金剛經疏 1.3

1.3

"This Dharma is impartial" has three aspects: first, impartiality of phenomena; second, impartiality of characteristics; third, impartiality of nature. From here, the third dharma is cited: "Through being without self, without person, without sentient being, and without liver of life"—this establishes [it]. Where dharmas involve self and sentient beings, whatever one cultivates leads there; even if there are wholesome dharmas, they proceed together with discrimination, which is why one does not attain it. Where there is no person and no liver of life, all that is cultivated is correct; not being accompanied by discrimination, one specially attains it. From here below: why are they not called wholesome dharmas? It cites: "cultivates all wholesome [dharmas], the Tathāgata says are not wholesome dharmas"—this is a refutation. How does one generate what is called wholesome? It cites: "then one attains anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi." If one cultivates all wholesome dharmas, one then attains anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi; this broadly refutes it. It cites: "Subhūti, as for what are called wholesome [dharmas], the Tathāgata says they are not wholesome dharmas; therefore they are called wholesome dharmas"—this is a refutation. The intent is to cause one to leave behind words and letters. As a metaphor, when a girl puts on makeup, speaking in vain does not achieve makeup; she must necessarily open the mirror, and only when doing so correctly does she achieve makeup. Next, bestowing great benefit: assessing by the teaching of the Dharma. It cites: "Subhūti, if in the trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātavaḥ there were as many Sumeru kings of mountains as all these, and someone took piles of the saptaratna equal to them and used them for giving..." Using a mundane metaphor as an expedient means to demonstrate abundance. Sumeru is the king of mountains because it is the largest, hence called "king of mountains." This mountain is eighty-four thousand yojanas in height and breadth. According to the commentary on the Stages of Practice, for each four-continent world there is one Sumeru mountain. Outside Mount Sumeru there are seven concentric golden mountains, and within the golden mountains are oceans of seven yojanas. The waters all have eight qualities. The eight qualities are: first, light; second, cold; third, soft; fourth, delicious; fifth, pure; sixth, non-odorous; seventh, soothing when drunk; eighth, causing no distress after drinking. Among these, the three kinds—light, cold, and soft—are tangible sense objects. Delicious is a taste sense object. Pure is a visible form sense object. Non-odorous is an odor sense object. Soothing and causing no distress are the complete worldly virtues. These eight coalesce to receive the conventional name "water." Thus we know that the great elements are also conventional designations. From here below: assessing the teaching. Look at the citation: "If a person takes from this Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra even a four-line verse and the like, receives, upholds, reads, recites, and explains it to others, the merit of the former does not equal a hundredth part of this, nor a thousandth, nor a ten-thousandth, nor a hundred-millionth part, up to being beyond the reach of calculation or metaphor." This means that this sūtra is of great benefit. From here below: explaining the third [point], non-forgetfulness of mindfulness. It cites: "Subhūti, what do you think? You all should not say that the Tathāgata has this thought: 'I shall deliver sentient beings.'" This shows that the Buddha has no such thought. Śākyamuni refutes Subhūti, citing: "Subhūti, do not entertain this thought"—this directly refutes what the doubter doubts. "Why?" He himself inquires into the intent of the refutation. For what reason is there no such thought? It cites: "Truly there are no sentient beings delivered by the Tathāgata." The Buddha knows through impartial wisdom. In the impartial Dharma and impartial dharmadhātu, there are no real sentient beings, hence in his intent he does not establish the mark of sentient beings. Suppose there were sentient beings delivered or not? It cites: "If there were sentient beings delivered by the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata would possess ātmasaṃjñā, pudgalasaṃjñā, sattvasaṃjñā, and jīvasaṃjñā." This is explained according to their perspective. Relying on the Buddha's Dharma, are there sentient beings or not? It cites: "Subhūti, the Tathāgata's speaking of having a self is not having a self." There