金剛仙論

Part 6: From this passage onward, Venerable Subhuti gives rise to doubt and therefore asks: “Venerable Subhuti addressed the Buddha: Will there be sentient beings in the future who, upon hearing this sutra, will give rise to the true characteristic, and so forth?” From here onward are two passages of scripture constituting the sixth section, called the Section on the Emptiness of Self and the Emptiness of Dharmas, also called the Passage on Unrestrained Eloquence.

The reason it is called “the Emptiness of Self and the Emptiness of Dharmas” is that, by counteracting the four propositions that posit a self, it elucidates the four propositions of non-self in order to explain the emptiness of self. It makes clear that bodhisattvas are capable of faith and correctly understand that, within the five skandhas of sentient beings, from the beginning there have truly never been the four notions regarded as self, namely a personal self, a sentient being, a living being, and a lifespan, and so forth.

It further establishes that there truly is no causal basis in the five skandhas that could serve as what belongs to a self. Because they do not perceive any fixed nature in what belongs to a self, they can completely eliminate such attachment; hence it is called the Emptiness of Self.

The Emptiness of Dharmas: This is elucidated by setting forth four propositions that counter attachment to dharmas. Above, the emptiness of self was explained to show that the supposed fixed nature of the skandhas of a living being as a self has no fixed nature, but it had not yet been said that the very dharmas produced through causes and conditions, which constitute the skandhas of a living being, are empty. Now it is made clear that these skandhas of a living being are not real, and it is definitively established that there is truly no personal self, because their substance arises and ceases through causes and conditions and is illusory and false.

All dharmas have from the beginning been intrinsically quiescent; even their provisional names are empty. Hence this is called the Emptiness of Dharmas. Furthermore, knowing that Buddha-nature and true suchness, throughout past and present, are one definite essence without direction or characteristic is also called the Emptiness of Dharmas.

This passage of scripture is also called “Unrestrained Eloquence.” It is so called in order to show that all Buddhas and bodhisattvas have attained the true dharani Dharma and possess unhindered eloquence. They can therefore answer according to whatever questions are asked, giving explanations in a sublime manner. Their ideas, from beginning to end, remain concordant and freely expressed, while their doctrines and principles contain no contradiction; hence it is called Unrestrained Eloquence. Because this passage contains the meaning of unrestrained eloquence, it is called the Passage on Unrestrained Eloquence.

It is also called the Section on Those Capable of Faith, because this passage explains the three kinds of persons capable of believing the preceding sutra teaching.

Through what sequence did this scripture arise? The fourth passage presented above clarified the practice of giving without abiding in characteristics, setting forth the profound meaning of the cause. The fifth passage discerned that the Tathagata is not a conditioned characteristic, setting forth the sublime meaning of the result.

Someone then gives rise to doubt: Surely the Tathagata teaches the Dharma not only to benefit the assembly presently hearing it, but also to bring benefit universally to sentient beings in the future age of the semblance Dharma. Yet the assembly presently hearing the Dharma personally sees the Tathagata and consists moreover of great beings who have long cultivated pure and profound roots of goodness and possess deep and extensive wisdom.

They are people capable of comprehending this profound sutra and giving rise to faith in it. Sentient beings in the future, however, will have meager roots of goodness and shallow, limited wisdom, and will be unable to give rise to faith in the principles of cause and result taught in this profound sutra. If so, the Dharma taught by the Tathagata would bring no benefit at all; how then could it be said that the Tathagata always teaches the Dharma for the sake of bringing benefit?

Moreover, the Tathagata would then not be the Omniscient One. As for these two kinds of cause and result taught in this profound and subtle sutra, in the final age of the future, will there be people capable of believing them, or will no one be capable of believing them?

Because of such a doubt, Venerable Subhuti, as though representing the doubts of the assembly, addressed the Buddha: After the Tathagata’s nirvana, in an evil age, will there be sentient beings capable of believing this sutra and regarding it as the true characteristic? The Buddha subsequently replied that there would be people capable of believing it. He explained that three kinds of persons in the evil age of the future would be able to believe this sutra and give rise to the true characteristic: those who observe the precepts, cultivate merit, and possess wisdom.

Therefore, the following section elucidates this matter.

It may be asked: There are three classes of people capable of believing this sutra; why, then, are only the two emptinesses—the Emptiness of Self and the Emptiness of Dharmas—used as the title of the sixth passage? It should be understood that the first two classes, those who observe the precepts and those who cultivate merit, are practitioners below the bhumis who aspire to cultivate the two emptinesses; upon hearing and comprehending the teaching, they give rise to faith.

Those who possess wisdom are practitioners at the first bhumi and above. They directly perceive the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas and give rise to faith through realization. Although the first two classes have not yet directly realized it, they too contemplate the two emptinesses together and gain a semblance of insight into the sublime principle; hence they are identified as people capable of believing the sutra.

The present explanation shows that, although there are three classes of people capable of faith, the section is named according to the supreme objects of their contemplation. Therefore, it is called the Section on the Emptiness of Self and the Emptiness of Dharmas.

Clearly, the present intent is to show that there will be people capable of believing this sutra. The Blessed One therefore first spoke the admonition, “Do not speak in that way!” This was to clarify that, in the evil age of the future, there will be people capable of believing this sutra, and that Venerable Subhuti should not ask, “Will there be people capable of giving rise to faith?”

When Venerable Subhuti heard the Tathagata speak the admonition, “Do not speak in that way!” he again gave rise to doubt: I do not now understand the Buddha’s intention. Is it because there will be absolutely no one capable of believing this sutra that the Buddha directly orders me to be silent, or is it because there will be people capable of believing it that he stops me and bids me listen? The Buddha replied that there would be. “There will be” makes clear that there will be people capable of believing the sutra.

