金剛仙論

Part 3: From the passage, “World-Honored One! How should a bodhisattva who, within the Mahayana, gives rise to the aspiration for bodhi and seeks to attain unsurpassed perfect enlightenment...” up to “...then one is not called a bodhisattva.” This is the third scriptural passage, called the Section on Abiding, and also called My Mind.

It is called “abiding” because it is intended to make clear that the bodhisattva who has attained what is called the First Bhumi directly perceives the selflessness of dharmas in true suchness, forever eliminates the four abiding afflictions and their habitual tendencies together with the coarse grade of ignorance, escapes the segmented birth-and-death of the twenty-five realms of existence, and becomes free from the five kinds of fear.

At this time, the bodhisattva has transcended the stage of ordinary beings, entered the rank of bodhisattvas, been born into the family of the Buddha, and acquired a noble lineage that no one can disparage. Fully endowed with the four kinds of profound mind, such as the vast mind, and working entirely for the benefit of all sentient beings, the bodhisattva can thus decisively abide in the First Bhumi of the bodhisattva.

It is called “abiding” because realization of the path of non-abiding constitutes abiding.

What is non-abiding? It means contemplating the conditioned as false and exhausting the causes of birth and death, and therefore not abiding in the world. By directly perceiving the equality of true suchness, attaining great compassion, and fulfilling the power of vows, one does not abide in nirvana.

Because this non-abiding is taken as abiding, it is called abiding. It is also called My Mind because it makes clear that a bodhisattva of the First Bhumi has realized the noble state and directly perceives the principle of the equality of true suchness. By entering this principle, the bodhisattva clearly understands that the true suchness, Buddha-nature, and unconditioned Dharma-body present within oneself and the true suchness, Buddha-nature, and unconditioned Dharma-body present within sentient beings are likewise one equal essence, neither dual nor different.

Within this principle, one does not perceive oneself as a bodhisattva, a practitioner who possesses true suchness and the Dharma-body, while regarding others as sentient beings, non-practitioners who lack the Dharma-body and true suchness. One clearly understands that all sentient beings are one’s own body. Although ordinary beings and noble ones differ, true suchness is equal; therefore it is called My Mind.

It is also called the mind of compassion that has accomplished a single essence, in which self and other are nondual; therefore it is called My Mind. Because the sovereign self of true suchness is understood as My Mind, the Sutra of the Ten Bhumis states: “Toward all sentient beings, give rise to My Mind.”

This scriptural passage of the Section on Abiding follows because the second passage above explained how the Tathagata skillfully watches over the two kinds of bodhisattvas who have not yet reached the bhumis, bestowing upon them the power of wisdom and enabling them to attain the First Bhumi. However, the preceding passage explained only the practice of those before the bhumis that can enter the semblance of the uncontaminated state; it did not yet set forth the practice by which the bhumi is realized.

Therefore, this third section follows by explaining the practice of entering the uncontaminated true suchness undertaken by those on the First Bhumi and above. That is, it asks: Through what minds, by contemplating what objects, cultivating what practices, and realizing what dharmas does a bodhisattva then come to abide in the First Bhumi within the Mahayana Dharma? What characteristics does the bodhisattva possess while abiding in the First Bhumi?

Thus it makes clear that, at that time, the bodhisattva has perfected the practices of an asamkhyeya, is fully endowed with the four kinds of profound mind, has completed the practice of the six paramitas, directly perceives true suchness, realizes the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, transcends the stage of ordinary beings, enters the rank of bodhisattvas, and is born into the family of the Buddha. Possessing such characteristics of mind and practice, the bodhisattva comes to abide in the First Bhumi and is called a bodhisattva of great power.

Therefore, the text next explains the third section, the Section on Abiding.

– In this scriptural passage, the Venerable Subhuti presents both a general question and particular questions. He asks: How does a bodhisattva, within the Mahayana, give rise to the aspiration for bodhi and seek to attain unsurpassed perfect enlightenment? This is the general question. The Mahayana, when explained extensively, is of two kinds:

1. The Mahayana of the cause: This refers to the ten bhumis and the six paramitas. It makes clear that bodhisattvas of the ten bhumis practice the six paramitas and proceed toward the ultimate fruit; therefore it is called the Mahayana of the cause.

2. The Mahayana of the fruit: This refers to the unconditioned Dharma-body of the fruit of Buddhahood.

Here, “within the Mahayana” refers to the Mahayana of the cause, though its meaning may also encompass both cause and fruit.

The meanings of Mahayana are immeasurable, but only four will be briefly distinguished here:

1. Greatness of essence: This makes clear that the essence of the Mahayana encompasses myriad virtues and gives rise to the causes and fruits of the Five Vehicles; therefore it is called great in essence.

2. That which is ridden by great beings: This makes clear that bodhisattva mahasattvas travel upon this ground as their Vehicle and proceed to the fruit of Buddhahood.

3. That which is realized by great beings: This explains that only the Buddhas, the Tathagatas, penetrate this Dharma completely.

4. The capacity to accomplish the great purpose: This makes clear that the Buddhas, having realized the eternal fruit, can further transform and benefit sentient beings, bestowing great kindness upon them; therefore it is called the capacity to accomplish the great purpose.

Because it fully possesses these four meanings, it is called the Mahayana.

– Giving rise to the aspiration for bodhi and seeking to attain unsurpassed perfect enlightenment: Bodhi is also of two kinds:

1. Bodhi of the cause: This is the ten bhumis and the myriad practices.

2. Bodhi of the fruit: This is the unconditioned Dharma-body.

That which encompasses these two kinds—cause and fruit—is unsurpassed bodhi.

Here, “the aspiration for bodhi” refers to the First Bhumi, where the practices of an asamkhyeya have been completed, true suchness is directly perceived, and the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas is realized; this is taken as the aspiration for bodhi. The realization of the unconditioned Dharma-body is the fruit of bodhi.

“To give rise” also means to bring forth or to realize. A means “un-.” Nuttara means “surpassed.” Thus it means “unsurpassed,” and it is also called “supreme” and “highest.” Sam means “perfect”; myak means “complete knowledge.” “Perfect” is the wisdom of true suchness, namely, the wisdom that knows all things. “Complete knowledge” is the wisdom that knows all modes.

It is also said that sam means “perfect,” while bodhi means “the path.” This is the unsurpassed and supreme perfect complete knowledge realized as the fruit of the Tathagata, which is free from the two extremes of annihilationism and eternalism and clearly knows the true principle of the Middle Way. Because a bodhisattva of the First Bhumi realizes this path, the text speaks of “giving rise to the aspiration for bodhi and seeking to attain unsurpassed perfect enlightenment.”

Another explanation states: Samyak means “perfect,” making clear that the path of the sravakas is not perfect, whereas the paths of bodhisattvas and Buddhas are perfect. This explains how they differ from sravakas. The subsequent sam means “complete,” making clear that practitioners of the pratyekabuddha path cannot contemplate objects and initiate practices comprehensively. The Buddhas and bodhisattvas can contemplate the myriad objects universally and extensively cultivate the myriad practices. This clarifies how they differ from pratyekabuddhas.

“How should one abide?” and so forth: These three sentences are the particular questions:

1. How should one abide? This introduces the Section on Abiding in this scripture.

2. How should one practice?

3. How should one subdue the mind? These two questions introduce the following fourth section: the Section on Practice in Accordance with Reality.

The reason the Tathagata praised him, saying, “Excellent! Excellent, Subhuti!” is this: In the second section above, although the Venerable Subhuti praised the Tathagata as rare, as one who skillfully protects and keeps in mind, and entrusts the two kinds of bodhisattvas prior to the bhumis—those whose faculties have matured and those whose faculties have not yet matured—and although he further raised four questions, general and specific, nevertheless the assembly thought that the Venerable Subhuti was a shravaka.

He had just praised the Tathagata for skillfully protecting and keeping in mind, and entrusting the two kinds of bodhisattvas, and had inquired about the practices of bodhisattvas from the First Bhumi upward. This is precisely the domain of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, not an object of knowledge for shravakas. Fearing that these statements might not necessarily accord with principle or conform to the mind of the noble ones, they entertained such doubts.

It is now made clear that the Venerable Subhuti had secretly received the empowerment of the Tathagata’s wondrous power; therefore, his words accorded with principle, and both his praise and his questions conformed to the mind of the noble ones. They were true and not false, and were not erroneous words. Therefore, the Tathagata praised him, saying, “Excellent!” Thus the Buddha dispelled the doubts then present in the minds of the assembly.

– The Buddha told the Venerable Subhuti, “A bodhisattva should give rise to a mind as follows,” and so forth: This passage of the sutra answers the first question, “How should one abide?” According to this answer, the first question makes clear that a bodhisattva, fully possessing the four kinds of profound mind, should abide in the First Bhumi and give rise to such a mind within the Dharma realized through the Mahayana.

