金剛般若經挾註 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1 — 9 parts

1.1.1

one sees that all lakṣaṇas are non-characteristics, one immediately sees the Tathāgata. (The Tathāgata’s dharmas are empty.) […] (Seeing by being free from lakṣaṇas.) Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying, “Bhagavat, […] lines, will [sentient beings] give rise to true faith?” (The pṛthagjana’s mind: faith arises due to grasping lakṣaṇas, so he feared that upon hearing this principle there would be nowhere for the mind to rest.) […] spoke thus, (The profound principle of prajñā is spoken for those of the supreme vehicle. Upon hearing […] they immediately awaken, and ought not fail to believe; therefore, do not make this inquiry.) “[…] those who uphold the precepts and cultivate puṇya will be able to give rise to faith in these passages and lines […] (how much more so now that the true Dharma is circulating—how could there be no faith?) You should know that such persons have planted kuśalamūlas not merely with one Buddha, two Buddhas, […] but with immeasurable thousands of myriads of Buddhas. (Being able to.) […] lines, down to a single thought, give rise to pure faith. (Not seeing that which can give rise.) […] Tathāgata fully knows and fully sees that all these sentient beings attain […] (Because he possesses the Buddha’s eye of Dharma, he can fully see and fully know that these sentient beings of pure faith attain such immeasurable puṇya.) Why is this? All these [sentient beings no longer have the notion of a self], the notion of a person, the notion of a sentient being, or the notion of a soul; they have neither the characteristic of dharmas nor the characteristic of non-dharmas. […] (When a single thought is pure, the three emptinesses are instantaneously understood. If one calculates various lakṣaṇas, it is not called pure faith. Being able to believe in prajñā, one knows and penetrates the emptiness of dharmas; therefore one knows that these sentient beings no longer have various lakṣaṇas.) […] then they would grasp at a self, a person, a sentient being, and a soul. (Why are lakṣaṇas immediately) […] (giving rise to pure faith.) If they grasp at the characteristic of dharmas, they immediately grasp at a self, a person, a sentient being, […] Why is this? If they grasp at the characteristic of non-dharmas, they immediately grasp at a self, a person, a sentient […] [Therefore, one should not grasp at] dharmas, nor should one grasp at non-dharmas. (Not grasping at the characteristic of dharmas, one breaks through existence by means of emptiness. If one stagnates in emptiness and is not empty, one returns to grasping at the lakṣaṇa of existence.) […] the Tathāgata always says: ‘You monks, know that my preaching of […] [is like a raft; even dharmas should be abandoned,] how much more so non-dharmas!’ (Because of not grasping at lakṣaṇas, the Tathāgata always says [this]. Preaching the absence of dharmas fundamentally shatters existence; if one knows existence to be non-existent, one then awakens.) […] (Shore and trap. A trap is used to catch fish; having caught the fish, one forgets the trap. Reaching the shore, one abandons the raft. Thus the Great Sage [dispels] all views; once all views are eliminated, empty dharmas are also exhausted—how much more could non-empty dharmas [be kept]?) […] How could the Tathāgata have attained anuttarā samyaksambodhi […]? (Previously, he commanded the abandoning of dharmas to eliminate both extremes. If so, how could the Buddha uniquely attain bodhi and preach the Dharma for people?) Subhūti […] there is no fixed dharma named anuttarā samyak[sambodhi, nor is there any fixed dharma] that the Tathāgata can preach. (The unsurpassed correct path is tranquil and without substance; it is awakened to without lakṣaṇas. After the Buddha attained bodhi, in awakening there is no Buddha.) […] Why is this? The dharmas preached by the Tathāgata can neither be grasped nor […] (Because sentient beings are free from lakṣaṇas, it cannot be grasped; because it is free from words, it