Although it was said that there would be people capable of believing it, it had not yet been made clear what kinds of people would be able to do so. Therefore, it is explained that in the future there will be bodhisattvas capable of believing this sutra. Furthermore, what virtues will these bodhisattvas possess, and what objects will they contemplate, such that they can believe this sutra? Consequently, the text next states: They observe the precepts, cultivate merit, and possess wisdom. This is a general statement of the virtues of the three classes of people capable of believing the sutra.

+ The reason they are called observers of the precepts is that, since the distant past, they have made offerings to the Buddhas; they have previously heard the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra and other Mahayana sutras, given rise to faith in them, accepted and upheld them, read and recited them, and practiced according to their teachings. They clearly know that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, give rise to the bodhicitta, and practice in accordance with the teachings. Only this is called true and ultimate observance of the precepts; merely maintaining the disciplinary precepts is not what is meant here by observing the precepts.

+ Merit: This makes clear that these bodhisattvas, in the dwelling places of the Buddhas, have respectfully offered many kinds of wealth and precious objects and cultivated the practices of the paramitas; hence this is called merit.

These two classes of people, while below the bhumis, have through hearing, knowing, and comprehending already given rise to reverent faith.

+ Wisdom: This makes clear that these practitioners, having perfected their practice throughout asamkhya kalpas and having attained the path of the first bhumi, directly perceive the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas. They personally realize it and thereby believe; hence they are said to possess wisdom. Thus the three classes of people who believe in the true characteristic have been explained.

+ It is called the true character: This clarifies that the aforementioned three kinds of persons who are able to believe do not grasp at characteristics, and practice the non-characteristic cause. They can truly bring about the unconditioned Dharma-body, and they also believe that the unconditioned Dharma-body is the fruit of non-characteristics. That fruit is true and not false, and they can give rise to an understanding of the true character; therefore it is said: “They regard this as true.”

Although the virtues of the three kinds of persons who can believe this sutra were generally set forth above, the first two kinds were clarified: those below the bhumis give rise to faith through what they hear and understand, while persons possessing wisdom, from the First Bhumi upward, give rise to faith through realization. Yet regarding the first two kinds of persons, are those below the bhumis able to believe this sutra because they have previously made offerings to the Buddhas, generated the aspiration for bodhi, and cultivated extensively, or can they believe it even though their practice is not yet complete?

+ If they have previously made offerings to the Buddhas and have cultivated since the distant past: How many Buddhas have they made offerings to? Therefore, the Buddha told Venerable Subhuti: One should know that these bodhisattvas have not merely made offerings and planted roots of goodness in the abodes of one Buddha, two, three, four, or five Buddhas. Clearly, with reference to the three kinds of persons, the first two kinds are first presented separately to show that they are not merely beginners in practice, but possess sufficient virtue to be capable of faith.

This passage of the sutra directly presents and extensively explains the virtues of those two kinds of persons capable of faith. It cannot be definitively assigned to the stages at which the nature of the lineage and the nature of the lineage of the path are cultivated and planted, because the meanings throughout the sutra mutually interpenetrate.

+ Cultivating and making offerings in the abodes of one, two, three, four, or five Buddhas: This separately presents the person who upholds the precepts, clarifying that those bodhisattvas are able to believe this sutra. Practicing and observing the teachings of this sutra in a manner accordant with the mind of the noble ones is called the supreme offering; it is not only the use of incense, flowers, and so forth that constitutes an offering.

+ Furthermore, not merely planting roots of goodness in the abodes of one, two, three, four, or five Buddhas: This means presenting the Buddhas with many kinds of clothing, wealth, jewels, and so forth, and cultivating the practice of the paramitas; such a person is called one who possesses merit.

+ Cultivating, making offerings, and planting roots of goodness in the abodes of immeasurable Buddhas: Above, it was directly stated that they had not merely cultivated, made offerings, and planted roots of goodness in the abodes of one, two, three, four, or five Buddhas, but it was not yet clear in how many Buddhas’ abodes they had done so. It is now clarified that these persons have upheld the precepts and cultivated merit in the abodes of immeasurable hundreds, thousands, and myriads of Buddhas—even in so many Buddhas’ abodes that they cannot be spoken of or fully enumerated—up to the present. They are not beginners in practice, and thus are able to give rise to faith.

+ Even if only for a single thought, they can give rise to pure faith: This jointly explains that the two kinds of persons have, since the distant past, made offerings to the Buddhas and created the causes; therefore, they can give rise to a mind of faith in this subtle and wondrous sutra. This is faith that has only dimly arisen through hearing and understanding; it is not yet faith born of realization. Yet if such persons can give rise to faith in a single thought, resolutely never regress, and remain free of doubt, defilement, and turbidity, this can still be called pure faith—how much more so when it endures for a long time.

Above, the Tathagata answered that these two kinds of persons had previously made offerings to the Buddhas and were able to believe this sutra, but the assembly still harbored doubt: Why, although these persons had made offerings to so many Buddhas, was it said only that they gave rise to faith in a single thought? That would be far too little. If so, it was still unclear whether these two kinds of persons were definitely able to believe this sutra or not. Therefore, the Tathagata answered: The Tathagata knows and clearly sees all these sentient beings. This clarifies that the Tathagata declares himself to be the Omniscient One: whatever he expounds, he thoroughly comprehends the matter and never speaks falsely. You should therefore believe the Tathagata’s words and not give rise to doubt.

+ Now, “knows them all”: This means knowing by means of present knowledge.

+ “Clearly sees them all”: This means clearly seeing by means of the Buddha-eye.