A bodhisattva of the First Bhumi, taking three kinds of sentient beings as objects of contemplation, definitively realizes the four kinds of profound mind.

“All existing sentient beings who are to be brought under guidance,” and so forth: The Treatise calls this the vast mind. It is called the vast mind because a bodhisattva of the First Bhumi directly and clearly perceives the principle of the equality of Buddha-nature and attains compassion of a single essence. Therefore, the bodhisattva can liberate all sentient beings throughout the empty expanse of the Dharma realm, with an aspiration subject to no limitation; hence it is called the vast mind. Yet this mind’s liberation of sentient beings has two levels: general and specific.

+ “All existing sentient beings”: This first indicates, in general, all sentient beings throughout the empty expanse of the Dharma realm.

+ “Sentient beings who are to be brought under guidance”: This clarifies that the objects to be liberated are only sentient beings possessing mind, and not insentient things.

From here onward, the sentient beings who are to be brought under guidance by the vast mind are explained specifically, with three kinds of distinction:

1. The four modes of birth, such as transformation birth, are called distinctions in the basis upon which birth depends.

2. The six kinds, such as those with form and those without form, are called distinctions in coarseness and subtlety.

3. The existing sentient beings within the realm of sentient beings who are to be brought under guidance constitute a distinction pertaining to the mind-produced bodies of the Two Vehicles, also called a distinction in pride. This third distinction makes clear that practitioners of the Two Vehicles are said to have transcended the three realms and therefore do not belong to the preceding two categories; hence they are explained separately.

Yet practitioners of the Two Vehicles are of two kinds:

1. Shravakas who give rise to the aspiration for bodhi: As in the Lotus Sutra, where the Venerable Shariputra and others receive predictions of Buddhahood.

2. Shravakas of cessation: Having completely eliminated the afflictions of the three realms and escaped fragmentary samsara, they conceive this to be ultimate, give rise to pride, and enter the samadhi of cessation. Though they remain in that samadhi for thousands of myriads of kotis of kalpas, they still do not escape the subtle conditioned suffering of transformational samsara.

Later, when the power of their samadhi is exhausted, they emerge from meditation. Having no further basis of reliance, they once again seek a good spiritual friend, give rise to the aspiration for bodhi, and seek the unsurpassed Way. Toward these proud sentient beings, bodhisattvas also give rise to the compassionate resolve to save them; therefore, they must be specifically mentioned.

These may also be called the eleven kinds of sentient beings: four within the bases upon which birth depends, six within the distinctions in coarseness and subtlety, and one within the mind-produced body, making eleven kinds altogether.

– “I shall cause them all to enter nirvana without remainder and attain liberation”: The Treatise calls this the foremost mind. Although it was previously said that all sentient beings, such as those born from moisture, are to be universally liberated, it was not yet known what happiness would be bestowed upon them through their liberation. Therefore, the following second part explains that only the eternally abiding nirvana without remainder of the fruit of Buddhahood is the foremost happiness. This is bestowed upon those sentient beings; they are not given the nirvana that reduces the body to ashes, attained through the paths realized by the Two Vehicles, much less the pleasures of gods and humans. Therefore, it is called the foremost mind.

Here, “without remainder” has two meanings:

1. The two obstructions have been permanently and completely eliminated.

2. The myriad virtues have been perfected.

Because both these meanings are fully present, it is called “without remainder.” It is not as the Lesser Vehicle holds, where the complete extinction of body and cognition is called “without remainder.”

Nirvana: Here it is translated as “quiescent cessation.”

– “Although immeasurable and boundless sentient beings are thus liberated, in truth no sentient being attains liberation”: The Treatise calls this the constant mind. “Constant” has two meanings:

1. Constancy is clarified on the basis that the Dharma-body and Buddha-nature peacefully and eternally abide, equal in oneself and others. Although the Dharma-body and Buddha-nature are equal, when spoken of in relation to practitioners, a single Dharma-body has three names: When the Dharma-body is entirely obscured by afflictions and wholly impure, it is called a sentient being.

When one cultivates the path and eliminates afflictions, becoming half pure and half impure, one is called a bodhisattva. When the practices of the Ten Bhumis are perfected, afflictions are eliminated, the obstructions are utterly exhausted, and purity is complete, one is called a Buddha. If one relies upon suchness and the commonly possessed Dharma-body, oneself and others are nondual; therefore, this is called the constant mind of one essence.

2. On the basis of the constant mind that has attained compassion of a single essence, sentient beings are regarded as one’s own body; this mind is continually present and never abandons them. This is called the constant mind.

Because both these meanings are fully present, it is called the constant mind.

According to the Treatise’s explanation of this compassion of a single essence, even to say that a bodhisattva of the First Bhumi attains the “Bhumi of the Only Child” does not express the ultimate principle. How is this known? Suppose a woman has only one child and loves that child dearly. She constantly says, “I would rather calamity befall my own body than have calamity befall my child.” The king then orders someone to threaten her with a great fire. Fearing the heat, this woman pushes her child forward to shield herself from the flames. Since she cherishes and protects her own body, one should know that the expression “Bhumi of the Only Child” does not state the ultimate principle. This example is cited to clarify the meaning of compassion of a single essence.

The reason this sentient being cherishes and protects her own body is that, for immeasurable lifetimes until now, she has always clung to the false view of self, cultivating this habit over a very long time. As a sutra states: A person who committed the five heinous offenses passed through five great kalpas in the Avici hell. When the retribution for his offenses was nearly exhausted, someone told him, “Tomorrow you will leave hell.

Although you will be released, this body of yours will then be annihilated.” After hearing this, the offender replied, “I would rather remain in this hell for that many kalpas again than be released only to be annihilated!” Because that sentient being, from beginningless time until the present, had greedily clung to a false self, he cherished and protected his own body; it was not because a self truly existed. The bodhisattva is likewise.

Since cultivating compassion throughout one great asamkhyeya kalpa, upon realizing the First Bhumi, the bodhisattva attains a mind that is of one essence with all sentient beings. They are wholly a single essence, and the bodhisattva perceives neither two characteristics nor two distinctions. Therefore, it is called one essence, and this constitutes the constant mind.

This constant mind is also called two minds:

1. The sovereign self of suchness.

2. The aspect of the compassionate mind of one essence.

– “Thus liberating immeasurable and boundless sentient beings”: This reiterates the previously mentioned sentient beings whom the bodhisattva liberates by causing them to enter nirvana.

– Yet in truth no sentient being whatsoever is brought to cessation: This clarifies that although the bodhisattva liberates immeasurable sentient beings and causes them to enter nirvana, within the principle of the equality of true suchness, he does not perceive a self who is a bodhisattva and possesses the true-suchness Buddha-nature. Nor does he perceive those others as sentient beings distinct from himself and devoid of the true-suchness Buddha-nature, whom he could therefore liberate. Since within the principle of the equality of true suchness there is absolutely only a single contemplation, with no duality between this and that, it is said: In truth, no sentient being whatsoever is brought to cessation.

Furthermore, this bodhisattva has attained compassion that forms a single body; therefore, he embraces all sentient beings as his own body. They are wholly one essence, and he perceives no difference between this and that. Thus it is written: In truth, no sentient being whatsoever is brought to cessation.

– Why is this? Because if a bodhisattva has the characteristic of a sentient being, then he is not a bodhisattva: This explains the preceding statement, “In truth, no sentient being whatsoever is brought to cessation.” Why is this explanation given? It clarifies that the bodhisattva liberates sentient beings throughout the Dharma-realm and causes them to enter nirvana, yet it is also said: In truth, no sentient being whatsoever is brought to cessation. Why do these two statements appear contradictory? It should now be made clear that because the bodhisattva realizes the equality of true suchness and compassion that forms a single body, he utterly severs the discriminating mind. He does not perceive those others as sentient beings and himself as a bodhisattva, and then arouse a mind to liberate them and bring them to emancipation. Therefore it is said: In truth, no sentient being whatsoever is brought to cessation. This does not mean that, within the conventional truth, there is no functioning dependent upon deluded conceptualization, nor does it assert that there are no sentient beings who can be liberated. Thus the two statements are not contradictory.

