mind enters into the emptiness of dharmas; third, in the ground of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, subduing abiding [in them], because the mind attains non-abiding. One realizes the emptiness of self, because the Tathāgata does not perish.

"Why is this?" raises a question. In this questioning, the text's meaning is concealed because the sense has not yet been grasped. On the basis of what matter are they not entitled to be called sentient beings?

Citing: "'If a bodhisattva has an ātmasaṃjñā, a pudgalasaṃjñā, a sattvasaṃjñā, or a jīvasaṃjñā, they are not a bodhisattva.'" This means that those who can be brought to parinirvāṇa are not real sentient beings.

"Why is this?" Because they have not yet realized the real and do not comprehend the conventional. From here on, the meaning of realization is shown.

Citing: "'Subhūti, in truth there is no dharma by which one sets their mind on anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.'" Because not a single sentient being is truly brought to parinirvāṇa. An aggregation of the eighteen dhātus is called a sentient being; within the eighteen dhātus, there is no fixed master, so one cannot say that there is a sentient being. The dharmas of the eighteen dhātus do not function singly on their own, so one cannot say that there is a real dharma that sets the mind. Stating that there are sentient beings and cittotpāda is all an expedient means, stated in accordance with convention. The various passages above differ; subduing the ātmasaṃjñā and the mind entering into the wisdom of the emptiness of self are concluded.

From here below, subduing the dharmasaṃjñā [is discussed], within which there are three passages of sūtra text. First, citing the initial text:

Citing: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Did the Tathāgata have any dharma attained in anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi in the presence of Dīpaṃkara Buddha or not?'" This is to show that the realization of knowledge by sages and worthies is identical. "Having any dharma attained or not" means that there is no real dharma. Is there a dharma attained, or is there no dharma attained? "No, Bhagavat." Subhūti makes this reply in order to establish the meaning of buddhahood; hence he says, "No." From here, Subhūti explains his reply, see:

Citing: "'As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has said, the Buddha had no dharma attained in anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi in the presence of Dīpaṃkara Buddha.'" As for anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi: the nature of all dharmas is unsupported; when abiding itself cannot be attained, how could it attain anything else? Furthermore, at the time of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, Śākyamuni did not yet exist; since there was no that which is attained, that which attains was also absent. When it was Śākyamuni's time, Dīpaṃkara had already passed away; that which attains was already absent, so how could that which is attained exist? It does not mean that dharmas are entirely nonexistent, but merely that there is no that which attains and that which is attained. From here, Śākyamuni briefly confirms:

Citing: "The Buddha said: 'So it is, so it is, Subhūti. In truth there is no dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.'" "In truth there is no dharma by which the Tathāgata attained bodhi" confirms what he said, because the words accord with the meaning. From here below, it discriminates, see:

Citing: "'Subhūti, if there were a dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, Dīpaṃkara Buddha would not have bestowed upon me the vyākaraṇa: "In a future age you will become a buddha named Śākyamuni."'" This is the discrimination. First the contrapositive, then the direct: this is the contrapositive. If there were a dharma by which bodhi was attained, then he should have bestowed the vyākaraṇa on that dharma; he ought not to have bestowed the vyākaraṇa upon me. "I" refers to the worldly conventional person, whose nature is ultimately unified; thus the vyākaraṇa could be bestowed upon him. Dharmas refer to grasping and retaining, not abiding from moment to moment; having no recipient of vyākaraṇa, it is called bestowing vyākaraṇa. "Śākya" is the clan name; "Śāk" means "capable," because his ancestors of old were capable of being kings, and also to clarify that in the present he is capable of transforming sentient beings, skillfully curing manifold illnesses, and bringing about their benefit. "Muni" means "the fullness of stillness," because body, speech, and mind are full of great quiescence. Śākyamuni Buddha is a transliteration of a Western sound; in Chinese it means "the capable, fully stilled, awakened one." Śākya means a capable person; because of practicing various givings, he is called a capable person. As for those in the present, because they cannot act as capable persons in giving, they are called incapable persons. From here, the direct explanation follows, see:

Citing: "'Because in truth there is no dharma by which anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi is attained, Dīpaṃkara Buddha bestowed upon me the vyākaraṇa, speaking these words: "In a future age you will become a buddha named Śākyamuni."'" This is the direct discrimination. Within the eighteen dhātus, there is none that attains the vyākaraṇa; therefore Dīpaṃkara did not grant vyākaraṇa to dharmas. Because the Buddha's words have nothing that does not accord with the [conventional] self, Dīpaṃkara bestowed the vyākaraṇa upon me, knowing that the conventional person exists and is without annihilation, and that whatever is said is completely true to reality. "You in a future age": because of impermanence, although there is destruction moment to moment, there is no loss of continuity. "Will become a buddha": because at the time of receiving the vyākaraṇa, he had not yet become one; the capacities of those to be transformed would attain the path of awakening, to be fulfilled later. "Named Śākyamuni": because the Buddha eye sees clearly without error. One must light one's own lamp, and then one will attain buddhahood; relying on another's lighting of the lamp is not possible—one must illuminate oneself. "Why is this?" raises a question.

If there were completely no Buddha, one would fall into the view of annihilationism, never having investigated the meaning of the Tathāgata. Therefore, 'Tathāgata' means the suchness of all dharmas, which is the Tathāgata. What meaning is this? To cite: "'Tathāgata' means the suchness of all dharmas." This is the explanation. The ten epithets designate the person and do not designate dharmas; dharmas have no names or epithets and cannot be given vyākaraṇa. "Means the suchness of all dharmas" signifies 'such as the nature of all dharmas.' The syntax in the Western regions is not the same as here, which caused the translator to invert the phrasing. What meaning does that Dharma have, to cause the Tathāgata to be 'such'? It should be known that all dharmas have the meaning of being unmoving, like a bundle of grass: when taken, it does not give rise to anger, and when not taken, it does not give rise to joy. If one has such an understanding, one will attain Buddhahood. If one produces a mental intention, can one find the Buddha? No. To cite: "If someone says that the Tathāgata has attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi," this rebukes delusion. To say that there is something attained is not the Tathāgata. From here below, the true is revealed. Behold the citation: "'Subhūti, there is in truth no dharma by which the Buddha attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.'" This reveals the true. Knowing that there is nothing attained conforms to the Dharma. Does the Tathāgata have a dharma attained, or no dharma attained? To cite: "'Subhūti, in the anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi attained by the Tathāgata, there is neither truth nor falsehood.'" This causes [the mind] to abide. Within what is attained, because the two obscurations are abandoned: the Dharma is 'without truth' because it cannot be grasped; wisdom is 'without falsehood' because it accords with the Dharma and knows it. This concludes with the person being like the Dharma. Are all dharmas the Buddha-Dharma, or are they not? To cite: "'Therefore, the Tathāgata says that all dharmas are the Buddha-Dharma.'" This subsumes dharmas under the person. All sentient beings and noble ones of the three vehicles merely have the patience regarding dharmas, but do not yet have the wisdom regarding dharmas. Therefore they do not attain Buddhahood. Because they do not truly know all dharmas, they do not possess them. Only the Tathāgatas, abiding in the perfected intrinsic nature, equally possess the wisdom regarding dharmas, having already transcended the patience regarding dharmas. Possessing the Dharma of yathābhūta-jñāna is what makes a Buddha. Knowing that all dharmas are without substance immediately enables one to attain Buddhahood. Fearing that sentient beings might go looking for a Buddha among the principles of all dharmas, this is refuted. To cite: "'Subhūti, what are called all dharmas are not all dharmas; therefore they are called all dharmas.'" This is the refutation. Saying 'what are called' means they are not the Buddha-Dharma. One does not grasp dharmas based on words; thus one knows that all dharmas transcend the nature of verbal expression, and therefore they are called all dharmas. What are called all dharmas are verbally 'all'; transcending words, they are not 'all'. This