In principle, knowing and clearly seeing apply collectively to all three kinds of persons. Here, only the first two kinds have just been clarified; the third kind has not yet been explained.

+ Why has this already been stated here? Because this is unhindered eloquence, explaining matters freely before or after as appropriate. Moreover, the Buddhas and bodhisattvas have attained mastery of dharani; whatever they expound accords with principle. They may explain things before or after as they wish, teaching the Dharma in a transcendent manner, yet the wording and meaning remain coherent, the sequence is not lost, and there is no contradiction. This differs from ordinary beings and those of the Two Vehicles, who must recite in the proper sequence, for otherwise they will incur faults.

It may also be said that only the first two kinds of persons are known and clearly seen, with no need to discuss the third kind. How is this known? It is because the meaning encompasses all three kinds of persons. Later in the Treatise, only after the three kinds of persons have been explained are the words “knows them all and clearly sees them all” explained. Thus, one should understand that in unhindered eloquence, matters may be explained freely before or after as appropriate.

+ They give rise to such immeasurable accumulations of merit: Although it was clarified above that the two kinds of persons possess both the practice of upholding the precepts and the practice of merit, and are therefore able to believe this profound and wondrous sutra—even to the point of giving rise to a single thought of pure faith—it was not yet clear whether, by virtue of the merit of this capacity for faith, they would obtain such merit in the future or not. Therefore, the Buddha answered that they give rise to immeasurable accumulations of merit.

That they produce such immeasurable merit clarifies that persons capable of faith will also obtain abundant merit in the future; it is not that they will fail to attain it.

+ Giving rise to merit: This explains that the minds of these two kinds of bodhisattvas capable of faith proximately create the cause for the First Bhumi and, ultimately, are fully capable of creating the supreme cause for the unsurpassed fruit of Buddhahood. Therefore, it is called “giving rise to accumulations of merit.”

+ Producing immeasurable merit: This clarifies that persons who obtain this merit are not merely capable of creating its cause. Relying on that mind of faith, they can resolutely cultivate, fully reveal the body of the Dharma-realm, and realize the fruit of Buddhahood with immeasurable merit. Therefore, it is called “producing.”

+ Why? Venerable Subhuti, those bodhisattvas no longer have the characteristic of a self, and so forth.

+ This separately explains the third kind of person: one who possesses wisdom and can believe this sutra. Why is this so? Above, the first two kinds of persons, who uphold the precepts and cultivate merit, were separately explained as possessing practices in the realm of phenomena that enable them to believe.

However, the virtues by which the third kind of person is able to believe this sutra were not separately clarified. Thus, a doubt now arises, giving rise to the question whose intent is: It is not yet clear what meaning, what practice, or what understanding and realization are possessed by the aforementioned third kind of person who has wisdom, such that this person is called one who possesses wisdom and can believe this sutra.

Because there is such a doubt, the text says, “Why is this so?” Now, in order to present the practice by which the third kind of person is able to believe, the Buddha answered: “Those bodhisattvas no longer have the characteristic of a self, and so forth.” This clarifies that these persons have attained the First Bhumi or above, have understood the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas, and believe through their own direct realization.

Therefore, they are called persons who possess wisdom and can believe this sutra. They are unlike the first two kinds of persons, who hear the Dharma from others and give rise to faith by relying upon the teaching.

+ Those bodhisattvas also no longer have the marks of a self, and so forth: The Treatise explains these four as the emptiness of self. Based on the four objects to be counteracted—the marks of a self—it elucidates the four counteracting factors, namely, the marks of non-self.

+ Furthermore, there is no mark of a self: This counteracts the mark of a self. Ordinary beings and non-Buddhist practitioners cling to the existence of a spiritual self, holding that it is identical with the five skandhas, different from the five skandhas, neither identical with nor different from them. They reason: If there were no self, what could bend down and raise itself, look about, walk and stand, come and go, and know suffering and happiness? From this, they conclude that a self exists.

To counteract this attachment, it is said that there is no mark of a self. This makes clear that within the dependently arisen dharmas of the five skandhas of sentient beings, there is definitively and truly no spiritual self or possessions of a self. Therefore, it is written: “There is no mark of a self.”

+ There is no mark of a sentient being: Certain non-Buddhist practitioners cling firmly to the view that sentient beings continue without being severed or extinguished, perpetually carrying on their lives in the world, because sentient beings possess a spiritual self. To counteract this attachment, it is stated: “There is no mark of a sentient being.” This explains that there is only the falsely designated aggregate of arising, which arises and ceases in continuous succession; this continuity is not due to a spiritual self that is neither severed nor extinguished. Therefore, it is written: “There is no mark of a sentient being.”

+ There is no mark of a person: This counteracts the mark of a person. Certain non-Buddhist practitioners form the view that the lifespan of a single retributive existence continues without interruption because there is a spiritual self, and therefore bodily lives have limits of differing lengths and categories of differing kinds. To counteract this attachment, it is said: “There is no mark of a person.” What this sutra calls the mark of a person is called the mark of a living being in a later section of the Treatise.

+ To clarify why this lifespan may be long or short: It is because the karma of sentient beings may be weighty or slight that their lives may be short or long; it is not because of a self. Bodhisattvas, however, fully understand that bodily life is false and entirely quiescent, and they do not perceive any lifespan belonging to a spiritual self. Therefore, it is written: “There is no mark of a person.”

+ There is no mark of one who undergoes life: This counteracts the mark of one who undergoes life. Certain non-Buddhist practitioners put forward the view that because there is a spiritual self, one dies here and is born there, undergoing birth throughout the six realms. If there were no self, who would receive the retributions in the various realms? To counteract this view, it is said that there is no mark of one who undergoes life, making clear that if the spiritual self were eternal, how could it undergo birth in the six realms?