cannot be spoken. Yet marvelously it is not existent; not being non-existent, it is not nothing. Neither existent nor non-existent, because it is free from all words and lakṣaṇas.) […] Why is that? (Why is it that the Buddha must preach the Dharma, yet has no fixed dharma to preach?) All noble ones and sages are distinguished by means of asamskṛta dharmas. (In asamskṛta dharmas there is fundamentally no distinction. The faculties and consciousnesses of the noble ones and sages of the Three Vehicles differ; with a single voice he expounds, and they follow shallow and deep [accordingly]. […] While not yet awakened, he assesses the sickness to administer medicine, hence he constantly preaches the Dharma. Once awakened, medicine and sickness are both eliminated, and there is no dharma to preach […].) Subhūti, what do you think? If a person were to fill a trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu with the seven precious jewels and give them in dāna, ( […] if a person's giving of wealth and jewels clarifies that the lines and principles are truly not empty,) would the puṇya obtained by this person be much?” Subhūti said, “Very much, Bhagavat.” (The seven jewels are rare and precious; three thousand [realms] are completely filled. The giving of puṇya devoid of svabhāva is vast and ever-increasing.) “Why is this? This puṇya is not of the nature of puṇya; therefore the Tathāgata says that the puṇya is much.” (The reason the giving is vast and the puṇya is much is that it is not of the nature of puṇya. If it were of the nature of puṇya, the jewels […] would not make the puṇya much. It is only because the puṇya devoid of svabhāva relies on external conditions that the Tathāgata speaks of puṇya.) “If, moreover, there is a person who upholds from this sūtra even down to a four-line verse and explains it to others, their puṇya surpasses that [former one].” (The puṇya of giving material wealth is not of the nature of puṇya. Although puṇya results from giving, it does not lead to bodhi. The merit of upholding the sūtra, even with few lines or verses, can cause sentient beings to eliminate the obstacle of afflictions; this is true puṇya, hence it surpasses that.) “Why is this? Subhūti, all Buddhas and the anuttarā samyaksambodhi dharmas of all Buddhas all come forth from this sūtra. (The correct wisdom of prajñā illuminates completely without obstruction. The unsurpassed correct path is manifested from this. All Buddhas first cultivate it themselves and finally use it to transform beings; its benefits and rescues are vast and far-reaching—what does not proceed from this?) Subhūti, what is called the Buddha Dharma is immediately not the Buddha Dharma. (Dharmas have no svabhāva; when realized, they are completely identical. Awakened to emptiness through teaching, it is called the Buddha [Dharma]. Dharmas are established through teaching; awakening does not stagnate in emptiness. Directly speaking, there is no dharma that can be negated—how could it merely be that it is not the Buddha Dharma?) Subhūti, what do you think? Can a srotāpanna think: ‘Have I attained the fruit of a srotāpanna’?” (Cultivating the undefiled, realizing the undefiled fruit, awakening to having nothing attained—this is named a srotāpanna. Borrowing the non-self of the Hīnayāna clarifies prajñā’s forgetting of lakṣaṇas.) Subhūti said, “No, Bhagavat.” (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) “Why is this? A srotāpanna is named a stream-enterer, yet there is nowhere entered; not entering rūpa, śabda, gandha, rasa, spraṣṭavya, or dharmas—this is named a srotāpanna.” (Practicing the undefiled fruit is named entering the stream of the Path. Not grasping at the lakṣaṇa of the fruit, there is no stream to enter. How could forgetting lakṣaṇas result in there being no stream of the Path to enter, or conversely, having a self, enter the six dusts of sound and form?) “Subhūti, what do you think? Can a sakṛdāgāmin think: ‘Have I attained the fruit of a sakṛdāgāmin’?” (Cutting off the reflections of the desire realm.)