– If a bodhisattva entertains the conception of a sentient being, then he is not a bodhisattva: This clarifies that if a bodhisattva arouses a discriminating mind—thinking that apart from the principle of true suchness and the equality of Buddha-nature, there truly exist separate sentient beings distinct from himself whom he can liberate—and thus entertains conceptions of sentient beings and so forth, then he is not yet a bodhisattva who has reached the First Bhumi and realized the true self of the equality of true suchness. Therefore it is said that he is not a bodhisattva. This states that one who possesses the characteristic of sentient beings and arouses discriminating characteristics is not a bodhisattva, thereby clarifying that when one realizes the mind of self, one no longer has the characteristic of sentient beings. This is an answer given through the form of negating characteristics. How is this known? In the Surangama Samadhi Sutra, the bodhisattva Firm Resolve addressed the Buddha: “In which bhumi does a bodhisattva abide when he attains the Surangama Samadhi?” The Buddha told the bodhisattva Firm Resolve: “It is not attained in the First Bhumi, nor even in the Ninth Bhumi.” If so, in precisely which bhumi is it attained? The answer is that it is attained in the Tenth Bhumi. It is also said: “If one has not attained the Surangama Samadhi, one is not called a bodhisattva.” If so, could those from the Ninth Bhumi downward be entirely excluded from being bodhisattvas? The answer is that they also attain that samadhi according to their respective measure of capacity. Here, however, the statement “He is not a bodhisattva” clarifies that although those from the Ninth Bhumi downward are bodhisattvas, they cannot be called bodhisattvas of the Tenth Bhumi who have fully realized the Surangama Samadhi. It does not mean that they have attained no portion of that samadhi. In the Ratnamala Treatise, someone asked the bodhisattva Nagarjuna: “In which bhumi does a bodhisattva attain the Surangama Samadhi?” He answered: “It is attained in the First Bhumi and continues to be attained through the Tenth Bhumi.” It is also said: “A bodhisattva who has not attained this samadhi is not called a bodhisattva.” Examining this passage makes it fully evident that those in the preceding nine bhumis are also said to have attained that samadhi. The designation is explained only according to the place of superior attainment; hence it is said: “One who has not attained the Surangama Samadhi is not called a bodhisattva.” As the Nirvana Sutra states, bodhisattvas of the Tenth Bhumi “see with their eyes” the Buddha-nature, while those from the Ninth Bhumi downward are said to “see by hearing.” Yet those from the Ninth Bhumi downward also have a measure of “seeing with their eyes.” It is only because the lower is used to reveal the higher that those of the Ninth Bhumi are said to “see by hearing”; it does not mean that they are wholly without “seeing with their eyes.” How is this known? The sutra further states: “Only one person, the Buddha, ‘sees with his eyes’ the Buddha-nature; all those from the Tenth Bhumi downward are said to ‘see by hearing.’” From this it can be understood that one may also say that those from the First Bhumi upward “see with their eyes” the Buddha-nature, while ordinary beings prior to the bhumis are said to “see by hearing.” All these statements are made in relation to persons who stand above or below one another, successively revealing one another and successively being effaced. They are spoken in terms of superiority and inferiority, not as discourse corresponding to ultimate reality. Therefore, the present statement, “He is not a bodhisattva,” specifically means that he is not a bodhisattva of the First Bhumi who has realized the equality of true suchness.

– Why is this? “Is not,” up to “is not called a bodhisattva”: Here the Treatise explains this as a mind free from error.

Why is this clarified? Some among the assembly gave rise to a doubt: When a bodhisattva abides in the First Bhumi, why does he attain the mind of self with regard to all sentient beings? In what sense is this called the mind of self?

Because of erroneous views, non-Buddhists and ordinary beings arbitrarily regard the five skandhas of sentient beings—which are dharmas devoid of self—as a spiritual self. It was therefore unclear what kind of mind of self this bodhisattva possesses and whether it differs from the non-Buddhists’ and ordinary beings’ attachment to a spiritual self. Thus the words “Why is this?” are spoken.

In order to dispel that doubt, the Buddha is about to answer that the bodhisattva’s arousal of the mind of self is not an erroneous attachment to self; therefore he says, “is not.” Broadly speaking, self is of two kinds:

1. The sovereign self of true suchness and Buddha-nature, equal and of one essence in all sentient beings.

2. The erroneous mind that obstinately clings to a spiritual self within the five skandhas of sentient beings, whether as identical with them, separate from them, and so forth.

Thus, the bodhisattva attains superior understanding of the sovereign self of the equality of true suchness and abides in the First Bhumi; therefore, this is not an erroneous attachment to self. This direct answer responds to the question: Why is one who possesses the characteristic of sentient beings and so forth not called a bodhisattva? Furthermore, why is one who has not yet attained superior understanding of the equality of the two kinds of non-self, and therefore possesses the characteristic of sentient beings and so forth, not a bodhisattva?

It is thereby clearly known that one who has attained superior understanding of the equality of the two kinds of non-self does not possess the characteristic of sentient beings; such a person is called a bodhisattva. By stating that non-attainment “is not,” attainment “is” revealed. This is an indirect answer.

– If a bodhisattva has the characteristic of a sentient being, up to the characteristic of one who lives, and so forth: This clarifies that if a bodhisattva still possesses the characteristics of a self, a person, and so forth, he is not called a bodhisattva abiding in the First Bhumi or above, possessing superior understanding of the equality of true suchness, and realizing non-self. Therefore it is said: He is not called a bodhisattva.

– The Treatise states: “What does it mean for a bodhisattva to abide in the Mahayana?” and so forth: Here the author of the Treatise, Bodhisattva Vasubandhu, is about to explain the preceding passage from the sutra and therefore sets forth the occasion for this discussion.

+ Abiding in the Mahayana: The meaning of the Question and Answer elucidated in the sutra is selected as the title of this passage. The questioner is the Venerable Subhuti, and the respondent is the Tathagata.

+ Revealing that meaning: This clarifies that this sutra has fully explained the meaning of the four kinds of profound mind, whereby one forever abides in the Mahayana.

Although this passage of the sutra is divided into four statements, the Treatise employs one verse to explain them all. The first is the vast mind, which separately explains the three kinds of sentient beings, such as those born from eggs and so forth. It clarifies that the bodhisattva arouses the resolve to teach and transform the entire realm of sentient beings—including those with form, those without form, and so forth, such as those born from eggs—without limitation in his aspiration. Therefore it is called the vast mind.

Great and vast are one in meaning but differ in name. They are both stated only for the sake of forming the verse: “Vast, supreme, constant.”

+ Supreme: This explains the statement in the sutra, “I cause them all to enter nirvana without remainder and attain extinction,” clarifying that the bodhisattva brings sentient beings to liberation by means of abiding nirvana and its ultimate bliss. He does not teach and transform them by means of the path realized in the shravaka and pratyekabuddha vehicles, causing them to attain liberation, much less by means of the pleasures of devas and humans. Therefore, it is called the supreme mind.

+ Constant: This explains the previously cited statement in the sutra, “In truth, no sentient being whatsoever attains extinction.” There are two kinds of constancy:

1. It clarifies that a bodhisattva on the First Bhumi comprehends the constantly abiding principle of suchness and Buddha-nature. This constant principle is the wondrous existence within quiescence; it has been definitively so from the beginning and admits no distinction between ordinary beings and sages, oneself and others. Within this equal principle of suchness, which is of one essence, how could one perceive sentient beings as different from oneself and cause them to attain extinction? Therefore, it is called the constant mind.

2. It clarifies that a bodhisattva attains resolute understanding of compassion based on equality and oneness of essence. The roots of goodness cultivated by the bodhisattva are precisely the roots of goodness of sentient beings. The bodhisattva teaches and transforms sentient beings as though they were the bodhisattva’s own self, constantly and without cessation; therefore, it is called the constant mind.

+ The verse says: That mind is not inverted: This explains the statement in the sutra, “If a bodhisattva gives rise to the notion of a sentient being, and so forth, then he is not called a bodhisattva.” It clarifies that conventionally one speaks of “my mind,” but this is not an inverted mind that falsely clings to a personal self.

+ Abiding in the profound mind of benefit: This meaning carries forward and applies collectively to the four kinds of mind stated above; therefore, the subsequent passages all say, “Abiding in the profound mind of benefit.” “Profound mind” means that these four minds—vast, supreme, constant, and non-inverted—arise in relation to the profound principle of suchness; therefore, it is called profound. Furthermore, because the compassionate mind arises from the profound, it is also called profound. Here, “abiding” encompasses all four minds above and means definitively abiding on the First Bhumi within the Mahayana Dharma.

+ The merit of this vehicle is complete: This clarifies that because a bodhisattva on the First Bhumi possesses all four minds stated above, the merit of the Mahayana on the First Bhumi within the first asamkhyeya kalpa is complete, though it is not ultimately perfect and complete.

+ What meanings does this verse—which consists of the four lines stated above, “Vast, supreme, constant … the merit of this vehicle is complete”—express?: Having composed the verse to explain the meaning, the author of the treatise again uses prose to discuss what has not yet been explained. First, a question is provisionally posed: What meanings is this verse intended to explain? The answer is: “If a bodhisattva possesses four kinds of profound mind that bring benefit…” This concerns the bodhisattva’s abiding place in the Mahayana, which was stated but not yet clarified.