+ Yet the reason there is now birth and death: It is entirely because there is no spiritual self. There is only the conventionally designated practitioner, who, by reason of wholesome and unwholesome karma and so forth, passes through the various realms and receives retribution. “If there were a self,” undergoing birth would be meaningless. Bodhisattvas fully understand that the five skandhas of sentient beings are false and unreal and that there is no spiritual self that undergoes life. Because they no longer perceive this mark, it is written: “There is no mark of one who undergoes life.”

Nevertheless, when discussing the self and sentient beings according to worldly convention, there are as many as one hundred different designations, which cannot all be presented individually. Here, only four dharmas are distinguished in order to counteract the four false marks of a self and clarify non-self, the emptiness of self.

+ Venerable Subhuti! Those bodhisattvas have no mark of dharmas, and so forth: The Treatise explains these four statements as the emptiness of dharmas. Based on the four marks of dharmas that are to be counteracted, it elucidates the four counteracting dharmas.

+ There is no mark of dharmas: This counteracts the mark of dharmas. What is the mark of dharmas? Ordinary beings perceive within the twelve ayatanas a distinction between a subject that apprehends and objects that are apprehended, and thus cling to them as truly existent. To counteract this mind, it is said: “There is no mark of dharmas.” This explains that within the twelve ayatanas, both the apprehending subjects—the six consciousnesses—and the apprehended objects—the six sense objects—are entirely quiescent and have never arisen from the beginning. The Larger Prajnaparamita Sutra states: “There is not a single dharma outside the Dharma-nature; even nirvana I also declare to be like an illusion and a magical transformation.”

+ Nor is there an absence of the mark of dharmas: This counteracts the mark of non-dharma. A person who harbors doubt, upon hearing that all dharmas of the twelve ayatanas are empty, may then suppose that such unconditioned dharmas as true suchness and Buddha-nature are also by nature empty, their emptiness being the same as empty space, a tortoise’s hair, a hare’s horn, and so forth. To counteract this doubt, the Buddha replies: “Nor is there an absence.” This elucidates the mark.

When it is now said that all dharmas are empty, this means that conditioned dharmas are empty because they have no substantial characteristics. But the dharmas of true suchness and Buddha-nature are replete with myriad virtues; their essence is wondrous existence, limpid, and eternally abiding. They are not empty dharmas.

Because their essence is free from the myriad marks, they are called empty. This is not the same as the emptiness of the intrinsic emptiness of conditioned dharmas, nor is it the same as the nonexistence of a tortoise’s hair or a hare’s horn. Therefore, it is written: “Nor is there an absence of the mark of dharmas.”

+ Marklessness: This is intended to counteract the mark. A person who harbors doubt, upon hearing that true suchness has a substantial characteristic that is not empty, may suppose that it is again the same as the existence of conditioned dharmas such as form and so forth. Such a person further supposes: If it exists, its existence is the same as that of form, scent, taste, and touch, which are conditioned dharmas.

If it does not exist, its nonexistence is the same as that of a tortoise’s hair and so forth—the emptiness of intrinsic emptiness. This is called the mark. To counteract this doubt, the answer given is “marklessness,” clarifying that the essence of the dharma of true suchness is “wondrous existence and wondrous nonexistence, called true wondrousness.” Although it exists, it is not the same as the existence of dharmas such as form.

Although it is nonexistent, it is not like the nonexistence of a tortoise’s hair or a hare’s horn. Therefore, it is called marklessness. This is an explanation from one particular perspective, based on the respective meanings of principle and teaching.

True suchness as the realized dharma is all-encompassing and cannot be presented in terms of existence or nonexistence according to names and marks.

How, then, does this third part differ from the first? The first part above clarifies that all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty. This third part elucidates only the essence of the dharma of true suchness, which entirely transcends both marks of existence and nonexistence. This is the distinction.

+ Nor is it marklessness: This counteracts marklessness. What is marklessness? A person who harbors doubt, upon hearing that the dharma of true suchness entirely transcends both marks of existence and nonexistence, may suppose that true suchness as the realized dharma completely transcends every path of words and forms and, furthermore, cannot be relied upon for explanation so that one may hear and, through the teaching, awaken to the principle. This is called marklessness.

To counteract this doubt, the answer given is: “Nor is it marklessness.” This clarifies that although true suchness as the realized dharma has no names or marks that can be expressed, it is not the case that the words and teachings of names and marks cannot be used to comprehend the nameless and markless principle of true suchness. Because that unconditioned dharma of true suchness has been realized, one can in turn teach the unconditioned dharma; therefore, it is also not marklessness.

Here, the explanation is given according to one aspect of the meanings of principle and teaching. Thus, true suchness is not devoid of marks in the sense that it can be understood through sound and hearing, and its principle comprehended by means of the teaching. How, then, does this fourth part differ from the second?

The second part above clarifies that although the essence of the dharma of true suchness is empty and devoid of the myriad marks, its essence is wondrous existence. This fourth part now explains that the essence of the dharma of true suchness transcends all letters and words belonging to the myriad conditioned marks. Yet through explanation, the principle is awakened to; and based on realization, exposition becomes possible.

In this manner, when root and branches are examined together, the principle cannot be exhaustively illumined; hence it may be said that within true suchness as the realized dharma, there are names, words, sounds, and teachings by which it can be expounded. This is the distinction.

These two emptinesses—the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas—will be explained later in the verse section of the Treatise.