1.1.2

[does he who] realizes the non-characteristic emptiness of a person and self, at the time of realizing the fruit, have such a thought or not?) Subhūti said, "No, Bhagavat." (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) "Why is this? A sakṛdāgāmin is named 'once-returning', yet in reality there is no returning; this is called a sakṛdāgāmin." (Having exhausted the destinies of devas and humans, he obtains a single returning life. Here 'returning' clarifies the fruit attained. He does not grasp at the characteristic of the fruit; hence there is truly no returning. If he saw the fruit of once-returning, that would give rise to egoistic conceit, and he would not be a sakṛdāgāmin.) "Subhūti, what do you think? Can an anāgāmin form this thought: 'I have attained the fruit of an anāgāmin'?" (Having entirely cut off mental afflictions of the desire realm, he does not return again. At the time of realizing the fruit, does he have this thought or not?) Subhūti said, "No, Bhagavat." (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) "Why is this? An anāgāmin is named 'non-returning', yet in reality there is no non-returning; therefore he is called an anāgāmin." (Realizing the absence of person and self, he does not return again; thus he is called 'non-returning'. Both person and dharmas are empty, without characteristics of grasping or abiding; therefore in reality there is no coming. This is the anāgāmin, which possesses this meaning.) "Subhūti, what do you think? Can an arhat form this thought: 'I have attained the path of an arhat'?" (Practicing wisdom, he cuts off afflictions. At the time of realizing the fruit, does he have this thought or not?) Subhūti said, "No, Bhagavat." (This person does not give rise to the thought of attaining the fruit.) "Why is this? In reality there is no dharma named an arhat." (Because he cuts off afflictions, he is named an arhat. The nature of afflictions is empty; in cutting them off there is nothing to be cut off. Realizing there is nothing to be cut off, how could there further be a distinct arhat?) "Bhagavat, if an arhat were to form this thought, 'I have attained the path of an arhat', that would be clinging to a self, a person, a sentient being, and a soul." (If he grasps at the characteristic of the fruit, he presumes there is a self. Not forgetting characteristics with regard to the self, all grasping at characteristics incurs retribution; all afflictions arise. Grasping at characteristics and undergoing rebirth, how could he be named an arhat?) "Bhagavat, the Buddha has declared that among humans I have attained araṇā-samādhi and am foremost, that I am the foremost arhat free from desire." (Subhūti delights in forest practice, has attained the concentration of samādhi, and has deeply entered contemplation without conflict or dispute. Among all humans, he is the most transcendent; thus he is called foremost. The afflictions of the three realms, which bind through attachment chasing after sense objects, are called desire. Having completely abandoned these, he is likewise called foremost.) "I do not form this thought: 'I am an arhat free from desire.'" (At that time I never gave rise to the thought, saying: 'There is desire to be abandoned; there is a fruit to be attained.') "Bhagavat, if I were to form this thought, 'I have attained the path of an arhat', the Bhagavat would not say that Subhūti is a forest-dweller." (If I gave rise to the thought, reckoning an attainment of the fruit and achieving the path free from desire, that would become clinging to a self and would conflict with non-disputing practice. Then the Bhagavat would not have said that I am a forest-dweller.) "Because Subhūti in reality has no practice, he is named 'Subhūti who is a forest-dweller'." (Being without practice in the midst of practice is to comprehend the characteristic of emptiness.) The Buddha addressed Subhūti, "What do you think? When the Tathāgata was formerly with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, did he attain anything with regard to the Dharma?" (About to clarify that bodhisattvas likewise awaken to emptiness, he therefore turns to ask: 'Formerly when I was a bodhisattva, at the place of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, I received the vyākaraṇa of bodhi; at that time, did I see that there was a dharma of bodhi to be attained?') "[No,] Bhagavat. When the Tathāgata was formerly with Dīpaṃkara Buddha, with regard to the Dharma he in reality attained nothing." (Awakening to the empty nature of dharmas, he attained anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti and diligently practiced prajñā; the supreme fruit is called bodhi. Deeply entering correct contemplation, all Buddhas confer vyākaraṇa based on this.) "Subhūti, what do you think? Does a bodhisattva adorn Buddha-fields?" (When a bodhisattva cultivates the practices of a pure land, does he see that there is a pure land to be adorned?) "No, Bhagavat. Why is this? The adornment of Buddha-fields is no adornment; this is called adornment." (The myriad practices are impermanent, ultimately empty and quiescent. There is also cultivation, which is conventionally designated 'adornment'. Lands are originally empty, without characteristics of adornment. Being able to understand signlessness is precisely adornment through this; therefore it is called adornment.) "Therefore, Subhūti, a bodhisattva mahāsattva should thus give rise to a pure mind: they should not give rise to a mind abiding in rūpa; they should not give rise to a mind abiding in śabda, gandha, rasa, spraṣṭavya, or dharmas." (Therefore, cultivators do not grasp at the characteristics of adornment. They should thus give rise to an ultimately empty and quiescent mind. Because this mind is pure, it does not abide in rūpa or in śabda, gandha, and the rest. If with respect to these dharmas one gives rise to a mind, then it is not a fruit realized by a pure mind; because it is not the ultimate fruit, one should not do so.) "They should give rise to their mind without abiding anywhere." (Knowing that the characteristics of rūpa are empty, the mind abides nowhere; therefore, in non-abiding they give rise to a pure mind. Although having the provisional name of 'giving rise to a mind', there is no characteristic of an abiding mind. The correct contemplation of non-abiding, with its illumination of wisdom clear and serene—this is precisely abiding in prajñā through non-abiding dharmas.) "Subhūti, suppose there were a person whose body was like Mount Sumeru, king [of mountains]. What do you think? Would that body be large?" (The characteristics of the body are empty. Even if like Mount Sumeru, though having the name 'large', none have real substance. One should not give rise to a mind that grasps at characteristics, taking it to be a large body. To refute the previous mind that grasped at rūpa, he therefore raises the question of a large body.) Subhūti said, "Extremely large, Bhagavat. Why is this? The Buddha has explained that it is not a body; this is called a large body." (Observing Mount Tai, wood and stone share the same mound, combining numerous materials, provisionally named 'large'. Originally lacking intrinsic nature, how could it be definitively large? Therefore the Buddha said it is not a body; this is called a large body. One should not give rise to a mind to grasp at bodily characteristics, just as rūpa, śabda, and the rest cannot be grasped.) "Subhūti, as many grains of sand as there are in the Gaṅgā River, if there were as many Gaṅgā Rivers as these grains of sand, what do you think? Would the sand in all those Gaṅgā Rivers be numerous?" (Using the sand of one Gaṅgā River to count rivers, the sand in those rivers is also like that. Would such a number be great?) Subhūti said, "Extremely numerous, Bhagavat. Those Gaṅgā Rivers alone would be innumerably many, how much more so their sand!" (If the rivers numbered by the sand are already innumerable, how much more so their sand!)