From this point onward, the answer has two parts. First, it explains that, because of the four kinds of profound mind, this bodhisattva can abide in the Mahayana of the First Bhumi. Second, from the statement, “What are the four kinds of mind?” onward, it separately sets forth the four kinds of mind, citing the sutra to summarize each one.

+ If a bodhisattva possesses four kinds of profound mind: This reiterates the two lines of the verse above concerning the four kinds of mind.

+ The bodhi-mind that brings benefit, up to: Abides in the abiding place of the Mahayana: This explains the third line of the verse, “Abiding in the profound mind of benefit.”

+ Why is the merit of this profound mind complete?: This states the fourth line of the verse, “The merit of this vehicle is complete.” Because the merit is complete, it explains and confirms the preceding third line: Why can those four kinds of mind abide on the First Bhumi of the Mahayana? It clarifies that, because they possess all four kinds of perfect and complete merit, they can abide on the First Bhumi of the Mahayana.

+ Therefore, the four kinds of profound mind bring benefit, embrace and sustain, and give rise: This summarizes the general explanation of the four minds.

“Therefore” means that, because the four kinds of profound mind are complete, in the nearer sense they embrace and sustain the First Bhumi, and in the more distant sense they give rise to the fruit of Buddhahood.

+ What are the four kinds of mind?: Because the text intends to summarize each kind of mind with a statement from the sutra, it poses this question concerning the four kinds of mind.

+ The first is vast, and so forth: This enumerates the four minds in order.

+ What is the vast mind that brings benefit? As the sutra states, and so forth: From this passage onward, the four kinds of mind mentioned in the verse are set forth separately. Each is introduced by a question and summarized by a passage from the sutra. No further explanation is given accordingly; this indicates that the sutra itself is the explanation, whose meaning can be understood by relying on the treatise.

However, the meaning of the third, the constant mind, remains obscure. Therefore, the author of the treatise separately poses the question: “What is the meaning of this?” That is, although the passage has explained the constant mind, it still cannot yet be fully understood, and one does not know what its meaning is.

+ The bodhisattva regards all sentient beings as the bodhisattva’s own self: This answers the question concerning the meaning of the constant mind. It explains that the bodhisattva attains a mind of oneness of essence and therefore regards all sentient beings as the bodhisattva’s own self, without perceiving them as different from the bodhisattva.

+ Because of this meaning: Because the bodhisattva regards sentient beings as the bodhisattva’s own self, if sentient beings are caused to attain nirvana and liberation, this is the bodhisattva’s own self attaining nirvana; it is not different from sentient beings attaining nirvana. In truth, apart from the person of the bodhisattva, there are no separate sentient beings who attain extinction.

“If a bodhisattva gives rise to the notion of sentient beings with regard to sentient beings, and does not give rise to the notion of self, and so forth,” is likewise stated in the sutra and is not something presented independently by the treatise.

– The treatise states: From this point onward, it discusses how a bodhisattva abides and practices in the Mahayana: Here the author of the treatise reiterates the preceding Section on Abiding in order to introduce the following Section on Practice.

+ Abides in the Mahayana: This reiterates the third section, the Section on Abiding.

+ Practices: This distinguishes the source of the fourth principal sutra passage that follows, namely the Section on Practice in Accordance with Reality. Here, it would properly suffice to distinguish the Section on Practice in Accordance with Reality directly.

Why, then, does it also reiterate the preceding Section on Abiding? It clarifies that although a bodhisattva has attained the four kinds of profound mind and abides on the First Bhumi, the practice is still not ultimate. Therefore, the bodhisattva swiftly advances to cultivate the practices of the Second Bhumi and above. For this reason, the preceding third section is reiterated in order to introduce the fourth section.

– Section 4: The sutra passage beginning, “Furthermore, Subhuti! Without abiding in anything, one should practice giving, and so forth,” is called the fourth section: the Section on Practice in Accordance with Reality.

Why is it called Practice in Accordance with Reality? It clarifies that bodhisattvas cultivating the path from the Second Bhumi upward have entered the equality of suchness, directly perceive Buddha-nature, and attain compassion based on oneness of essence. They are able, with a non-discriminating mind that neither grasps nor clings to characteristics, to refrain from practicing the three matters and from perceiving the characteristics of those three matters, while practicing the eighty-four thousand paramitas. Therefore, it is called Practice in Accordance with Reality.

The reason this passage of the sutra follows is this: In the preceding third section, it was made clear that a bodhisattva directly perceives true suchness and is fully endowed with four kinds of profound mind that bring benefit. Thus, the bodhisattva can forever eliminate the four abodes, transcend fragmentary birth and death, leave behind the five kinds of fear, be born into the family of the Buddhas, and abide in the First Ground of the Mahayana.

Although the practice of one great asamkhyeya kalpa has been completed, and the bodhisattva has attained, on the First Ground, the supreme understanding of the path of seeing, which is unborn, together with the three contemplations of the equality of the two truths that illuminate the myriad existents, nevertheless, the practice of the grounds is not yet complete, omniscience of all modes is not yet perfected, the contemplation of objects is not yet all-encompassing, the afflictive obstructions have not yet been entirely eliminated, and the great radiance is not yet complete.

It is therefore necessary to devote oneself to cultivating the myriad practices, further develop the path of seeing, gather and refine all virtues, and pass through two more great asamkhyeya kalpas until the practices are complete and all afflictive obstructions are extinguished. Only then can one advance to realization of the fruit of Buddhahood. Therefore, if a bodhisattva can begin from the Second Ground and continue through the Far-Going Ground, practicing the paramitas with a mind that does not grasp, and completely relinquishing all characteristics of applied effort, the bodhisattva will then realize the stage of effortlessness from the Eighth Ground upward, complete the cultivation of the Ten Grounds, and attain omniscience of all modes.

For this reason, the fourth section that follows distinguishes the portion concerning practice in accordance with reality. According to the content of this sutra, the beginning has not yet fully clarified the three paths: the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path of effortlessness. Thus, the preceding Portion on Abiding is limited to the First Ground, namely, the path of seeing.

This Portion on Practice in Accordance with Reality extends from the Second Ground through the Seventh Ground, namely, the path of cultivation. Subsequently, in the Portion on Eliminating Doubts, the path of non-abiding is discussed again: the Eighth through the Tenth Grounds, which constitute the path of effortlessness.

– Not abiding in things when practicing giving: The Treatise calls this not being attached to matters concerning one’s own person, namely, the matter of one’s own five skandhas.

Because the bodhisattva has left behind the fear of being unable to sustain life, the bodhisattva is not attached to the self. The reason one is instructed not to be attached to the self is that attachment to the body entails two faults:

1. Fearing that the body will be unable to survive, one does not practice giving at all.

2. Even if one does practice giving, one grasps at characteristics and maintains a seeking mind, so the meaning of “the other shore of awakening” is not fulfilled.

– Abiding nowhere: The Treatise calls this not being attached to requital of kindness.

Requital of kindness means reverence and offerings.

Offerings are of three kinds: 1. Presenting gifts. 2. Showing reverence. 3. Showing honor.

Reverence is also of three kinds: 1. Attending upon someone. 2. Welcoming and seeing someone off. 3. Paying homage.

Because the bodhisattva has attained the mind in which all are one essence, the bodhisattva constantly gives rise to the thought: “I should make offerings to all sentient beings; why should I seek only for others to make offerings to me?” Therefore, the bodhisattva is not attached to requital of kindness.

– Not abiding in form and so forth: The Treatise calls this not being attached to karmic reward. This makes clear that the bodhisattva practices giving in quest of the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi, and not for the rewards of the five desires—such as form and sound—among gods and humans within the three realms. Therefore, this is called not being attached to karmic reward. These three statements answer the question, “How should one practice?” in the Section of Questions. Only by practicing giving without abiding in these three matters can it be called practice in accordance with reality.

Some people may consequently give rise to doubt: The reason people ordinarily practice giving is for their own person, for requital of kindness, and for karmic reward. If a bodhisattva does not act for these three matters—the self, requital of kindness, and karmic reward—how can the bodhisattva practice giving? Furthermore, how can the practice of giving be accomplished?

Because such a doubt exists, the Buddha replied: “Subhuti, one should give in this manner.” This makes clear that although the bodhisattva does not act for the sake of those three matters, because this bodhisattva seeks to attain the fruit of Buddhahood and has also attained compassion in which all are one essence, feeling pity for all sentient beings, the bodhisattva is therefore able to practice giving. This is giving without characteristics, and so the meaning of “the other shore of awakening” is fulfilled. Therefore, it is said: “One should give in this manner.” To give in this manner means to practice giving without characteristics and not to act for the three matters described above.

Although it is said that one practices giving without characteristics and without attachment to the three matters, it is not yet known what object the bodhisattva contemplates in order to subdue the mind. Because the bodhisattva can practice giving without attachment to these three matters, the following section states: “Not abiding in characteristics or perceptions.” This answers the question, “How should one subdue the mind?” in the preceding Section of Questions in the sutra.