is only the mark of a self, not a real self. Who has a self? It cites: "Yet ordinary beings consider that there is a self." This is the inverted view of non-Buddhists; although they have the view of self, they do not see the existence of the self, nor do they see the Buddha-nature, because they lack prajñā. A verse says: "Ordinary beings generate greed and anger through false marks; / Day after day they worry about another's death—why do they not grieve for their own person?" Another says: "Sentient beings' karmic merit is meager; / They cannot bear to receive the Dharma medicine. / A broken bag holding true pearls— / Step outside the door and they leak away again." Ordinary beings: do they exist or not? It cites: "Subhūti, ordinary beings the Tathāgata says are not ordinary beings." This is the Buddha's true wisdom. Seeing the Tathāgata as an ordinary being, ordinary beings also consider the Buddha an evil person, because they share in the Buddha's activities and benefits. A verse says: "What does the mark of an ordinary being resemble? / It is entirely pure and empty nothingness. / Recognize the mind, eliminate delusions; / Relinquishing retribution, one benefits ordinary beings." Next: explaining the manifest perception of the Dharmakāya. There are six phrases. First, citing the initial text. It cites: "Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be perceived by means of the thirty-two marks?" This is an inquiry. The wondrous marks are deep wisdom; deep wisdom is the bodhi of the four wisdoms. The inquiry having finished, it cites: "Subhūti said: 'Just so, just so; the Tathāgata can be perceived by means of the thirty-two marks.'" This is an erroneous answer. Other kinds do not have these marks; it is an unshared dharma. From here below: Śākyamuni reproaches Subhūti. It cites: "The Buddha said: 'Subhūti, if one could perceive the Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks, then a wheel-turning sage king would be a Tathāgata.'" This is a reprimand. He reproaches him to cause him to abandon the heterodox objection and enter the correct. Comparing these instances exposes the flaw of indeterminacy. From here below: the correct understanding. Look at the citation: "Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'Bhagavat, as I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has spoken, one should not perceive the Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks.'" This is the correct understanding. Having received the correct reprimand, correct understanding arises. From this, Subhūti submits. In the principle of characteristics, there is no Tathāgata. From here, the fifth: showing so as to cause him to see. It cites: "At that time the Bhagavat spoke this verse: 'Whoever sees me by form, / Seeks me by sound, / This person walks a heterodox path, / And cannot see the Tathāgata.'" The verse shows [it] so as to cause seeing. "Sees me by form" is contemplation of the major and minor marks. "Seeks me by sound" is contemplation of preaching the Dharma. "Walks a heterodox path": characteristics are not the Tathāgata, yet one generates the conception of the Tathāgata; this delusional mind is not right view, hence "cannot see the Tathāgata," because it is not the Tathāgata's wondrous Dharmakāya. Contemplation has two kinds: first, right contemplation; second, heterodox contemplation. Right contemplation has five: first, the aggregate of form is like a heap of foam; second, the aggregate of sensation is like a floating bubble; third, the aggregate of perception is like a mirage; fourth, the aggregate of formations is like a plantain tree; fifth, the aggregate of consciousness is like an illusion. From here below: uprooting their doubting mind. Look at the citation: "Subhūti, if you should entertain this thought: 'The Tathāgata did not, by means of the complete marks, attain anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi'"—this uproots their doubting mind. The language is somewhat difficult to interpret because within the words about the marks one character "how" is missing, and at the end of the words about marks one character "heterodox" is missing; such doubt truly arises. It cites: "Subhūti, do not entertain this thought"—this refutes their doubt. From here below: demonstrating the correct principle. Look at the citation: "The Tathāgata did not, by means of the complete marks, attain anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi"—this instructs and causes understanding. Anuttarā-bodhi cannot be attained; how could cultivating completeness serve as the cause of attainment? Next below will be explained: on the