+ Furthermore, why is this so? “Venerable Subhuti! If those bodhisattvas grasp at the characteristics of dharmas, they are thereby attached to self and so forth.” Question: The reason this second “Why is this so?” follows is that, upon hearing the preceding teaching on the emptiness of dharmas and the statement in the fourth sentence that “it is also not without characteristics,” one again grasps at the realized Dharma as being identical with names and characteristics.

One doubts: If this bodhisattva is a person endowed with wisdom who has already understood the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas and has eliminated the foregoing delusions concerning self and dharmas, why does he still give rise to the thought that the realized Dharma is identical with names and characteristics? He further says: I possess wisdom and can contemplate that both self and dharmas are empty; I can cultivate the practice and eliminate afflictions; I can teach and transform sentient beings.

If so, then this bodhisattva’s elimination of the characteristic of self is perhaps not yet complete. Because such a doubt exists, the text says, “Why is this so?”

The question “Why is this so?” may also be understood as raising an objection: Perhaps, upon hearing the explanation in the fourth sentence concerning the emptiness of dharmas, one says: Although true suchness has no names or characteristics, it is not without causes. There are verbal teachings concerning the Dharma of true suchness that is realized; from those sounds and verbal instructions, the teaching is in turn expounded so that realizing wisdom may be attained.

Thus, through those verbal teachings, one can realize that wisdom. If so, names and characteristics must exist within the realized Dharma of true suchness. Why, then, is true suchness said to have no names or characteristics and not to be identical with conditioned dharmas?

Therefore, the Buddha replied: “If those bodhisattvas grasp at the characteristics of dharmas, they are thereby attached to self, person, and so forth.” This explains that, although bodhisattvas on the First Bhumi attain an understanding of the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas, they eliminate only what is to be eliminated on the First Bhumi, namely, the coarse kinds of delusive afflictions. Likewise, those on the Second Bhumi and above still abide in the ground of ignorance belonging to the four fundamental abodes.

Through wholesome dharmas, they restrain their attachment to the subtle afflictions present in the deliberately discriminating mind; hence it is said: “They are thereby attached to self, person, and so forth.” This does not mean that they still possess the coarse delusions of the four abodes or that the Dharma they realize possesses names and characteristics.

Above, it was said: “That bodhisattva has no characteristic of self,” and it was also said: “He has no characteristic of dharmas.” This explains that the bodhisattva attains an understanding of the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas. Yet here it is also said: “If he grasps at the characteristics of dharmas, he is thereby attached to self, person, sentient being, and life span.” These two passages therefore appear contradictory.

It will now be clarified that, although these two passages seem contradictory, in principle they are entirely consistent. How are they consistent? The former passage explains that a bodhisattva on the First Bhumi attains the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas; this is the understanding belonging to the agent of counteraction.

The statement that there is “no characteristic of self and so forth” merely indicates what is eliminated on the First Bhumi, namely, the coarse delusions within the four abodes. From the First Bhumi upward, even amid the wholesome dharmas cultivated on the path of practice, there still remain the dark and subtle fundamental delusions of ignorance and affliction. As the Sutra of the Ten Bhumis states: “I am able to know the dharmas of entering meditative concentration and am able to liberate sentient beings, yet subtle delusions still remain and have not been completely eliminated.” From this it may be known.

The later part of the Treatise explains that only the latent tendency of ignorance remains and that no coarse, actively manifesting afflictions remain. From this also it may be known.

+ If he grasps at the characteristics of dharmas: This clarifies that, although this bodhisattva has attained an understanding of the twofold emptiness—the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas—he still gives rise to the discrimination: Because I possess wisdom, I can understand the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas. This subtle discrimination is the root and basis of the view of self. Speaking in coarse terms, it is therefore called attachment to self, person, and so forth. This explains the emptiness of self mentioned previously.

+ As though there were characteristics of dharmas: This is also a discrimination, namely, saying that because I possess wisdom, I can understand the twofold emptiness of dharmas. This explains the emptiness of dharmas mentioned previously; alternatively, one may say that the emptiness of dharmas is explained first.

Nevertheless, these two cases are not fixed because they show that both are attachments within wholesome dharmas and that there is no separate object; therefore, whether one is placed before or after the other causes no difficulty. If the proper sequence is followed, the emptiness of self should first be explained, and the emptiness of dharmas should be explained afterward. The second part that follows ought to clarify the emptiness of dharmas, but it sets aside the explanation of the emptiness of dharmas and returns to explain the emptiness of self.

Furthermore, these two sentences here—“If he grasps at the characteristics of dharmas,” which appears earlier in the sutra, and “One should not grasp at dharmas, nor should one grasp at non-dharmas,” which according to the sutra should be cited later—are explained earlier in the subsequent part of the Treatise. Why is this so? Clearly, this third passage of the sutra constitutes an explanation intended to clarify the distinctions among the three classes of people capable of giving rise to faith.

Because the meaning is more readily explained in this order, it is treated first. The preceding two sentences, because they occur in the passage “the Tathagata knows and sees them all,” are explained later in order to confirm the practice of the two classes of people capable of believing in the sutra. Only afterward are the previous two sentences explained.

+ Why is this so?: This is the third question, “Why is this so?” Upon hearing the explanations given above in the third and fourth sentences concerning the emptiness of dharmas, the doubter raises this question: Although the realized Dharma has no names or characteristics, it is not incapable of being expressed through words; hence the text says: “It is also not without characteristics.” He then grasps at this and thinks: If the realized Dharma mentioned earlier can be explained and revealed by means of names and phrases, then the names and phrases belonging to the agent of explanation must already exist within the realized wisdom.

If so, the realized Dharma possesses characteristics. How, then, can it have been said above that the realized Dharma of true suchness is in essence without names or characteristics? Clearly, the Tathagata’s words are themselves indeterminate.