It explains and confirms the non-attachment to the three matters mentioned in the preceding question, “How should one practice?” It makes clear that the reason the bodhisattva can remain unattached to the self, requital of kindness, and karmic reward while cultivating such practices as giving is that this bodhisattva has realized the equality of true suchness, attained the supreme samadhi, and subdued the mind. Therefore, the bodhisattva does not perceive “I am the giver, and that person is the recipient.” Having entered equality, the bodhisattva no longer perceives the giver and the field of merit as two distinct characteristics, one here and the other there.

Nor does the bodhisattva perceive wealth as something that belongs only to oneself and may be granted by oneself, rather than as something belonging to others, when practicing giving to sentient beings. Furthermore, because all abide together within the principle of equality, the bodhisattva does not perceive a reward of bodhi that can be sought. This makes clear that within the principle of true suchness, the bodhisattva attains the supreme samadhi, subdues the mind with regard to these matters, and becomes gentle, harmonious, and free.

Thus, the bodhisattva can practice giving without attachment to the three matters. These three matters are of two kinds:

1. External.

2. Internal.

The first is external, namely, not abiding in characteristics: the recipient and the wealth are the two external characteristics. The second is internal, namely, not abiding in perception: the giver and the perceptions of the inner mind. If one can refrain from grasping the characteristics of internal and external dharmas in this manner, then, because there is no discrimination, one can subdue the mind and practice giving. This confirms the practice of giving without attachment to the three matters—the self and so forth—as explained above.

Why is it said that if one does not abide in such characteristics as the self and so forth, how can one practice giving, and how can the practice of giving be accomplished? This makes clear that within the principle of the equality of true suchness, one practices giving without perceiving the three matters. Thus, genuine giving without characteristics is accomplished. It does not mean that nothing is perceived merely because the intrinsic nature is empty.

On what basis does one refrain from attachment to karmic reward? Another doubt arises: If one practices giving without attachment to karmic reward, the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi is also a karmic reward. Why, then, is practicing giving in order to seek and attain the Buddha’s bodhi not called attachment to karmic reward?

This is not answered here. Rather, it is made clear in the following fifth section, where it will be explained that the bodhi of the Dharma-body has the characteristic of being unconditioned. Therefore, if one practices giving for the sake of that bodhi, this is not called grasping at characteristics.

Thus, the later passage is used to answer this question from afar. Why is this so? Because if one gives without abiding in characteristics, that accumulation of merit is inconceivable.

This directly explains the preceding doubt: If one does not perceive the three characteristics of the giver, the recipient, and the gift, it is not yet clear whether this non-perception is spoken of because the mind is present, or because the mind is absent. If the mind is absent, how would this differ from the people of Uttarakuru? The people of that land have no thought of personal possessions.

When others come to take their goods or even seize them by force, they have no regret. Because they have no mind of giving, although they relinquish things, they gain no merit. The same would be true here.

If there were no discriminating mind, the practice of “the other shore of awakening” could not be accomplished.

If one practices giving without perceiving the three matters, does that giving possess merit, or does it possess no merit? The answer should be: When one gives without abiding in appearances, the accumulation of merit thereby obtained is vast and inconceivable. This clarifies that such giving realizes the sincere mind that is of one essence with equal suchness, yet gives rise to no attachment within those three matters; this is called non-abiding. It does not mean practicing giving without the mind of wisdom and understanding that knows equal suchness. This makes clear that there is mind, not that there is no mind.

If one grasps appearances when practicing giving, it is a conditioned cause that brings only the conditioned retributions of the three realms. Since such merit is exhaustible, it is small. To practice giving without perceiving the three matters—that is, without grasping appearances—is an uncontaminated cause; ultimately, it brings about the fruition of Buddhahood and does not bring about retribution within the three kinds of existence.

Therefore, merit free from appearances is all the more abundant and inconceivable. This explains that the mind free from appearances, when practicing giving, obtains the immeasurable accumulation of merit belonging to the fruit of Buddhahood; thus, it is not without mind or without merit. Therefore, this one point is used to explain both doubts together.

Clearly, although the teaching here states that merit is immeasurable, its meaning has still not been fully revealed; therefore, the analogy of space is separately presented to demonstrate the abundance of merit. Having produced a cause that does not grasp appearances, one will certainly attain the great accumulation of merit of the unconditioned Dharma-body. This is called merit.

It cannot be fathomed by the inferior minds of ordinary beings or those of the Two Vehicles, and hence it is called inconceivable. Because the fruit is spoken of within the cause, it may also be said that the causal practices of the ten bhumis are inconceivable. The reason it is necessary to speak of space in the ten directions is the concern that someone might suppose that the space of the world in the east is inconceivable, whereas the space of the worlds in the other directions can be conceived.

It also serves to clarify that the merit of giving is exceedingly vast. It may further be said that within each and every Dharma-gate, merit is inconceivable, like space in the ten directions.

Although the Tathagata had already extensively explained that when a bodhisattva practices giving without abiding in appearances, the resulting accumulation of merit is inconceivable like space in the ten directions, the doubts in the minds of the assembly still remained and had not been entirely dispelled. They further wondered: In practicing this paramita of giving, is one ultimately able to accomplish great bodhi with its immeasurable merits, or is one unable to accomplish it?

To dispel this doubt, the Buddha therefore replied: One should simply practice giving in this manner. This makes clear that one should follow the Tathagata’s instruction above: without abiding in the three matters, without perceiving the three matters, one should subdue one’s own mind and practice giving; then one will certainly attain the great accumulation of merit of the unconditioned Dharma-body. One should simply trust the Buddha’s words and no longer give rise to doubt.

There is another explanation. The doubt is raised: If one practices giving without grasping appearances, then one also cannot give for the sake of seeking the Buddha’s bodhi. If one gives for the sake of the Buddha’s bodhi, then although one has relinquished attachment to the conditioned dharmas of the world, one becomes attached instead to supramundane dharmas.

How, then, can it be said that practicing giving without abiding in appearances yields merit as vast as space? Therefore, the Buddha replied: One should simply practice giving in this manner. This clarifies that although one gives for the sake of seeking the Buddha’s bodhi, the Buddha’s perfect bodhi is the unconditioned Dharma-body, not a conditioned appearance.

Therefore, to practice giving in order to seek the Buddha’s unconditioned bodhi is not to grasp appearances. However, the subsequent prose of the Treatise does not separately explain this doubt; it is answered only in the fifth section, which states that the Tathagata is not a conditioned appearance.

The Treatise uses three verses to explain this passage of scripture. The first verse directly explains why, among the six perfections, this scripture separately discusses only the question concerning the paramita of giving (dana-paramita). The second verse explains practicing without abiding in the three kinds of matters, as stated in the scripture. The third verse explains not abiding in appearances or conceptions, as stated in the scripture, through the end of this scriptural passage.

– The first verse is called the explanation of the doubt. What is this doubt? The doubt is raised: In the preceding seven collections of Prajnaparamita, as well as in other sutras, the Tathagata fully taught all six paramitas in order to encompass the myriad practices. Why, here, does he explain only the paramita of giving and not speak of the remaining five? When such a doubt exists, a question would ordinarily be posed. Because this scripture does not employ many questions and answers, the author of the Treatise follows the intent of the scripture and likewise does not formulate a question and answer. Therefore, it replies: Because the meaning of the paramita of giving encompasses all six (the meaning of giving encompasses the six). Since this reply is given, one knows that there was a question, and thus there is no need to formulate the question separately.

This verse states that the meaning of giving encompasses all six paramitas. It explains that the Tathagata’s teaching of the Dharma is of two kinds:

1. The Dharma-gate of the general characteristic.

2. The Dharma-gate of the particular characteristics.

Here, it is the Dharma-gate of the general characteristic, clarifying that the meaning of the single perfection of giving encompasses the other five, because the meaning of giving is present within each of those five and can therefore embrace them all. Hence, this scripture states only the one name, the paramita of giving, to encompass all six together, and does not separately explain the other five.

Although it has been stated that the meaning of giving encompasses all six, it is not yet known why all six possess the meaning of giving. Therefore, the second line of the verse states: Material support, fearlessness, and Dharma.

+ Material support: This means generously giving to others jewels, food and drink, clothing, wealth, and so forth—the necessities used to sustain life (material support). Therefore, it is called the paramita of giving.

+ Fearlessness: This includes the two paramitas of moral discipline and patience, which are also called giving. By upholding moral discipline, one does not retaliate against external wrongdoing. By possessing the paramita of patience, one is able to endure humiliation and abuse. By means of these two, one can bestow the virtue of fearlessness upon the person before one; therefore, this is called the giving of fearlessness.