1.1.3

truly very much.) “Subhūti, I now declare the truth to you: if a kulaputra or kuladhitā were to fill trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātus equal in number to the sands of all those Gaṅgā rivers with the seven precious jewels and give them away in布施, would the puṇya obtained be much?” Subhūti said, “Very much, Bhagavat.” (puṇya devoid of svabhāva: when giving is vast, the puṇya is much. The sand-rivers and trichiliocosms are limitless in number; thus we know that the puṇya obtained is indeed very much.) The Buddha told Subhūti, “If a kulaputra or kuladhitā, from within this sūtra, should even accept and uphold a four-line verse, etc., and explain it to others, this puṇya would surpass the previous puṇya.” (Material giving, though great, does not benefit wisdom-understanding. Though the verses are few, they necessarily tend toward bodhi. Comparing them thus, there is no comparison.) “Furthermore, Subhūti, wherever this sūtra or even a four-line verse, etc., is spoken, you should know that that place is one that all the world—devas, humans, and asuras—ought to make offerings to, as to a Buddha's stūpa or shrine; (Further indicating the superior meaning to encourage practice. After the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, there are stūpas, shrines, and surviving images. If furthermore there is someone who speaks this sūtra in any place and also upholds its verses, then the host of devas, humans, and others should all make offerings to them, just as to that stūpa or shrine.) how much more so if someone can completely accept, uphold, read, and recite it! Subhūti, you should know that such a person accomplishes the supreme, foremost, and most rare dharma. (The correct wisdom of prajñā is able to tend toward bodhi. If a person accepts and upholds it, they will certainly generate faith and understanding; thus one knows that this person can accomplish unsurpassed bodhi, hence it is called the 'supreme, foremost, and most rare dharma'.) Wherever this classic sūtra is located, there is a Buddha or a revered disciple.” (Here it says that where the classic sūtra is located, there is a person who has accomplished the rare above. When the superior dharma resides in a person, there is a Buddha; with a slight difference, they are like a revered disciple.) At that time, Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying, “Bhagavat, by what name should this sūtra be called, and how should we uphold it?” (What was explained earlier is all without fixed dharmas. Though dharmas are not fixed, the teaching must have an essential principle. Wishing to proclaim this meaning, he raised this question.) The Buddha told Subhūti, “This sūtra is named Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā. By this title, you should uphold it. (The correct wisdom of prajñā is likened to a vajra, destroying the barrier of afflictions, realizing and emerging into the middle way, crossing the stream of craving, and transcending to the other shore. Therefore, by this title and its limitless superior meanings, you should investigate reality in accordance with the name and uphold it accordingly.) For what reason? Subhūti, the prajñāpāramitā spoken by the Tathāgata is not prajñāpāramitā. (Speaking the dharma of prajñā cures the illness of afflictions. Afflictions are delusional, arising from clinging to views. Once the illness of delusion is removed, true dharmas should also be abandoned. If one clings to and grasps prajñā without understanding the meaning of emptiness, this prajñā alone also becomes an affliction. Therefore, when the Buddha speaks of prajñāpāramitā, there is no fixed dharma named prajñā.) Subhūti, what do you think: Does the Tathāgata have any dharma that was spoken?” (Previously it was said that it is not prajñā, but the reason why it is not was not yet clear. Therefore, he turns back to examine this doubt so as to illuminate the previous meaning.) Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying, “Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has nothing spoken.” (Without obstruction in words, speaking all his life yet never having spoken; without grasping at dharmas, explaining all his life yet never having explained. As I have spoken, even dharmas should be abandoned. Being blind to this path, those who speak do not know; therefore, regarding these two nights […], I have spoken nothing at all.) “Subhūti, what do you think: Are the minute particles of dust in a trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu many?” Subhūti said, “Very many, Bhagavat.” (Previously it was explained that principle and teaching are not to be grasped; here it is explained that the objective realm is also empty.) “Subhūti, these minute particles of dust the Tathāgata speaks of as not minute particles of dust; they are named minute particles of dust. The Tathāgata speaks of worlds as not worlds; they are named worlds. (Dispersing that world makes minute particles of dust; within those dust particles, originally there is no svabhāva. Accumulating those dust particles makes a world; within this world, how could there be a nature? Originally having no svabhāva, they are therefore not minute particles of dust; because of provisional conditions, they are named worlds.) Subhūti, what do you think: Can one see the Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks?” “No, Bhagavat. (The Dharma originally has no words; based on words, the teaching is established. The body originally has no characteristics; based on characteristics, the body is seen. Since based on words the teaching is established, one cannot cling to words and seek the principle; based on characteristics the body is seen, so one cannot grasp characteristics and see the Buddha.) For what reason? The thirty-two marks spoken of by the Tathāgata are non-characteristics; they are named the thirty-two marks.” (Provisionally establishing the bodily marks to represent the Dharma King. All dharmas are originally empty; the bodily marks do not exist. Being able to know that all characteristics are non-characteristics, forms and characteristics are all empty; this wondrous body is itself named the thirty-two marks.) “Subhūti, if a kulaputra or kuladhitā were to give away their bodies and lives as many times as the sands of the Gaṅgā, and if furthermore there were someone who, from within this sūtra, should even accept and uphold a four-line verse, etc., and explain it to others, their puṇya would be much more.” (Giving one's body and life many times, the superior reward still involves saṃsāra. Being able to accept and uphold this sūtra even a little, when entanglements are exhausted, there is naturally no arising and ceasing. Comparing their puṇya, upholding the sūtra is much greater.) At that time, Subhūti, hearing this sūtra spoken and deeply understanding its meaning and import, wept tears of sorrow and addressed the Buddha, saying, “Rare, Bhagavat! The Buddha has spoken such a profound classic sūtra. From the time in the past when I obtained the eye of wisdom, I have never before heard such a sūtra. (In the past, having obtained the eye of wisdom, regarding existence I saw emptiness. Now hearing this sūtra, emptiness is also discarded; this is called the middle way, and therefore I had never heard it before. Subhūti understands emptiness and has long attained its profound import; wishing to give rise to the teaching to instruct the future, he weeps tears of sorrow and praises its rarity.) Bhagavat, if furthermore there is a person who gets to hear this sūtra, whose mind of faith is pure, then there arises the characteristic of reality. One should know that this person accomplishes the foremost, rare guṇa. (Faith that does not cling to characteristics is a pure mind. Attaining a pure mind, one can then illuminate prajñā.