is a designation. As a designation, one dharma is itself all dharmas. This completes the first, the fruit of bodhi. A verse says: / Or having practiced morality, concentration, and wisdom, / Yet not knowing the fundamental source of all dharmas, / Falsely grasping the view of a self and taking it as real, / What one does goes against the principle of non-self. / Because it violates the principle, it is called inverted, / And one is dragged along by the awareness of karma, / Constantly born in the prison of the three realms; / Even if one attains birth in heaven, one does not escape suffering. / From here follows the second, the fruit of the dharmakāya. The text has three clauses; first, the initial passage is cited. To cite: "'Subhūti, suppose a person had a body as large as [a mountain].'" This is the Tathāgata's esoteric speech. From here Subhūti speaks. Behold the citation: "Subhūti said, 'Bhagavat, when the Tathāgata speaks of a person having a large body, it is not a large body; it is called a large body.'" This enters the truth. Not being bound by the three realms—liberation—is the Tathāgata's body. Wisdom is the Tathāgata's body. Being endowed with sarvajñā is the Tathāgata's body. From here below: Does a bodhisattva realize and attain the great body? No. To cite: "'Subhūti, a bodhisattva is also like this.'" The Tathāgata explains by analogy. A bodhisattva is also like this in realizing and attaining the great body. How does a bodhisattva transform sentient beings? To cite: "'If they say: "I will deliver immeasurable sentient beings to parinirvāṇa," they are not called a bodhisattva.'" If a bodhisattva has this mark, it is not the pure fruit. Although a bodhisattva delivers sentient beings, they do not establish the mark of sentient beings; although a bodhisattva expounds the Dharma, they do not establish the mark of expounding the Dharma. Just as an official woman wears her clothes: does the official woman establish even the slightest mark? No. 'Why is this?' The Tathāgata poses the question himself. From here below it is explained. Behold the citation: "'Subhūti, there is in truth no dharma called a bodhisattva.'" This is the doctrinal explanation. Because there is no fixed dharma called a bodhisattva, they are called a bodhisattva merely because they skillfully teach and transform sentient beings through skillful means. According to what principle do they not establish the mark of sentient beings? To cite: "'Therefore the Buddha says: All dharmas are without self, without person, without sentient being, and without living soul.'" Dharmas themselves are without self; how could they be called a person? The above various passages differ; the fruit of the dharmakāya is completed. Next, the fruit of the pure land is explained. The text has four clauses: proposition, interrogation, explanation, and conclusion. First, the initial text is cited. To cite: "'Subhūti, if a bodhisattva says: "I will adorn the buddhakṣetra," they are not called a bodhisattva.'" This is the proposition. Someone might doubt, saying: If a bodhisattva possesses these two marks, they are not a true bodhisattva; what if a bodhisattva adorns the buddhakṣetra? 'Why is this?' is the clause of interrogation. After the interrogation comes the explanation. Behold the citation: "'What the Tathāgata speaks of as adorning the buddhakṣetra is not adorning; it is called adorning.'" This is the explanatory clause. It refutes superimposition. 'It is called adorning' refutes deprecation. When the mind is pure, the Buddha's pure land is pure; the sublime realm is indeed the pure land. One needs only cultivate bodhi to be born and grow here. From here below is the conclusion. Behold the citation: "'Subhūti, if a bodhisattva thoroughly penetrates the dharma of non-self, the Tathāgata calls them a true bodhisattva.'" This is the conclusion. Because they are free from the mark of false conceptualization, they attain true knowledge. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states that a bodhisattva has five meritorious qualities and five marvels, as explained in detail in the commentary. The above various passages differ; the fruit of the pure land is completed. Below, the purity of meritorious qualities will be explained. Within this there are four parts; first, the initial text is cited. To cite: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the physical eye?'" Within the purity of meritorious qualities there are four aspects: first, purity of eyes and wisdom; second, purity of physical marks; third, purity of realms; fourth, purity of mental actions.