+ Dharma: This includes the latter three paramitas—diligence, meditative concentration, and wisdom—all of which possess the meaning of giving. By means of these three paramitas, one can bestow the supreme Dharma upon others. Therefore, it is said that these three are encompassed within the giving of Dharma belonging to the paramita of giving.

There is another explanation: Why does a bodhisattva’s giving encompass the paramita of moral discipline? When a bodhisattva practices giving and the recipient does not cultivate in accordance with the Dharma, the bodhisattva’s mind remains pure and does not give rise to anger. Therefore, giving encompasses the paramita of moral discipline.

How does a bodhisattva’s giving encompass the paramita of patience? When a bodhisattva practices giving, if the recipient becomes angry and strikes or reviles the bodhisattva, the bodhisattva then patiently endures it and does not give rise to wrath. Therefore, giving encompasses the paramita of patience.

How does a bodhisattva’s practice of giving encompass the paramita of diligence? When a bodhisattva practices giving, if the recipient becomes angry, disparages the gift as meager or inferior, and slanders the bodhisattva, this causes the bodhisattva to become even more diligent, assiduously practicing giving without ceasing. Therefore, giving encompasses the paramita of diligence.

How does a bodhisattva’s practice of giving encompass the paramita of meditative concentration? When a bodhisattva practices giving, the bodhisattva does not seek the rewards of gods and humans or those of the Two Vehicles, but seeks only the attainment of unsurpassed bodhi. Therefore, giving encompasses the paramita of meditative concentration.

How does a bodhisattva’s giving encompass the Perfection of Wisdom? When a bodhisattva practices giving, he does not perceive a giver, a recipient, or a gift; therefore, giving encompasses the Perfection of Wisdom.

+ The verse states: “Within this are one, two, and three.” The preceding sentence clarified the essence of the six Perfections of Giving. This sentence, in turn, sets forth the numerical divisions of the six kinds of giving mentioned above:

1. Material resources constitute the Perfection of Giving.

2. The two Perfections of Moral Discipline and Patience belong to the giving of fearlessness.

3. The latter three Perfections, such as Diligence and so forth, are included in the giving of Dharma.

Here, not only does the Perfection of Giving encompass all six, but each of the latter five Perfections also successively encompasses the meaning of all six. This is called the “concluding statement” concerning the abiding practice. It clarifies that because this single Perfection of Giving encompasses all six Perfections, it is called the bodhisattva’s abiding in practice according to reality when cultivating the path from the second bhumi upward.

Why is it that the single designation “Perfection of Giving” sets forth all six Perfections, even making the meanings of their characteristics manifest? Here there is a question and answer explaining the first line of the verse: the single Perfection of Giving subsumes the meanings of all six.

+ All the Perfections share the meaning of the Perfection of Giving: From this point onward, the author of the Treatise is about to explain the second line of the verse. Because all six Perfections possess the meaning of the Perfection of Giving, the preceding statement is reiterated.

+ These are material resources, fearlessness, and Dharma; this should be understood: This formally presents the second line, clarifying that material resources, fearlessness, and Dharma are what is encompassed. Because all six Perfections possess the meaning of giving, people are exhorted to understand this.

+ From the words “How does” onward: This separately explains each statement, showing that the three kinds of giving encompass the six Perfections because they all possess the meaning of giving.

+ With regard to evil deeds already committed or not yet committed, one does not cause fear to arise: This explains how the two Perfections of Moral Discipline and Patience constitute the giving of fearlessness. “Already committed” refers to a person who has previously slandered a bodhisattva, saying: “You are one who violates the precepts and transgresses the prohibitions, one who commits evil, not one who observes the precepts.” This is called having already committed evil. “Not yet committed evil” refers to a person who, although having given rise to an evil intention and wishing to slander the bodhisattva, has not yet done so; therefore, it is called evil not yet committed.

It is also said: “Already committed evil” refers to sentient beings who have previously insulted, struck, or reviled the bodhisattva; this is called having already committed evil. “Not yet committed evil” means that sentient beings have only just given rise to the intention but have not yet struck or reviled him; therefore, it is said that they have not yet committed evil.

“One does not cause fear to arise” clarifies that, regarding these two kinds of people—those who have already committed evil and those who have not yet committed evil—if the bodhisattva were to retaliate, he would cause those people to become afraid. Because the bodhisattva observes moral discipline and practices patience, he does not retaliate against evildoers, thereby bestowing fearlessness upon them. This explains that both the Perfection of Moral Discipline and the Perfection of Patience possess the meaning of giving; therefore, it is said that one does not cause fear to arise.

+ The Perfection of Dharma-giving is untiring: This clarifies that because a bodhisattva possesses the Perfection of Diligence, he diligently seeks, day and night, knowledge of the treatises on the five sciences. For all sentient beings, he expounds the Dharma and teaches them without rest.

+ Skillfully knowing the mind: This is the Perfection of Meditation. Here it is called contemplation. Because he has attained the Perfection of Meditation, he realizes the knowledge of others’ minds and understands whether sentient beings of the Three Vehicles have keen or dull faculties, whether their desires and inclinations are many or few and differ from one another, whether they possess a mind of craving or are free from a mind of craving, and so forth; he then teaches the Dharma in accordance with their capacities.

In some cases, beings should be accompanied in mindfulness in order to be liberated, as with sentient beings engaged in meditative contemplation. In some cases, they are liberated only through the severing of their lives, as when, in the distant past, the Buddha was King Xianyu and killed five hundred brahmins. In some cases, those for whom an inverted Dharma approach should be taught are taught such an inverted Dharma approach.

For example, if a person who observes the precepts is to be liberated through the condition of breaking the precepts, then the breaking of precepts and so forth is taught.

Because, through meditation, he skillfully knows sentient beings’ capacities, the Perfection of Meditation is therefore called “skillfully knowing the mind.”

+ Teaching the Dharma according to reality: Because of the Perfection of Prajna, he skillfully comprehends the Dharma-medicine of the two truths, accords with the characteristics of dharmas, and teaches the Dharma to sentient beings exactly according to reality.

These three statements explain that Diligence, Meditation, and Prajna all possess the meaning of Dharma-giving within the Perfection of Giving.

+ This is precisely the abiding practice of a great bodhisattva: This is the immediate summary of the separate explanations. The three kinds of giving encompass the six Perfections and serve as the abiding practice according to reality for bodhisattvas from the second bhumi upward.

+ From “As stated, the three kinds of giving encompass the six Perfections” to “This is called abiding in practice”: This is the broader summary of both the general and separate explanations. A single Perfection encompasses the meanings of all six, and all pertain to the abiding practice of bodhisattvas who cultivate the path.

+ How does a bodhisattva practice giving without abiding in things, and so forth? Here the author of the Treatise is about to compose the second verse among the three verses cited above in order formally to explain the statement “not abiding in the three things.” Therefore, he cites this passage from the sutra as a connecting question and writes: “How does?”

– The second verse explains the statement in the sutra about cultivating the practice without abiding in the three things, such as things and so forth. The sutra says that one does not cling to these three: oneself, recompense of kindness, and karmic reward. It should therefore read: “Not clinging to oneself, not clinging to recompense of kindness, and not clinging to karmic reward.” However, because of the verse’s metrical constraints, the first part fully mentions all three things, while the latter part merely says “does not cling” (“To oneself and recompense of kindness, to karmic reward one does not cling”).

+ Oneself: This explains the statement in the sutra, “practicing giving without abiding in things.” It clarifies that when a bodhisattva realizes the first bhumi, he has abandoned the five fears and no longer fears being unable to sustain his life; therefore, he can practice giving without clinging to his own person.

+ Recompense of kindness: This explains the statement in the sutra, “practicing giving without abiding anywhere.” It demonstrates that a bodhisattva practices giving not for the sake of receiving manifold recompenses, such as reverence, offerings, various kinds of clothing, food, and drink.

+ Karmic reward: This explains the statement in the sutra, “practicing giving without abiding in form and so forth.” Worldly people give in order to seek the future karmic reward of the five desires among devas and humans. Here it is clarified that a bodhisattva gives not for the reward of forms and sounds among devas and humans, but precisely in order ultimately to seek and attain the fruit of Buddhahood.

After each of these three statements, the phrase “does not cling” applies; therefore, the verse uses the word “that” (“To karmic reward one does not cling”).

The final two lines of the verse (“If preserving it, one would not give; one seeks no other thing”) further explain the preceding two lines.

+ If preserving it, one would not give: This explains “oneself” in the first line. If one still clings to one’s own body, fearing that one’s life cannot be sustained and begrudging one’s possessions so that one does not give, then, in order to prevent such a clinging mind, it is said: “If preserving it, one would not give.”

+ One seeks no other thing: This explains the recompense of kindness and karmic reward mentioned above. Further, although one gives, if it is for the sake of recompense of kindness or worldly karmic reward, then one is seeking another thing—the conditioned dharmas of the world—and is not seeking the Buddha’s bodhi, the unconditioned, supramundane Dharma. To prevent this, it is written: “One seeks no other thing.”

