金剛經疏 1.2.2

1.2.2

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.