These four purities subsume all purities. This is the first question. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the fleshly eye." This is [Subhūti's] reply in accordance with conventional truth. That the Tathāgata possesses the fleshly eye and sees where there is no obstruction—this is seeing with the fleshly eye. What is spoken of here as seeing is not correct seeing; it is because the sixth consciousness generates discrimination. The sixth consciousness is the mind. The Lotus Sūtra says: "To those who should be saved by various kinds of bodies, he immediately manifests various kinds of bodies and preaches the Dharma for them." Below this is the second question: whether the Tathāgata possesses the divine eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the divine eye or not?'" There are two aspects, detailed in the commentary. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the divine eye.'" This is the second reply. The fourth dhyāna refers to the Five Pure Abodes. The divine eye also takes the lump of flesh as its physical basis; emitting light, it sees forms. The Lotus Sūtra says that if one can uphold, read, and recite it, one will see forms beyond obstructions; this is called seeing in the present world. From here is the third question: whether he possesses the wisdom eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the wisdom eye or not?'" This is the third inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the wisdom eye.'" This is the third reply. The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra says: "The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice, and sentient beings each attain understanding according to their kind." Observing and deciding is called wisdom (hui). It is likened to the great mirror-like wisdom (ādarśajñāna): all the various [things] are seen. From here below is the fourth question: whether he possesses the Dharma eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the Dharma eye or not?'" This is the fourth inquiry out of reverence. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the Dharma eye.'" This is the fourth reply. "Eye" has the meaning of a gushing spring; it confirms and delivers all, hence it is called a gushing spring. The spring water does not discriminate; all sentient beings discriminate the spring water by themselves. It is likened to seawater in a tray, placed in a tray; seawater in a bowl, placed in a bowl. The seawater is uniformly of one kind, but the vessels have differences and are not the same; the water is uniformly of one kind. From here below is the fifth question: whether he possesses the Buddha eye or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata possess the Buddha eye or not?'" This is the fifth question. It is an inquiry out of reverence. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata possesses the Buddha eye.'" This is the fifth reply. The preceding passages all contain refutations and establishments; why does this passage not refute? Because this passage is the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya), it does not refute. From here below, the explanation of the purity of wisdom has three parts. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? As to all the sands in the Gaṅgā, does the Buddha speak of them as sand?'" From here below, Subhūti replies. To quote: "'Even so, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata speaks of them as sand.'" […] This is the third question: how much sand is in the Gaṅgā? To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? If there were as many Gaṅgā rivers as the sands in the Gaṅgā, and there were as many Buddha-worlds as the sands in all those Gaṅgā rivers, would they indeed be many?'" […] From here is the fourth reply. Look at the quotation: "'Extremely many, Bhagavat.'" […] Here Subhūti asks, and Śākyamuni replies. Look at the quotation: "The Buddha told Subhūti: 'All the sentient beings in that many lands have diverse minds'"—because their varieties are difficult to calculate, they are called "diverse". From here below reveals the ability to know. To quote: "'The Tathāgata fully knows them.'" This reveals the ability to know. Below this are two interrogations and two explanations. What kind of mental conceptions do they produce? "Why is this?" is the first interrogation. From here below, Śākyamuni distinguishes and explains, knowing whether sentient beings' minds exist or not. To quote: "'The minds spoken of by the Tathāgata are all not minds; therefore they are called minds.'" Grasping with minds of greed, anger, and wrong views, those who commit sins and those who arouse [them]—not excluding those without faith, but setting them aside because of erroneous characteristics and upside-down views. "Why is that?" is the second interrogation. For the second explanation, look at the quotation: "'Subhūti, the past mind cannot be apprehended, the present mind cannot be apprehended, and the future mind cannot be apprehended.'" Among the three minds, which mind commits sins? The past mind has already passed, the future mind has not yet arrived, and the present mind does not abide; why must one cling to each and every false arising? The third part, praising [those who] eradicate defilement and produce the characteristics of faith, has three sections. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? If someone filled the trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātavaḥ with the seven treasures and used them in giving, would this person on this basis gain many blessings?'" From here, Subhūti relates his reply. Look at the quotation: "'Even so, Bhagavat. This person, by this reason, would obtain extremely many blessings.'" This is the second [part], relating the reply. In what way are they many? To quote: "'Subhūti, if blessings had real existence, the Tathāgata would not say that one obtains many blessings. Because blessings do not exist, the Tathāgata says that one obtains many blessings.'" This explains and establishes it. When the three things are not empty: seeing the petitioner, seeing the wealth, and seeing one's own giving—this is the three things not being empty. When their substance is empty: not seeing the petitioner, not seeing the wealth, and not seeing one's own giving—this is the three things being empty in substance. From here, on the eye and wisdom, there are two questions and answers. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by means of the complete physical body?'" It is an inquiry out of reverence. For the reply, look at the quotation: "'No, Bhagavat. The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the complete physical body.'" The physical body is not the Tathāgata. "Why is this?" is to clarify the meaning. From here, clarify it. Look. To quote: "'The Tathāgata's complete physical body is not a complete physical body; therefore it is called a complete physical body'"—because the body is incomplete, causing the body to be deficient. The second: whether the Tathāgata can [be seen] by the various marks or not. To quote: "'Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by means of the completeness of all marks?'" This is the second question. The Tathāgata cannot be seen by the various marks: "'No, Bhagavat.'"