ground of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, subduing the mind that has support, attaining the unsupported place. Within the marks there are two: first, speaking of not abiding in the unconditioned; later, speaking of not abiding in the conditioned. The text on not abiding in the conditioned has one verse. Not abiding in defilement; fifth, rejoicing in the Buddha's wondrous wisdom; sixth, blazing vigor. Within the marks there are two; first, citing the initial text. It cites: "Subhūti, if you should entertain this thought: 'Those who generate the mind for anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi speak of dharmas as severed and annihilated'"—this is a reproach. Does it speak of all dharmas as severed and annihilated? It cites: "Do not entertain this thought"—this is an instruction. It eliminates attachment to marks, so do not establish an inclination toward marks. "Why?" An inquiry, seeking the correct meaning. From here below: Śākyamuni distinguishes and clarifies. It cites: "Those who generate the mind for anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, regarding dharmas, do not speak of marks of annihilation"—this is Śākyamuni. Everything is entirely wrought by the Dharmakāya; how can it be distinguished? Subhūti, not abandoning saṃsāra, not entering nirvāṇa: the realm of sentient beings is inexhaustible, and the bodhisattva's vow is likewise. From here below: second, fully understanding all conditioned actions. It cites: "Subhūti, if a bodhisattva should give the saptaratna filling worlds equal to the sands of the Gaṅgā..." This is the second: fully understanding all conditioned actions. From here below: the greatness or smallness of merit. It cites: "If, furthermore, a person knows that all dharmas are without self and attains patience, this bodhisattva surpasses the merit attained by the former bodhisattva." This is because they fully understand all conditioned actions to be without defiled attachment. From here: explaining the reason for superiority. By what matter is it superior? It cites: "Subhūti, because bodhisattvas do not receive merit." This explains the reason for knowing superiority. Knowing selflessness, they do not receive merit. Bodhisattva practice has two kinds: first, practice benefiting oneself; second, practice benefiting others. Hence it says bodhisattvas do not receive merit. Receiving reverently without accepting is bodhisattva practice; not receiving is not bodhisattva practice. Receiving reverently without relinquishing is not bodhisattva practice. Because the practice of bodhisattva practice is like the great earth, it is called not receiving merit. From here: Subhūti generates doubt about bodhisattvas not receiving merit. It cites: "Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'Bhagavat, how do bodhisattvas not receive merit?'" Subhūti generates doubt because he has not yet thoroughly understood the meaning of not receiving. From here, look at the explanation: why do they not receive merit? It cites: "Subhūti, as for the merit wrought by bodhisattvas, they should not greedily attach to it; therefore it is said they do not receive merit." The Tathāgata re-explains it. Those who know the selflessness of dharmas do not attach to what belongs to self. The bodhisattva regresses in fruit but does not regress in practice. Ordinary beings regress in both practice and fruit; śrāvakas regress in neither practice nor fruit. From here, third: entering the Buddha's deportment. It cites: "Subhūti, if someone says the Tathāgata comes or goes, sits or lies down, this person does not understand the meaning of what I say." This is the third: entering the Buddha's deportment. Lacking the deportment of abiding, therefore a great person is not bound by the deportment of abiding; standing is also like this. They do not understand the meaning of what the Tathāgata says. "Why?" The Tathāgata inquires into himself: manifestly seeing the deportment, why do they not understand? It cites: "The Tathāgata has nowhere from which he comes, and also nowhere to which he goes, therefore he is called the Tathāgata." The Buddha turns back to explain it himself: sitting does not depart from walking, walking does not depart from sitting; the intent is that all dharmas have no fixed mark. From here below: fourth, unpolluted by saṃsāra. Within the marks there are two: first, citing the initial text. It cites: "Subhūti, if a kulaputra or kuladhitā should reduce the trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātavaḥ to fine dust particles, what do you think? Would these dust particles be numerous or not?" This is the