When I consider it to exist, the Tathagata says it does not exist; then, for my sake, the Tathagata again says that it exists. Why is this so? Since no definite teaching is presented to me, the text says: “Why is this so?”

To eliminate this attachment, the reply is given: “One should not grasp at dharmas, nor should one grasp at non-dharmas.” This explains the principle of the Middle Way, concerning which one cannot definitively assert either existence or nonexistence. If one definitively asserts existence or nonexistence, one is in danger of falling into the two extremes. If one falls into the two extremes, one becomes attached to the characteristics of self, person, sentient being, and so forth. Therefore, neither existence nor nonexistence can be definitively asserted.

+ One should not grasp at dharmas: This explains that, although exposition and expression are relied upon, in principle the realized Dharma is not itself names and characteristics. One should not grasp at sounds and verbal teachings as though the realized Dharma possessed characteristics.

+ Nor should one grasp at non-dharmas: This means understanding the statement that one should not grasp at dharmas, without therefore holding that the realized Dharma is entirely without names and characteristics and cannot be expounded by relying upon teachings.

+ If there are no names or characteristics, it cannot be expounded through teachings: This in turn treats sounds, words, and verbal teachings as entirely non-Dharma, thereby rejecting their capacity to expound. To eliminate this doubt, the text says: “Nor should one grasp at non-dharmas.” This explains that the wondrous purport of wordlessness does not mean that one cannot rely upon names and characteristics to speak or awaken through exposition. Words and verbal teachings are not entirely non-Dharma; hence it is written: “Nor should one grasp at non-dharmas.”

+ The reason one cannot categorically speak of existence or nonexistence: This explains that this Dharma also has the meaning of emptiness and also the meaning of existence. Although the essence of the Dharma of suchness is wondrous existence, it has neither name nor form; therefore, one cannot categorically say that it exists, lest people grasp it as being the same as the existence of name and form. Yet although suchness has neither name nor form, one cannot categorically say that it does not exist, lest people grasp it as being the same as the nonexistence of a hare’s horns and the like.

For this reason, both statements are explained together. One should not grasp sounds, words, or teachings, because the principle of the realized Dharma in suchness is without name or form. Yet it is not the case that one does not rely upon verbal teachings to comprehend the realized Dharma.

The names and forms of verbal teachings are not entirely non-Dharma; therefore, their meaning cannot be discarded.

+ The Tathagata often speaks of the raft as an analogy for a Dharma gate: Just as one who travels by boat both relinquishes it and makes use of it. The latter part of the Treatise explains this point successively and clearly, so it need not be discussed at length here.

+ Even the Dharma should be relinquished: This corresponds to the preceding analogy of the raft. Furthermore, other sutras sometimes state: “Even the Dharma should be relinquished, how much more so what is not Dharma.” According to the sutras of the Lesser Vehicle, the statement “Even the Dharma should be relinquished” makes clear that when an arhat of the Lesser Vehicle enters nirvana without remainder, even such wholesome, uncontaminated dharmas as the Noble Eightfold Path, the ten kinds of knowledge, and the three samadhis should be relinquished; how much more, then, should non-Dharmas such as the ten evil deeds be relinquished?

Again, as stated in the Lankavatara Sutra: “Even the Dharma should be relinquished, how much more so what is not Dharma.” This means that even conditioned dharmas such as form should be relinquished; how much more should false and unreal dharmas, such as a tortoise’s hair and a hare’s horns, which exist only as names, be relinquished? Other sutras likewise teach in this manner. This sutra states: “That Dharma should be relinquished, yet neither should the Dharma be relinquished.”

+ That Dharma should be relinquished: This makes clear that although explanations are used to comprehend the wondrous purport, once the principle of the Dharma has been realized, one must forget those explanations; that is, one should relinquish the teaching. This confirms what was stated above: “One should not grasp the Dharma.”

+ Yet neither should the Dharma be relinquished: This explains that from the initial generation of bodhicitta until the attainment of Buddhahood, one must always rely upon the teaching to awaken to the principle and depend upon explanations to comprehend the wondrous purport. Therefore, those verbal teachings must remain and cannot be entirely relinquished. Hence it is written: “Yet neither should the Dharma be relinquished.” This confirms what was stated above: “Nor should one not grasp the Dharma.”

The Treatise states: What is the meaning of this? Here the author of the Treatise asks how the meaning of this passage of the sutra follows from what precedes it.

+ Based upon the section from here onward, which speaks of a profound cause attaining a profound result: This presents, in sequence, the intention underlying the arising of doubt by recalling the fourth and fifth passages of the sutra discussed above, thereby indicating the basis of the doubt. From the words “If so” onward through “Neither should the Dharma be relinquished,” the wondrous function of the Dharma itself is used to resolve the doubt, as explained in the initial section concerning the sequence in which the sutra arises; this may be understood accordingly.

+ What is the meaning of this? The preceding section of the sutra had merely reiterated the objection and posed the doubt. It then cited this entire passage of the sutra to answer the intent of that doubt, but had not yet explained it extensively. Now the author of the Treatise wishes to do so by means of verses and therefore asks how this sutra answers the intent of that doubt.

For this passage of the sutra, the author of the Treatise uses eight verses to explain it:

+ The first verse: It explains the passage in which Venerable Subhuti asks a question and the Tathagata answers, making clear that in the evil age of the future there will be three classes of people endowed with three kinds of virtue, and therefore capable of having faith in this sutra.

+ The second verse: It separately explains that the first two classes of people have long cultivated causes in the distant past and therefore possess virtues enabling them to have faith.