1.1.4

the true mark. Attaining this true mark, one will surely head toward bodhi; when the fruit of bodhi is perfected, it is named foremost and rare guṇa.) ‘Bhagavat, this true mark is precisely a non-characteristic; therefore the Tathāgata speaks of it as the name “true mark.”’ (Using prajñā wisdom, one heads toward the true mark. Now, does the true mark have any mark? It is the wondrously formed dharmakāya, truly empty and unimpeded, not a provisional existent mark, and yet not free from empty non-marking. Is this very mark not the true mark?) ‘Bhagavat, now that I have heard such a sūtra, to believe, understand, accept, and uphold it is not difficult.’ (Having personally received vyākaraṇa, he has long understood empty dharmas. Hearing it spoken again now, to believe and understand it is not difficult.) ‘If in a future age, in the final five hundred years, there are sentient beings who hear this sūtra, believe, understand, accept, and uphold it, such persons will be foremost and rare.’ (In the age of the Semblance Dharma, one is ever farther from the sages. Merely hearing the bequeathed teaching, they immediately understand and uphold it; thus we know these persons comprehend the profound meaning, none surpassing them; hence it is called foremost.) ‘Why is this? Such persons will have no notion of a self, notion of a person, notion of a sentient being, or notion of a soul.’ (Why is this? That such persons are called foremost and rare is because they do not grasp at such notions as these; being able to believe and understand this sūtra, they are considered foremost.) ‘For what reason? The notion of a self is precisely a non-characteristic; the notion of a person, the notion of a sentient being, and the notion of a soul are precisely non-characteristics.’ (In terms of a self there is no mark, yet one falsely calculates there to be a self. Understanding that the notion of a self is a non-characteristic, one then does not cling to a person, a sentient being, or a soul.) ‘Why is this? One who is free from all marks is called a Buddha.’ (Why is this? That this person has no self is what makes them rare. Being able to leave all marks behind is precisely bodhi; hence they are rare.) The Buddha told Subhūti, ‘It is so, it is so.’ (Endorsing his statement.) ‘If there is another person who hears this sūtra and is not startled, not terrified, and not afraid, you should know that this person is extremely rare.’ (In asamskṛta dharmas there are distinctions; among such worthy and noble ones, their superiority and inferiority differ. Those of the two lesser vehicles are bound to clinging to causes and conditions, puṇya and retribution; hearing this profound meaning, they will surely be startled and terrified. To be able not to be afraid is already rare; how much more so to be able to believe, understand, accept, and uphold it!) ‘Why is this? Subhūti, the Tathāgata speaks of the foremost pāramitā as not the foremost pāramitā; it is named the foremost pāramitā.’ (All dharmas are not dual; hence it is called the foremost. “Those who reach the other shore” is said in contrast to this stream. When this stream is exhausted, where is the other shore? Thus we know that all dharmas are merely conventional names; when afflictions are exhausted, names fall away, and so it is not the foremost. Comprehending this meaning, one can enter the profound gate; thus it is named the foremost pāramitā.) ‘Subhūti, the kṣānti-pāramitā the Tathāgata speaks of as not the kṣānti-pāramitā.’ (Kṣānti clarifies the absence of self. When others insult me and I endure, that is regarded as an excellent practice. When fundamentally there is no person or self, who insults and who endures?) ‘Why is this? Subhūti, as when in the past my body was sliced and dismembered by King Kali, at that time I had no notion of a self, no notion of a person, no notion of a sentient being, and no notion of a soul.’ (Without self and without person, who endures and who insults?) ‘Why is this? When I was dismembered joint by joint in the past, if I had had a notion of a self, a notion of a person, a notion of a sentient being, or a notion of a soul, I would have given rise to anger and hatred.’ (Previously, being sliced without self was cited to clarify non-endurance; now, not giving rise to anger is cited to clarify non-self again. When the Hīnayāna clings to the notion of a self, they mostly produce greed and anger; now when limbs and body are torn apart, not producing anger—what external mark could intervene there? One knows there is no self.) ‘Subhūti, I also recall that in the past, for five hundred lifetimes I was an ascetic practicing kṣānti; throughout those lifetimes I had no notion of a self, no notion of a person, no notion of a sentient being, and no notion of a soul.’ (Understanding that there is no notion of a self was not limited to this life; at that time he had already comprehended this principle.) ‘Therefore, Subhūti, a bodhisattva should leave behind all marks and give rise to the mind of anuttarā samyaksambodhi.’ (From earlier up to this point, the meaning of subduing and abiding without marks was clarified; now it is clarified that leaving behind marks and having no nature is indeed how a bodhisattva resolves their mind. Furthermore, in bodhi there is no fixed dharma; resolving the mind by taking up marks, would that not also be difficult?) ‘One should not give rise to a mind abiding in rūpa; one should not give rise to a mind abiding in śabda, gandha, rasa, spraṣṭavya, or dharmas.’ (Bodhi has no fixed mark that can be seized, how much less so the six sense objects? These are provisional, composite marks; one should not give rise to a mind abiding in these.) ‘One should give rise to a mind that does not abide in anything.’ (Because having an abode means clinging to all marks, he urges giving rise to the mind without abiding anywhere. This is an antithetical explanation. Now, when there is no abiding, does one give rise to a mind? If one gives rise to a mind in non-abiding, that does not avoid having an abode. It is simply that in all dharmas there is no abiding, and this is what is meant by giving rise to the mind; it does not mean separately giving rise to a mind that does not abide anywhere. Hence the text below says:) ‘If the mind has an abode, then it is not abiding.’ (This also dispels non-abiding. It means that if the mind has an abode in non-abiding, then it is not abiding in non-abiding.) ‘Therefore the Buddha says: A bodhisattva’s mind should not abide in rūpa when practicing giving.’ (Citing the Buddha’s previous statement to corroborate the present meaning.) ‘Subhūti, for the benefit of all sentient beings, a bodhisattva should give in this manner.’ (If a bodhisattva gives while abiding in marks, that is not yet profound liberation; when sentient beings have desires, to benefit them would also be difficult, wouldn't it? Therefore, when a bodhisattva applies their mind, they should give in this manner without abiding in marks.) ‘The Tathāgata speaks of all marks as precisely non-characteristics;’ (All marks, such as puṇya, cause and effect, and retribution spoken of by the Tathāgata, are all merely because sentient beings’ deluded minds produce thoughts. In dharma-nature, they are fundamentally empty, and therefore they are non-characteristics.) ‘and also speaks of all sentient beings as precisely not sentient beings.’ (If one gives while abiding in marks, then one sees there to be a giver and a recipient. Now, not abiding in marks, there is no notion of a self and no notion of a person; because the nature of beings is empty, they are precisely not sentient beings.) ‘Subhūti, the Tathāgata is one who speaks the truth, one who speaks what is real, one who speaks of thusness, one who does not speak deceptively, and one who does not speak differently.’ (Now, the absence of notions of self and person, as well as giving without abiding,