fourth: unpolluted by saṃsāra. Within the marks there are two: first, eliminating subtle marks—when there is no dust, there is no pollution; later, eliminating coarse marks—when there is no coarseness, there is no attachment. He asks: would these dust particles be numerous or not? "Very many, Bhagavat"—this is a brief answer. "Why?" is an explanation. It cites: "If these dust particles were real entities, the Buddha would not speak of these dust particles." Being already dust of itself, there is no need to break it down. Real dust could pollute, because it could not be parted from. Since there is no real dust, "Why is this?" He further inquires again. Śākyamuni distinguishes and clarifies, citing: "The dust particles spoken of by the Buddha are not dust particles." Through conceptual breakdown, there is no real dust. From here: demolishing marks. Look at the citation: "Bhagavat, the trisāhasramahāsāhasradhātavaḥ spoken of by the Tathāgata are not a world; therefore they are called a world"—this eliminates coarse marks. First eliminating, next explaining, later confirming. First demolishing dust particles is a metaphor for the absence of the aggregate of grasping; next demolishing the world is a metaphor for the absence of the aggregate of thinking. First demolishing dust particles is a metaphor for the receptacle world being unreal; next demolishing the world is a metaphor for the non-existence of sentient beings. First demolishing dust particles is a metaphor for the absence of defilements; next demolishing the world is a metaphor for the absence of body and mind. First speaking of dust particles is a metaphor for the Buddha's transformation bodies pervading the entire dharmadhātu to teach and transform sentient beings; next speaking of the world is a metaphor for all sentient beings who, having heard the Buddha's Dharma, have exhausted their suffering bodies: none of them are real. "Why?" From here below: repeated explanation. It cites: "If the world were a real entity, then it would be a unitary aggregate." This is a repeated explanation. The intent is that all things are without a real world, and it is likewise for this. From here, citing the Buddha's words for confirmation. It cites: "The unitary aggregate spoken of by the Tathāgata is not a unitary aggregate; therefore it is called a unitary aggregate." Citing what the Buddha spoke confirms what he himself understood. All things are not non-empty. From here below: clarifying the unitary aggregate. It cites: "Subhūti, a unitary aggregate is ineffable, yet ordinary beings greedily attach to its affairs." The Tathāgata confirms it. When all things are ineffable, one then attains buddhahood. Therefore all marks are ineffable. The Gaṅgā-sand Buddhas and the myriad phenomena are a single Dharma seal. All reaching the ineffable, one then attains buddhahood. The above various texts differ; all of this has finished [explaining] being unpolluted by saṃsāra. Next below, fifth: rejoicing in the Buddha's wondrous wisdom. The text has three phrases. First, citing the initial text. It cites: "Subhūti, if someone should say that the Buddha spoke of ātmadṛṣṭi, pudgaladṛṣṭi, sattvadṛṣṭi, and jīvadṛṣṭi, Subhūti, what do you think? Does this person understand the meaning of what I have spoken?" This is the initial inquiry. Metaphorically, a father hosts a guest without consulting his household; he simply calls the guest in. The eldest son understands somewhat, while those below, the younger ones, do not understand at all. The father's intent is also like Subhūti: Subhūti is like the eldest son, the younger ones are like the ordinary ranks of later generations. An inquiry of respect. Subhūti answers, citing: "Bhagavat, this person does not understand the meaning of what the Tathāgata has spoken"—this is the correct answer. It is to accomplish the profound wondrousness of the Tathāgata's wisdom; it is to accomplish the profound wondrousness of the Tathāgata's wisdom. "Why?" is an explanation. From here below: Subhūti distinguishes and clarifies. It cites: "The Bhagavat speaks of ātmadṛṣṭi, pudgaladṛṣṭi, sattvadṛṣṭi, and jīvadṛṣṭi as not being ātmadṛṣṭi, pudgaladṛṣṭi, sattvadṛṣṭi, and jīvadṛṣṭi; therefore they are called ātmadṛṣṭi, pudgaladṛṣṭi, sattvadṛṣṭi, and jīvadṛṣṭi." They have only the views, without the self and the like; since what is seen does not exist, that which sees is not a view. The intent is not to give rise to dharmasaṃjñā; giving rise to dharmasaṃjñā, one cannot attain buddhahood. From here below, third: the Tathāgata's earnest exhortation. It cites: "Subhūti, those who generate the mind for anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, regarding all dharmas, should know thus, see thus, and believe and understand thus, not giving rise to dharmasaṃjñā." This is an earnest exhortation: knowing that from beginningless time dharmasaṃjñā is thus, seeing that future dharmas to be dispelled are also thus, believing and understanding that present dharmas are all thus. Can one establish the slightest dharmasaṃjñā? It cites: "Subhūti, as for what is called dharmasaṃjñā, it is whatsoever marks there are. The Tathāgata says it is not dharmasaṃjñā; therefore it is called dharmasaṃjñā." Knowing that those various marks are all false and empty: "is called dharmasaṃjñā" means that if one sees that all marks are non-marks, one then sees the Tathāgata's markless mark; this is the truth. This passage explains the text directly, please take no offense. From here below: explaining the sixth, blazing vigor. It cites: "Subhūti, if someone takes the saptaratna filling immeasurable asaṃkhyeya worlds and uses them for giving..." This is the sixth: blazing vigor. Using the two kinds, material and Dharma, to gather and nurture sentient beings, exhorting only one will not do; this is material gathering. From here, Dharma gathering. Look at the citation: "If there is a kulaputra or kuladhitā who generates the bodhicitta, upholds this sūtra, even down to a four-line verse and the like, receives, upholds, reads, recites, and expounds it for others, their merit surpasses the former." This is Dharma gathering. Dharma gathering surpasses material gathering: material gathering generates superiority; Dharma gathering generates wisdom. Generating wisdom brings liberation, while generating merit has defilement. How does Śākyamuni Buddha expound it for others? It cites: "How does one expound it for others?" Asking for the deportment of expounding the Dharma. From here below: Śākyamuni reveals the rules for transmitting the Dharma. It cites: "Without grasping at marks, unmoved in suchness." Transmitting the Dharma is also without preaching: preaching is without hearing, without hearing is identical to preaching, equally able to skillfully distinguish all dharmas; in marks, regarding the ultimate truth, remaining unmoved. Relinquishing body and life to let sentient beings use them as they will is precisely being unmoved in suchness. "Without grasping at marks, unmoved in suchness. Why?" Arising from the previous question. The six meanings of this sūtra have already been explained above. Later there is one verse; this is the central thesis. It cites: "How? 'All conditioned dharmas / Are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow, / Like dew and like lightning; / One should contemplate them thus.'" All conditioned dharmas are the contemplated realm. "Like a dream and like lightning" metaphorically shows the marks of the realm. "One should contemplate them thus" concludes by exhorting practice and study. However, according to the commentary's explanation, the verse has nine metaphors: like a star, a cataract, a lamp, an illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud. A verse says: "Relatives are like birds roosting in the woods together: / At dawn they depart according to conditions. / Affection perches right before one's face, / Yet looking at each other, they are as strangers on the road." Joining to kill one's father, one will soon know: wife, slaves, and children are not your own. Having already myriad goods, how could they be my eternal treasure? Aside from the ten wholesome deeds and bodhi, anything beyond is surely not the person's jewel. What is regrettable is that lifetime after lifetime one is greedy and stingy, not harboring wholesome goodness. Once fallen into the three bad destinies, when urgent, what will one rely on? Regretting later, regret comes too late; seeking again, seeking is also without recourse. Naturally swallowed up in their midst, advancing and retreating, where would one wander beyond? This entire sūtra consists of roughly three sections: first, the opening preface section before the sūtra; second, the main teaching section suited to the faculties; third, the transmission and circulation section. This text corresponds to the central thesis; it is precisely that. It cites: "How? 'When the Buddha had spoken this sūtra, the Elder Subhūti, along with the bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, upāsikās, and all the worlds of devas, humans, and asuras, hearing what the Buddha spoke, all rejoiced greatly, faithfully accepted it, and practiced it.'" The textual characteristics are radiant and clear; there is no need for extensive explanation.