+ The third verse: It explains that the third class, people possessing wisdom, have virtues enabling them to have faith in the sutra. It therefore also presents in general the means of counteraction and the objects to be counteracted concerning the two emptinesses—emptiness of self and emptiness of dharmas—as a basis for their separate explanation later in the Treatise.

+ The fourth verse: It formally explains the four kinds of emptiness of self.

+ The fifth verse: It formally explains the four kinds of emptiness of dharmas.

+ The sixth verse: This is the reply. Since only the third class of people needs to be explained, it is unnecessary to discuss the objection concerning the first two classes. Nevertheless, they are again presented generally and explained once more, clarifying the difference between the first two classes and the third class in their capacity for faith. Yet because all are people who believe in the sutra, all three classes must be explained.

+ The seventh verse: It explains the passage “The Tathagata knows them all and sees them all clearly” in the sutra.

+ The eighth verse: It explains the analogy of the raft.

– The first verse: Its first line explains Venerable Subhuti’s question. Its remaining three lines explain the Tathagata’s reply, from the words, “Subhuti, in the future there will be bodhisattvas who have faith,” through: “And take this as true.”

+ Speaking of the profound meaning of cause and effect: This explains the words in the sutra concerning hearing such a discourse on the Sutra, while also citing both the fourth and fifth passages of the sutra, which speak of cause and effect, in order to pose the question. The intent of the doubt is this: Why does the Tathagata expound the two profound meanings of signlessness in cause and effect when, in the final age of the future, people will be unable to give rise to faith?

How, then, can the Tathagata always declare of himself: I am the One Possessed of All-Knowledge, who skillfully knows the capacities of all sentient beings and teaches the Dharma appropriately; my teaching of the Dharma is certainly beneficial and is never false? Therefore, the verse answers: In that evil age, They are not nonexistent, for they truly exist.

This formally explains the passage in which the Buddha answers Venerable Subhuti concerning the existence of great bodhisattvas in the future. It makes clear that although it will indeed be an evil age in which those who believe in the sutra are difficult to find, there will nevertheless be people capable of faith; this is not an empty assertion. Who are those capable of faith? The next line of the verse indicates: Bodhisattvas endowed with the three virtues.

This line formally explains the passage in the sutra: “There are people who uphold the precepts, cultivate merit, and possess wisdom.”

Here the virtues of the three classes of people capable of having faith in the sutra are presented in general, so one should know that this is not an empty assertion.

– The second verse: This separately explains the virtues that enable the first two classes of people to have faith in the sutra, from the passage: “The Buddha told Venerable Subhuti: They have not cultivated only in the presence of one Buddha or two Buddhas,” through “They can give rise to pure faith in a single thought.”

+ The verse states: They cultivated the precepts in the past, And planted various roots of goodness.

These two lines indicate the two classes of people who uphold the precepts and cultivate merit. They make clear that such people have previously made offerings to Buddhas, heard the Mahayana sutras, given rise to faithful reverence without disparaging them, generated bodhicitta, and practiced in accordance with the teachings; this is called upholding the precepts. Extensively offering their inner and outer wealth and precious possessions to all Buddhas and all sentient beings and cultivating the practice of the paramitas is called planting various roots of goodness. This formally explains the passage in the sutra: “They have cultivated, made offerings, and planted roots of goodness not merely at the dwelling places of one Buddha, two Buddhas, three, four, or five Buddhas.”

+ Question: Since these people have made offerings to Buddhas, how many Buddhas have they previously made offerings to? Therefore, the latter half of the verse answers: Their precepts were perfected in the presence of many Buddhas, And their merit is also said to be complete.

This formally explains the passage in the sutra: “They have cultivated, made offerings, and planted roots of goodness at the abodes of immeasurable hundreds of thousands of myriads of Buddhas.” It clarifies that these two classes of persons have not merely cultivated and planted roots of goodness in the presence of one, two, three, four, or five Buddhas, but have cultivated and made offerings at the abodes of immeasurable Buddhas.

Only after accumulating supreme causes over a long and distant time can they give rise to a mind of pure faith in this sutra. Therefore, the latter half of this verse once again discusses the two classes of persons mentioned above. The reason they must be explained a second time is that the sutra presents them on two levels; the author of the Treatise follows the sutra and therefore also presents them twice.

+ From the words “As stated in the sutra” onward, through the end of “planting roots of goodness”: Having used the verse to explain the sutra, the author of the Treatise refers collectively to the two passages of the sutra in order to conclude the explanation of the verse.

+ From “This passage of the sutra” onward, through “the merits are complete”: Because the sutra is readily understandable and does not require an extensive explanation, the author of the Treatise briefly sets forth the meaning already clarified in the sutra and the verse.

– The third verse: Beginning with this verse, there are three verses—the third, fourth, and fifth—which explain the sutra passage concerning the third class of persons capable of believing this sutra: persons possessing wisdom. According to the sequence of the sutra, the passage “They are all known and all clearly seen” should be explained here. In meaning, however, this knowing and seeing connects with both the preceding and following passages. This arrangement follows the free exercise of eloquence; hence the passage appears earlier in the Sutra but is explained later in the Treatise.

+ That living being: This indicates the four kinds within the characteristics of self. Only the single characteristic of a living being is mentioned because, although four kinds of attachment are clarified here, each resembles attachment to a self. Thus, only one designation is stated, and the remaining three can be understood accordingly.

+ And dharma: This indicates the four kinds within the characteristics of dharmas. Here too, only the single designation “characteristics of dharmas” is mentioned. Strictly speaking, it should say “characteristics of dharmas,” but because the line of verse contains only five words, it says: “And dharma.” This one line—“That living being and dharma”—collectively indicates the eight dharmas that are to be counteracted.