1.1.5

(This profound prajñā is the gate to the meaning of the middle way. Fearing that people of the two vehicles would not generate true faith, [the Tathāgata] therefore relies on five expressions to show tathatā. Subhūti, you should know that it is neither deceitful nor deviant.) 'Subhūti, the dharma attained by the Tathāgata—this dharma is neither real nor unreal.' (Having real and having unreal is shown to people in accordance with teaching. Neither real nor unreal is where both are forgotten and spontaneously transformed. Therefore, when the Tathāgata speaks the Dharma, he lodges in the real to dispel the unreal; once unreal dharmas are forgotten, real dharmas are also exhausted. Thus, with regard to this dharma, it is neither real nor unreal.) 'Subhūti, if a bodhisattva's mind abides in dharmas while practicing giving, they are like a person entering darkness, seeing nothing at all.' (Holding to the dharma of receiving and giving and calculating fruits of retribution, they then do not understand the prajñā meaning of non-characteristics. Because this is lacking the brightness of wisdom, it is like entering darkness and seeing nothing.) 'If a bodhisattva's mind does not abide in dharmas while practicing giving, they are like a person with eyes when the sun shines brightly, seeing all kinds of colors.' (When the sun rises in the morning, those with eyes see various forms and colors. When prajñā is fully perfected in non-abiding, one understands the emptiness of all dharmas; for the benefit of sentient beings, one practices inexhaustible dāna. Not abiding in characteristics, one has never given rise to a mind of giving.) 'Subhūti, in future ages, if there are good men and good women who are able to uphold, read, and recite this sūtra, the Tathāgata, by means of the Buddha's wisdom, will fully know these people and fully see these people; they all will achieve immeasurable and boundless merit.' (Confirming and encouraging the cultivation of such profound meaning as above.) 'Subhūti, if there are good men and good women who, in the first part of the day, give their bodies as many as the sands of the Gaṅgā in giving; in the middle part of the day, again give their bodies as many as the sands of the Gaṅgā in giving; and in the latter part of the day, likewise give their bodies as many as the sands of the Gaṅgā in giving; giving their bodies in this way through immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of kalpas' (Dividing the day into three periods, giving with internal wealth, through such koṭis of kalpas, the puṇya calculated is great) 'and if, furthermore, there is someone who hears this scripture with a faithful mind and does not oppose it, their puṇya will surpass the former.' (Hearing the previous non-abiding giving, one immediately accords with the mind of non-characteristics. Only this faithful mind can be called penetrating understanding; hence the puṇya of penetrating understanding surpasses that of giving the body.) 'How much more so if one copies, upholds, […] recites it, and explains it to others!' (Faithful mind without opposition already brings much puṇya; how much more so if one can copy, recite, and explain it to others? Could the benefit of widespread help be measured?) 'Subhūti, to […] this sūtra has inconceivable, inestimable, and boundless merit.' (To summarize […] great […] equal to tathatā; therefore, its depth cannot be grasped by conceiving, nor its weight by estimating. How could such merit have boundaries?) 'The Tathāgata speaks it for those who set out on the Great Vehicle, [and for those who set out on the] Supreme Vehicle.' (Those of superior faculties who understand the true characteristic are called the Great Vehicle. Attaining the contemplation of non-arising and deeply entering the secret treasury, the designation 'Supreme' is added. It is not that the Tathāgata casually screens out the two vehicles and does not speak it for them; it is only that people of the two vehicles have yet to understand it.) 'If someone is able to uphold, read, recite, and broadly explain it to others, the Tathāgata fully knows this person and fully sees this person; they all will achieve merit that cannot be measured, cannot be calculated, is boundless, and is inconceivable.' (Those of the Great Vehicle and Supreme Vehicle who can use prajñā to benefit themselves and others are fully known by the Buddha-mind and fully seen by the Buddha-eye. All are known to achieve the non-characteristic superior meaning. Because this dharma is free from all characteristics and has no extremes of annihilation or permanence, its merit cannot be calculated, measured, conceived, or known.) 'Such people as these will be bearing the Tathāgata's anuttarā samyaksambodhi.' (These people deeply penetrate prajñā and broadly explain it to others; this is bearing the true Dharma and carrying the superior meaning, causing all sentient beings to accomplish merit.) 'Why is this? Subhūti, if one delights in inferior dharmas, clings to the view of a self, the view of a person, the view of a sentient being, or the view of a soul, then regarding this sūtra, one will be unable to listen to, accept, read, recite, or explain it to others.' (The Small Vehicle clings to characteristics; regarding this profound meaning, they cannot faithfully uphold it.) 'Subhūti, wherever this sūtra exists, all the worlds, gods, humans, and asuras should make offerings to it. You should know that this place is a stūpa; all should reverently pay homage and circumambulate it, scattering flowers and incense upon that place.' (This sūtra gives birth to the Buddhas' supreme, correct, and universal knowledge. A stūpa is where the relic-images of the Buddhas reside. Understanding the meaning leads directly to bodhi; hearing the sūtra is just like seeing the Buddha. Therefore, wherever this sūtra is located, it is identical to a stūpa, temple, and relic-image. Thus, gods, humans, and asuras should make offerings, pay homage, and circumambulate to show reverence; scattering flowers and incense expresses a mind of pure faith. It does not mean seeking awakening in incense and flowers, or understanding emptiness in bowing deeply.) 'Furthermore, Subhūti, if good men or good women uphold, read, and recite this sūtra, and if they are despised and reviled by people, these people's past-life sinful karma should have caused them to fall into the evil paths. Because they are despised by people in the present life, their past-life sinful karma is eradicated, and they will attain anuttarā samyaksambodhi.' (This is solely to exhort those who uphold the sūtra. If karma were predetermined to fall into the evil paths, those of dull faculties would certainly be terrified upon hearing it—how could they faithfully uphold, read, and recite this sūtra? If, in the latter five hundred years, those who hear these passages can give rise to a faithful mind, these people have already planted kuśalamūlas before thousands of myriads of Buddhas; how could they still be despised by people? Moreover, regarding this sūtra, the Buddha spoke it for those of the Great Vehicle and the Supreme Vehicle; all is true and not deceitful. One should not casually exhort foolish people to believe and aspire to bodhi through words that grasp characteristics. Did the Tathāgata have another deep meaning? Or did the translator of the sūtra lose its intended meaning?) 'Subhūti, I recall in the past, through immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas, before Dīpaṃkara Buddha, I encountered eighty-four thousand myriads of koṭis of nayutas of Buddhas, and made offerings to them all and served them without passing by any in vain.' (Explaining the bodhi I have realized in the present [...])