+ Without abiding in things: This is the passage from the sutra cited in the Treatise.

+ This means not clinging to oneself: This directly uses the verse from the Treatise to connect with the sutra.

+ “Without abiding anywhere” means not clinging to recompense of kindness, through to the sutra’s words “without abiding anywhere”: Here, too, the sutra and Treatise are connected. Both explain going beyond recompense of kindness, and the sutra is again used to summarize the point.

+ “Without abiding in form and so forth” means not clinging to karmic reward: This likewise connects the sutra and the Treatise.

+ Why does one practice giving while not abiding in this way? This asks why one does not abide in the three things mentioned in the preceding two lines. The final two lines of the verse are presented in reply, after which the verse is used to explain, in sequence, why one does not abide in the three things.

– The third verse states: “Disciplined with respect to those things.” This explains the statement in the sutra: “One should give in this way, without abiding in marks or conceptions.” Having realized and understood true suchness and attained the samadhi concordant with principle, the bodhisattva can eliminate delusive obstructions and attain joyful aspiration; the mind becomes gentle and masterful, like a well-trained horse and like refined gold. Because the bodhisattva does not grasp the rigid and coarse marks of the three things, this is called being disciplined.

+ “With respect to those things”: Although this is called being disciplined, it has not yet been explained with respect to what one is disciplined. This makes clear that the bodhisattva has realized the equality of true suchness, the Buddha-nature, and understands that all sentient beings are none other than the bodhisattva’s own body. The bodhisattva does not perceive a self who is the giver or the person before them as the recipient. Nor does the bodhisattva regard the various riches, requisites, and gifts as things granted solely through the self’s favor, and so forth. The bodhisattva has become disciplined with respect to the three dharmas—the giver, the recipient, and the riches and requisites given—and therefore it says, “With respect to those things.”

Although the preceding passage says that the bodhisattva has become disciplined with respect to all three things, it has not yet explained how the bodhisattva is disciplined. Therefore, the second line continues: “The mind that grasps marks is left far behind.” Not producing attachment with respect to those three things is called leaving it far behind. This half-verse explains only the sutra’s words “without abiding in marks or conceptions.” The third line, “And all kinds of doubts are eliminated,” provides a general explanation of the doubts discussed before and after it.

+ “And all kinds of doubts are eliminated”: These various doubts are the three kinds of doubt found earlier in the sutra. This also serves generally to introduce the scriptural passages that eliminate doubts within the fifth and sixth sections below; hence it says, “And all kinds of doubts are eliminated.”

+ “It also prevents the arising of the thought; accomplishment”: The preceding line having finished explaining the meanings that come before and after it, this further line is composed. Because this is a verse, it raises once again the preceding doubt: If one does not apprehend the marks of the three things, how can one give? If one practices giving without perceiving the three things, does one have a mind or no mind?

If there is no mind, is there merit or no merit? If there is merit, is it great or small? Is the practice of the paramita accomplished or not accomplished?

This is the arising of doubt. To prevent such a doubtful thought from arising, it says: “It also prevents the arising of the thought.” “Accomplishment” is the answer that the practice of giving is accomplished and produces abundant merit, thus resolving the preceding doubt. Accordingly, this single line contains both the doubt and its answer.

It further explains the doubt raised above: If the bodhisattva does not abide in the marks of the three things and does not perceive the three things, is there a mind and merit, or neither mind nor merit? Is the virtue of the shore of awakening accomplished or not accomplished? To prevent such a doubtful thought from arising in the other person, it says: “It also prevents the arising of the thought; accomplishment.”

+ “What meaning does this passage express?” This asks what is meant by the scriptural words “not abiding in marks or conceptions.” The answer is: It means not perceiving a gift, a recipient, or a giver. This sets forth what the sutra elucidates and indicates that the first two lines of the verse constitute the explanation. The sutra is then cited again by way of conclusion, as may be understood.

+ Next, the benefit of giving is discussed: The latter half of the verse is used to explain the scriptural passage beginning, “When a bodhisattva gives without abiding in marks.” Thus this statement is made to introduce the response to the doubt that follows, as may be understood from the Treatise.

+ Why, after discussing cultivation and practice, does the text next reveal the benefit of giving? Here the author of the Treatise raises an objection: The practice of giving is the cause, while the benefit attained is the result. Ordinarily, in an exposition of the Dharma, the result should first be explained, after which one is encouraged to cultivate its cause.

This is the customary method by which noble ones teach the Dharma. Why, then, is the cause explained first here and the result only afterward? The answer is: Because the mind has already been subdued, the benefit of giving is explained afterward.

This makes clear that if this bodhisattva had not yet cultivated the practice, the result would first need to be presented, followed by an exhortation to cultivate its cause. Here, however, the bodhisattvas of the second ground and above can already directly perceive true suchness and subdue their own minds. Unattached to the three things, they have long since perfected such practices as giving.

Because that cause is already present, the result attained from it is explained directly in due sequence.

+ “What does this mean?” This introduces an explanation of the intent of the preceding question and answer.

+ From this point onward, all the scriptural passages reveal the elimination of the arising of doubtful thoughts, and so forth. This passage of the Treatise introduces the scriptural passage that follows and conveys two meanings. First, it eliminates the arising of doubtful thoughts.

Next, it provides a general introduction to the doubts in the fifth scriptural section and those that follow, through to the end of the sutra. Beginning with the words, “Why does doubt arise?” it introduces each particular doubt in sequence. The meaning of the replies to these doubts is found below, in accordance with the scriptural passages thus introduced.

When scripture is used to answer a doubt, it must correspond to the doubt being raised; therefore, the full account of how the doubt arises is not given in both places.

– Section 5: “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of perfected marks?” This scriptural passage is the fifth section, called “The Tathagata Is Not Characterized by Conditioned Marks.”

Why is this called “not characterized by conditioned marks”? This makes clear that the Tathagata’s Dharma-body has always been quiescent, with its myriad virtues perfectly complete. Its essence is unconditioned, forever transcending the three conditioned marks of arising, abiding, and cessation; hence it is said that the Tathagata is not characterized by conditioned marks.

Next, in what sequence does this section arise? The fourth section above made clear that because the bodhisattva practices giving with a mind that does not grasp marks, this constitutes the cause of marklessness.

The doubt is raised: If there is a markless cause, one should in turn attain a markless result. Yet it is presently seen that the Buddha Shakyamuni Tathagata underwent birth at the beginning, abiding in the middle, and cessation at the end. Since the result possesses these three marks, one may infer the cause from the result and thus know that the cause must also possess marks. Therefore, it is known that there is no markless cause. How, then, can it be as stated above: that by practicing giving without grasping marks, one can attain as the result the unconditioned Dharma-body endowed with immeasurable merit? To eliminate this doubt, the Buddha replies: “Subhuti, you should not entertain such a thought!”

You say that the result, the Tathagata, possesses the three conditioned marks of arising, abiding, and cessation. These belong to the expedient body, which appears in response to beings; they do not belong to the unconditioned Dharma-body. The unconditioned Dharma-body has always been quiescent, endowed with the myriad virtues, and in essence transcends the three marks; therefore, it is not conditioned.

Why do you take the expedient body, which possesses the three marks, to be the unconditioned Dharma-body and ascribe those three marks to it? A question and answer should have been formulated here. They were not formulated because, from beginning to end, this sutra for the most part does not employ questions and answers.

However, the Venerable Subhuti was already a Dharma-body bodhisattva who manifested as a shravaka and was also secretly empowered by the Tathagata’s spiritual power. He therefore understood the Tathagata’s intention well, and so the Buddha directly asked: “Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of perfected marks?” That is, can the Tathagata’s resultant, unconditioned Dharma-body be seen by means of the three perfected conditioned marks of arising, abiding, and cessation?

The Venerable Subhuti understood the Tathagata’s intention and immediately replied: “The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of perfected marks.” This makes clear that the Buddha-dharma—the Tathagata’s unconditioned Dharma-body—is in essence devoid of the three marks; therefore, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the three conditioned marks.

Furthermore, ordinary beings and followers of the Two Vehicles cling to the one-zhang-six-chi body of the Tathagata and the two kinds of nirvana, regarding them as unconditioned and also as eternally abiding unconditioned states. That is to say, from the time the Tathagata Śākyamuni first aroused the aspiration onward, he cultivated the path throughout three great asaṃkhyeya kalpas, bringing the practice of the ten bhūmis to perfection.

When he attained perfect enlightenment beneath the Bodhi tree, he first subdued Māra, the celestial demon, and also eliminated Māra of the afflictions. His body and wisdom still remained; this is called nirvana with remainder. Since there were no longer any afflictions producing activity, it is called unconditioned.