Replying correctly according to principle: "'The Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the completeness of all marks.'" "Why is this?" is an interrogation. It is an interrogation out of reverence. To quote: "'The Tathāgata says that the completeness of all marks is not completeness; therefore it is called the completeness of all marks.'" The phrasing is the same as before; its meaning can be known by analogy, so there is no need for extensive explanation. The preceding various passages were different; the purity of physical marks is now concluded. Next below, the explanation of the characteristics of the purity of the sphere contains two or three interrogations. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "'Subhūti, do not say that the Tathāgata conceives the thought: "I shall have some Dharma to expound."'" This refutes what the other assumes; the Buddha has no such thought, so one should not say so. "'"I shall have some Dharma to expound"—do not form this thought'" means: do not think that the Tathāgata conceives this thought. "Why is this?" interrogates the intention behind this refutation. From here below, interrogating the intention behind the refutation. Look at the quotation: "'If someone says that the Tathāgata has expounded any Dharma, he slanders the Buddha, because he is unable to understand what I have said.'" This explains the intention behind the refutation. Slandering the Buddha brings sin; not understanding brings no benefit. Having refuted false imputations, one must teach true understanding; understanding brings benefit, because there is no sin of slander. From here below reveals the correct meaning. Look at the quotation: "'Subhūti, expounding the Dharma means that there is no Dharma to be expounded; therefore it is called expounding the Dharma.'" The Dharma does not receive teaching; sentient beings receive teaching. For the sake of sentient beings, the Buddha expounds differently according to their faculties. Faculties are manifold, and the expounding is likewise. The preceding passages were different; the purity of the sphere is now concluded. Next is the explanation of the purity of mental practice. The text has four parts. First, quoting the opening passage: To quote: "Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Bhagavat, when the Buddha attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, was it that there was nothing obtained?'" In the Tathāgata's explicit exposition there are four clauses: first, confirming; second, disclosing the essence; third, establishing the Dharma; fourth, refuting. From here, regarding confirmation, look at the quotation: "'Even so, even so'" is affirmation. It confirms out of reverence. From here, regarding establishment, look at the quotation: "'Subhūti, in anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, even down to the slightest dharma, there is nothing that can be obtained; therefore it is called anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.'" This is the establishment: it cannot be obtained through the body, nor can it be obtained through the mind. From here, disclosing the essence, look at the quotation: "'Furthermore, Subhūti, this Dharma is impartial, having neither high nor low; therefore it is called anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.'" This discloses the essence.