1.1.6

[... It is also due to the guṇa accumulated from the past.] If someone in the later, final age is able to accept, uphold, read, and recite this sūtra, the guṇa that they obtain, in comparison to the guṇa of my making offerings to all those Buddhas, does not equal even a hundredth part, a thousandth, a myriadth, a koṭi-th part, or even any calculation or simile could reach. (Commentary: In the final age people are corrupt, and superior intention is hard to arouse. Therefore, one who can uphold the sūtra at this time has exceedingly vast guṇa. Measuring against my past offerings, a hundredth part does not reach one [part of it], up to thousands, myriads, and koṭis of parts—their guṇa and merits cannot be known.) Subhūti, if a kulaputra or kuladhitā in the later, final age accepts, upholds, reads, and recites this sūtra, regarding the guṇa they attain, if I were to explain it fully, there might be someone who, upon hearing it, would have a mind driven into frenzy and confusion, harbouring doubt and suspicion without faith. (Commentary: Regarding the puṇya of rewarding gifts, people all grasp at characteristics. The destination of the guṇa of verses is the asamskṛta; the supreme cause of bodhi is awakened through this. When awakened, realization is attained. It is suddenly hard to explain in detail. Those of the Small Vehicle obstinately cling and say it does not exist; therefore, they become frenzied, confused, doubting, and suspicious, unable to have true faith.) Subhūti, you should know that the meaning of this sūtra is inconceivable, and its fruition and retribution are also inconceivable. (Commentary: Profound and secret, it culminates in bodhi. Because making offerings to hundreds, thousands, and myriads of Buddhas is still not equal to the guṇa of upholding the sūtra, the supreme meaning of non-characteristic is inconceivable, and down to its fruition and retribution, it is likewise so.) At that time, Subhūti addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Bhagavat, if a kulaputra or kuladhitā generates the mind of anuttarā samyaksambodhi, how should they abide? How should they subdue their mind?' (Commentary: The opening chapter had this question to clarify the meaning of generating the mind and subduing/abiding. Now, fearing that bodhisattvas might retain a notion of self in generating the mind and being able to subdue and abide in this way—which would obstruct the way of understanding śūnyatā and non-abiding—he therefore re-refutes that there is truly no bodhisattva generating the mind. Although the asking is the same, what was clarified previously is different.) The Buddha told Subhūti: 'A kulaputra or kuladhitā who generates [the mind of] anuttarā samyaksambodhi should give rise to such a mind: "I must bring all sentient beings to parinirvāṇa."' (Commentary: Arising from causes and conditions, fundamentally there is no dharma. Clinging with a deluded mind, the notion of sentient beings arises. Now, realizing that nature is empty, the multiple conditions naturally cease. One should generate this mind of the middle way of bodhi.) 'Having brought all sentient beings to parinirvāṇa, yet not a single sentient being has truly attained parinirvāṇa.' (Commentary: It is merely extinguishing deluded thoughts. If one calculates the extinguishing of this delusion, one has not yet left the deluded mind. Now, existing delusion having been extinguished, non-existence and śūnyatā are also relinquished. Reflecting upon the nature, not abiding in permanence, when I have no self, who receives parinirvāṇa?) 'Why is this? If a bodhisattva has a notion of a self, a notion of a person, a notion of a sentient being, or a notion of a soul, they are not a bodhisattva.' (Commentary: Free from those four characteristics, it is called selflessness. When there is no self, who is to be brought to nirvāṇa?) 'Why is that? Subhūti, in reality there is no dharma that generates the mind of anuttarā samyaksambodhi.' (Commentary: In bodhi there is no fixed dharma—this is the emptiness of dharmas. In reality there is no one who generates the mind—this is the emptiness of living beings. The emptiness of dharmas has nowhere to abide; the emptiness of living beings has nothing to subdue. When right contemplation is like this, one is called a bodhisattva. How could there be another separate self saying, "I cross over sentient beings"?) 'Subhūti, what do you think? Did the Tathāgata, in the presence of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, have any dharma by which he attained anuttarā samyaksambodhi or not?' (Commentary: If it was said before that there is no dharma to generate the bodhi-mind, then one should not have received the vyākaraṇa of bodhi in the presence of Dīpaṃkara Buddha. Wishing to sever this doubt, he therefore turns back to ask Subhūti: 'What do you think in your mind? Did the Tathāgata in the past have a method by which he attained bodhi or not?') 'No, Bhagavat. As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has said, the Buddha, in the presence of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, had no dharma by which he attained anuttarā samyaksambodhi.' (Commentary: Inferring understanding of the Buddha to clarify the supreme meaning. Because nothing was attained, he received the vyākaraṇa of bodhi. How could there be one who generates the mind and attains bodhi? It is to clarify that not generating a mind of attaining dharmas is the true generation of the mind.) The Buddha said: 'So it is, so it is. Subhūti, in reality there is no dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarā samyaksambodhi.' (Commentary: Approving Subhūti's words, this fulfills the non-attainment of the previous question.) 'Subhūti, if there were a dharma by which the Tathāgata attained anuttarā samyaksambodhi, Dīpaṃkara Buddha would not have given me the vyākaraṇa: "In a future age you will become a Buddha named Śākyamuni."' (Commentary: If within bodhi there were a dharma that could be attained, and one generated such a mind, one would not realize this fruition, and Dīpaṃkara would not have given the vyākaraṇa.) 'Because in reality there is no dharma by which anuttarā samyaksambodhi is attained, for that reason Dīpaṃkara Buddha gave me the vyākaraṇa, speaking these words: "In a future age you will become a Buddha named Śākyamuni."' (Commentary: With prajñā wisdom, realizing the suchness of all dharmas, awakening to the emptiness of beings and dharmas, and leaving behind eternalist and annihilationist views, how could there be a separate dharma to attain bodhi? Because of this non-attainment, Dīpaṃkara Buddha knew my practice and gave me the vyākaraṇa.) 'Why is this? "Tathāgata" means the meaning of the suchness of all dharmas.' (Commentary: Suchness is dharma-nature. This nature is pure and has no fixed characteristic. Pervading the resonance of things, all are attained as suchness. Since it is like yin and like yang, neither bright nor dim, awakening to this meaning of suchness, one comes to accomplish the fruition of Buddhahood. Realizing this characteristic of emptiness, which is tranquil without essence, how could one attain this within existent dharmas?) 'If someone says: "The Tathāgata attained anuttarā samyaksambodhi"' (Commentary: If there is such a statement, it is not the meaning of suchness.) 'Subhūti, in reality there is no dharma by which the Buddha attained anuttarā samyaksambodhi.' (Commentary: In terms of the meaning of the suchness of all dharmas, the Tathāgata definitely did not attain bodhi within dharmas that can be attained.) 'Subhūti, the anuttarā samyaksambodhi attained by the Tathāgata is, within this, neither real nor unreal.' (Commentary: This again abandons both. Previously it was said that attaining through existent dharmas is false and deluded; realizing through non-existent dharmas is true and real. This is to employ non-existence to dismiss existence, and use reality to clarify falsehood. The delusion of false existence having been eliminated, the dharma of real non-existence is also non-existent. It merely addresses the extremes to approach the middle way. Within this...)