Nirvana without remainder means that when body and wisdom are both extinguished, there is no longer any arising of the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and cessation; therefore, it is called unconditioned. Because it possesses these two meanings, the one-zhang-six-chi body is called the unconditioned Dharma body.

It is called eternally abiding because, once the Tathagata of the one-zhang-six-chi body enters nirvana, he never again returns among the twenty-five modes of existence; therefore, the one-zhang-six-chi body is called eternal.

From here to the end of the scripture, the meaning of the unity and difference of the three Buddhas is extensively explained. In this passage, only the Dharma Buddha is elucidated, discussed according to its distinct characteristics. From this passage onward, the two Buddhas—the Reward Buddha and the Response Buddha—are clarified; the scripture’s text has already revealed them and will itself explain them extensively.

Here, this consequently gives rise to a doubt: Since the Response Buddha possesses the three characteristics, he is not the Buddha of the unconditioned Dharma body. Then is that one-zhang-six-chi body truly a Buddha or not a Buddha? There is also doubt concerning the Reward Buddha, whose body of wondrous form is adorned with immeasurable excellent characteristics: since it is not the Dharma body, is it conditioned or unconditioned?

Is it with outflows or without outflows? Is it eternal or impermanent?

Moreover, the dependent reward of the Reward Buddha is the pure land. Is it a conditioned dharma or an unconditioned dharma? Does it belong to the three realms, or does it not belong to the three realms? Such are the doubts. The subsequent portion of the scripture will explain each of these matters separately, and they may thereby be understood.

+ Why is this so? Because the preceding statement that the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of perfected characteristics gives rise to the following doubt: If the Tathagata’s Dharma body lacks the three characteristics, why did the Tathagata himself say, “I cultivated the path throughout three great asaṃkhyeya kalpas; in my final body I was born into the royal house of Śuddhodana, of the Śākya clan; I practiced austerities for six years, attained Buddhahood at the place of enlightenment, and remained in the world for more than eighty years teaching the Dharma.

I myself declare that my body is impermanent, that after three more months I shall enter parinirvana, and that I shall pass into cessation in the grove of twin śāla trees”? Therefore, the text says, “Why is this so?” The scripture replies: “The characteristics spoken of by the Tathagata are precisely non-characteristics.”

Why does it say that characteristics are precisely non-characteristics? This clarifies that, from his birth in the royal palace to his passing into cessation in the grove of twin śāla trees, those characteristics are the expedient characteristics of the Response body; those very characteristics are not the characteristics of the unconditioned Dharma body. This Response Buddha exists in accordance with the responsive perceptions of sentient beings and is not an actual state. In terms of its essence, there is only the quiescent, clear, and tranquil Dharma-nature, which also possesses none of the characteristics of the four great elements, such as form and fragrance.

+ The Buddha told Venerable Subhūti: “Whatever characteristics exist are all falsehoods.” This extensively discusses the false discriminations of mind, thought, and consciousness belonging to the worldly mind. The presently manifest Response Buddha is constituted by the three characteristics, all of which are false and unreal. It may also be said that all the fruits manifest in the Reward Buddha comprise the myriad characteristics of merit and virtue; being distinct characteristics on the side of meaning, they are not the originally and immutably established, space-like Dharma body. Therefore, it is said: “Whatever characteristics exist are all falsehoods.”

+ “If one sees that all characteristics are non-characteristics, this is not falsehood.” That is, if one sees that the three conditioned characteristics are not the characteristics of the unconditioned Dharma body, then this is not false.

If so, someone may doubt: If the Tathagata does not possess the three conditioned characteristics, then perhaps the fruit of all Buddhas, comprising the myriad characteristics of virtue, does not exist. Therefore, the reply states: “If all such characteristics are non-characteristics, one thereby sees the Tathagata.” Thus, it should be understood that one who knows that the three conditioned characteristics are not the characteristics of the unconditioned Dharma body can see the true Dharma body of the Tathagata. This clarifies that the Tathagata’s Dharma body possesses the characteristic of true suchness and liberation and is not identical to the three conditioned characteristics of arising, abiding, and cessation.

The treatise explains this passage of scripture with one verse:

+ “Discriminating the conditioned essence”: This explains that lesser bodhisattvas and followers of the Two Vehicles give rise to false discriminations of mind, thought, and consciousness, holding that what is constituted by the three conditioned characteristics is itself the supreme Dharma body of the Tathagata and that there is no separate unconditioned Dharma body. Although they speak of the unconditioned Dharma body and take empty space to be the Dharma body, it has an essence that is seen; therefore, it should be clearly understood that for them there is no unconditioned Dharma body.

This line of verse is used to explain the doubt. It first sets forth the attachment of deluded persons; therefore, it says: “Discriminating the conditioned essence.”

+ The second line of the verse says: “To prevent their attainment.”

“To prevent” means to obstruct the attachment of the persons mentioned above: one should not cling to what is constituted by the three characteristics as the supreme Dharma body of the Tathagata. Therefore, it says: “To prevent their attainment.” This line of verse explains the scriptural passage from “What does the Venerable One think?” through “The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of perfected characteristics,” which the scripture previously set forth.

+ “Therefore, the three characteristics differ from the Essence”: This line of verse explains the scriptural passage from “Why is this so? Because the characteristics spoken of by the Tathagata are precisely non-characteristics” through “They are falsehoods.” It clarifies that the three characteristics of the Response Buddha and the myriad characteristics of merit and virtue of the Reward Buddha differ from the Essence of the Tathagata’s Dharma body. This is because the Tathagata’s Dharma body, on the side of its distinct characteristic in meaning, is separate from the three characteristics and from the myriad characteristics of the Reward Buddha.

+ “Apart from these is the Tathagata”: This line of verse explains the scriptural passage beginning with “If one sees that all characteristics are non-characteristics…” It clarifies that the unconditioned Dharma body is clear, tranquil, eternally abiding, and originally and immutably established. Its essential characteristic is quiescent cessation, and its intrinsic nature is free from characteristics such as the three characteristics; these are not characteristics that must first be severed and then abandoned.

+ “What is the meaning of this?” That is, one verse explains the meaning of one passage of scripture. What is its purport?

From this point onward comes the explanation answering: What is its purport? The answer is found in the three lines of verse beginning with “Discriminating the sentient essence,” and so forth. This points out that the preceding line of verse speaks of the particular attachment held by deluded persons. “In order to prevent those persons from attaining the body of the Tathagata” sets forth the second line of the verse in order to obstruct the particular attachment described above. That is, it explains the scriptural sentence, “The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of perfected characteristics”; therefore, the scripture is cited.

+ Why is this so? Why is it denied that the Tathagata’s Dharma body can be seen by means of the three characteristics of the Response Buddha? Therefore, the explanation says: “The Tathagata is called the unconditioned Dharma body.” This clarifies that because the essence of this Dharma body lacks the three characteristics, it is unconditioned; hence, it cannot be seen by means of characteristics.

+ “As the scripture states,” and so forth: The scripture and the succeeding verse are cited together as proof.

+ “Those perfected characteristics are precisely non-perfected characteristics”: This explains the scripture and the verse. “Those perfected characteristics” clarifies the three characteristics of the Response Buddha. “Precisely non-perfected characteristics” means that those three characteristics of the Response Buddha are not the perfected characteristics of the unconditioned Dharma body.

This passage of scripture and verse clarifies that the Dharma body has no conditioned characteristics and is therefore cited as proof.

+ Why is this so? This again prepares to introduce the following verse in order to explain the doubt in the subsequent portion of the scripture. Why are the three perfected characteristics of the Response Buddha not the perfected characteristics of the Dharma body? Therefore, it says: “Why is this so?”

+ The three characteristics differ from the Essence of the Tathagata: This returns to the preceding verse in order to explain it. Above, that verse was cited to establish the reasoning; here, it is cited again for explanation, because this single line provides a general explanation of the scripture passages in two places. Therefore, the verse is cited again in the middle to explain the scripture passage that follows.

+ The statement reveals that the conditioned is false and illusory: Here the author of the Treatise connects the scripture's statement, “Whatever characteristics exist,” and so forth, with the treatise.

+ The verse says: “Apart from those is the Tathagata”: Why, then, is this verse cited separately? Above, it was cited generally to establish the meaning, but the scripture passage itself was not separately explained. Therefore, this verse is cited again in order to explain it.

+ From “If one sees all characteristics as non-characteristics” onward: This is a summary and conclusion.

+ This statement makes clear that the Essence of the Tathagata is not conditioned: Here the author of the Treatise connects the scripture's statement, “If one sees all characteristics as non-characteristics,” with the treatise.

+ From “The bodhisattva understands the Tathagata in this way” onward: Having used the scripture to resolve the doubt, this summarizes the intent of the response given in the section resolving the doubt.

END OF FASCICLE TWO