1.1.7

How could there be real or unreal?) Therefore the Tathāgata says: ‘All dharmas are the Buddha-dharma.’ (Within all dharmas, there is the meaning of the middle. If one can transcend into the middle way, one accords with Suchness; therefore, when all dharmas attain the middle, they are all the Buddha-dharma.) Subhūti, what are called all dharmas are not all dharmas; therefore they are named all dharmas. (Dharmas produced by causes and conditions are fundamentally without svabhāva. Because being without svabhāva is non-existence, they are not all dharmas. Because of causes and conditions, conventional designations arise. Because conventional designations are not non-existent, therefore they are named all dharmas.) Subhūti, it is like a person with a tall and large body.” (All dharmas arise conventionally from causes and conditions. Just as a person's body being tall and large also relies on the hundred bones and nine apertures to comprise and maintain it.) Subhūti said, “Bhagavat, when the Tathāgata speaks of a person's body being tall and large, it is not a large body; it is named a large body.” (A person's body being tall and large is a conventional aggregation of many conditions. Part by part they are not the same, so it is not large; yet the marks of the body are complete, so it is named a large body. Thus one knows that apart from the conventionally aggregated body there is no large body, and apart from dharmas produced by causes and conditions there is no Buddha-dharma. Outside of the defilements, how could there separately be another nirvāṇa?) “Subhūti, the bodhisattva is also like this. (This exhorts the bodhisattva also to form such an understanding and practice the middle way.) If one speaks thus: ‘I shall bring immeasurable sentient beings to parinirvāṇa,’ then one is not named a bodhisattva. (Because one conceives that there are sentient beings, one clings to marks and does not grasp the middle way; therefore one cannot be named a being with the mind of the Way.) Why is this? Subhūti, there is truly no dharma named a bodhisattva. (Within the five skandhas, there is truly not a single dharma named a bodhisattva.) Therefore the Buddha says: ‘All dharmas are without a self, without a person, without a sentient being, and without a soul.’ (This concludes the preceding [statement that] there is no dharma named a bodhisattva; hence one does not cling to these four lakṣaṇas. Since there are no such lakṣaṇas, there should not separately be a bodhisattva who delivers sentient beings.) Subhūti, if a bodhisattva speaks thus: ‘I shall adorn Buddha-lands,’ this one is not named a bodhisattva. (Internally being without lakṣaṇas, one should not say ‘I deliver sentient beings’; externally being without lakṣaṇas, one should not adorn Buddha-lands.) Why is this? The Tathāgata says that one who adorns Buddha-lands is not adorning; it is named adorning. (To adorn Buddha-lands without lakṣaṇas is not a dharma of adorning with lakṣaṇas. Being able to comprehend signlessness is named adorning; therefore, a bodhisattva should not calculate that ‘I can adorn Buddha-lands.’) Subhūti, if a bodhisattva thoroughly penetrates the dharma of non-self, the Tathāgata says that this is truly a bodhisattva. (Being without self regarding persons, being without self regarding dharmas, forgetting the four lakṣaṇas, and not grasping the six sense-objects—one who can be like this will not calculate that there are sentient beings that can be brought to parinirvāṇa, or pure lands that can be adorned. Thoroughly penetrating like this, such a one is truly a being with the mind of the Way.) Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the physical eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the physical eye.” (The physical lakṣaṇas are the same as sentient beings, taking the flesh as the eye; hence it is called the physical eye.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the heavenly eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the heavenly eye.” (With pure sense-bases of the eye, universally illuminating all; hence it is called the heavenly eye.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the wisdom eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the wisdom eye.” (Relying on concentration to give rise to wisdom, comprehending all lakṣaṇas; hence it is called the wisdom eye.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the dharma eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the dharma eye.” (Comprehending all dharmas, without obstruction regarding dharmas; hence it is called the dharma eye.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Tathāgata have the Buddha eye?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata has the Buddha eye.” (However, those various lakṣaṇas constitute my wondrous body; fully confronting without hindrance, it is called the Buddha eye. These five eyes are named according to functions. Because the field of observation arises from the function of observation—like those who touch an elephant giving rise to different designations—in my Buddha-body they are fundamentally of the same substance. If one differentiates them into stages and sequences, or says that cultivation and realization differ, this is to see the Tathāgata through form, and does not mean penetrating signlessness.) “Subhūti, what do you think? Does the Buddha speak of the sand in the Gaṅgā as sand?” “Yes, Bhagavat, the Tathāgata speaks of it as sand.” (When the Tathāgata expounds the Dharma, he constantly uses the sand of the river as a metaphor.) “Subhūti, what do you think? If there were as many Gaṅgā rivers as the sand in one Gaṅgā river, and there were as many Buddha-worlds as all the grains of sand in these Gaṅgā rivers, would they indeed be many?” “Very many, Bhagavat.” (The grains of sand in one river equal all those rivers; the sand of all those rivers equals the worlds; such worlds are truly very many.) The Buddha told Subhūti, “As many minds of various kinds as all the sentient beings in those lands have, the Tathāgata completely knows. (The worlds are already many, and the sentient beings in them have minds continually grasping after conditions, the number of which cannot be enumerated; such minds as these, the Tathāgata completely knows.) Why is this? The Tathāgata says that all minds are not mind; this is named mind. (Why does the Tathāgata completely know them? It is said that these minds all arise from delusion. Clashing with objects and chasing after sensory realms, such as these arise. Discerning that delusive dharmas are non-existent, the disparate realms are all empty. Only pure faith abides as taught, realizing and penetrating the fundamental and the branch; this is named mind.) For what reason? Subhūti, the past mind cannot be grasped, the present mind cannot be grasped, and the future mind cannot be grasped. (Seeking to generate the knowing mind through the dharmas of the three times, this mind is impermanent and cannot be found. Earlier it was said that ‘not mind is named mind,’ borrowing the permanent mind to dismantle delusion. Here it is said that it cannot be found, which also dismisses the permanent that dismantled delusion. Thus neither escorting nor welcoming, responding without a master; the ten thousand realms all enter, and my function does not tire; accommodating a thousand lakṣaṇas, whatever is sought is supplied. Is this not solely the storehouse of prajñā?) Subhūti, what do you think? If a person filled a trisāhasramahāsāhasralokadhātu with the seven precious jewels to use in giving,

First 7 of 13 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

金剛般若經挾註 — Classical Chinese