+ Far removed from attachment to characteristics: This formally explains the two sutra passages concerning the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas: “Those bodhisattvas have no characteristic of a self,” through “nor are they without characteristics.” It clarifies that, upon attaining these eight kinds of resolute understanding, one can counteract the eight kinds of delusive afflictions involving attachment to characteristics mentioned above. Therefore, it says: “Far removed from attachment to characteristics.”

+ It also speaks of knowing that characteristic: This explains why the counteracting dharmas and the objects to be counteracted with respect to the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas are mentioned again: it is to explain more extensively the meaning of the third class of persons, those possessing wisdom. Therefore, it says: “It also speaks of knowing the meaning concerning that wise person, for whom the characteristics are not severed.” Moreover, it is not only persons possessing wisdom for whom the characteristics are not severed; it also speaks of knowing that, for the two preceding classes of persons, the characteristics are not severed.

+ Based on eight, with eight distinct meanings: Based on the eight kinds of objects to be counteracted, there are eight meanings pertaining to that which counteracts them.

This verse, together with the following two verses, takes the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas as its basis and does not separately explain the wording of the sutra.

+ What is the meaning of this?: This asks what the meaning of this verse is. The answer is: It further teaches the meaning that prajnaparamita is not severed. Here, the text first explains the third line and then raises another question: “What meanings does it teach?” This asks: What is the meaning of the statement that prajnaparamita is not severed?

Only afterward does it present the first two lines concerning that which counteracts and the objects to be counteracted, briefly explaining the meaning of the two just mentioned. Although that which counteracts and the objects to be counteracted have been briefly explained, their number has not yet been stated. Therefore, the fourth line of the verse is cited to conclude the statement of their number.

From “Furthermore, why?” onward, that which counteracts and the objects to be counteracted are successively shown to be mutually related.

– The fourth verse: “What, furthermore, is the meaning of this?” The author of the Treatise raises this question in order to introduce the ensuing fourth verse. Although the preceding verse generally explained the four characteristics, such as a living being, it only explained the four meanings collectively. What, then, is the meaning when each is explained separately? Therefore, the answer is: “The essence, continuity, and distinctions.” This verse explains the four statements beginning with “Furthermore, there is no characteristic of a self,” previously set forth in the sutra.

+ Distinction: This clarifies the characteristic of a self.

+ Continuity: This refers to the characteristic of a sentient being.

+ Not cut off until life abides: This refers to the characteristic of a person.

+ And surpassing non-Buddhist paths: This refers to the characteristic of a living being.

+ These are the four characteristics of a self: That is, the four characteristics of a self.

This verse sets forth only the four dharmas that are objects to be counteracted. From the words “What is the meaning of this?” onward, it first presents the four designations relating to the self. Next, it explains the four meanings of attachment to a self. Afterward, it sets forth the four kinds of non-self that serve as the counteragents and explains them further in order to counteract the four kinds of grasping mind.

+ How is it together with dharmas?: The preceding verse used four lines to explain a living being and so forth. Next, in order to explain the four statements concerning dharmas, it repeats the first line of the verse previously cited in the Treatise, while the final two words form a question that introduces the following verse. Therefore, it says: “How is it together with dharmas?” and answers by means of the verse.

– The fifth verse: This explains the four statements in the sutra concerning the absence of characteristics of dharmas.

+ All are empty, without any entity: This formally explains the statement in the sutra: “Those bodhisattvas have no characteristics of dharmas.” It clarifies that non-Buddhists attach to the dharmas of the five skandhas of sentient beings, the twelve ayatanas, and the six objects of sense, regarding them as the apprehending subject and the apprehended object, and believing all dharmas to be truly existent. This is called the characteristic of dharmas. To counteract this attachment, it is said: “All dharmas are empty.”

Empty: The conditioned dharmas of these twelve ayatanas have from the beginning been unborn and have no essential characteristics; therefore, they are empty. Unconditioned dharmas—Buddha-nature and nirvana—are empty because they are devoid of the myriad characteristics.

If it is asked, “Why are they empty?” the answer is: “Because there is no entity.” “No entity” means that entities are empty: there is no form and so forth.

+ Truly existent: This formally explains the statement in the sutra: “Nor are they without characteristics of dharmas.” Upon hearing that all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas are empty, a doubter may suppose that the unconditioned dharmas of Buddha-nature and nirvana are empty in the same way as conditioned dharmas, which lack any essence. This is called the characteristic of non-dharma. To counteract this attachment, the response therefore says: “Truly existent.” It clarifies that Buddha-nature and nirvana are wondrous existence and are empty because they are devoid of the myriad characteristics.

Upon hearing that all dharmas are empty, one should not suppose that nirvana and Buddha-nature are like conditioned dharmas, which are empty because they are false discriminations lacking any essential nature. Therefore, it says: “Truly existent.”

+ Inexpressible: This formally explains the absence of characteristics in the sutra. Upon hearing that the myriad dharmas are all empty, a doubter may suppose that the unconditioned dharma of true suchness is empty in the same way as conditioned dharmas, which are empty of inherent nature, or in the same way as a tortoise’s hair or a hare’s horn. Therefore, the response says: “Truly existent.” Having heard that true suchness truly exists, the doubter may then cling to the belief that true suchness exists in the same conditioned manner as form, fragrance, taste, and touch. Hearing of emptiness, one supposes true suchness to be empty like a tortoise’s hair or a hare’s horn. These two attachments are called characteristics. To counteract them, the response therefore states: “Inexpressible.”

Here it is stated: “It cannot be spoken of.” This clarifies that the essence of the Dharma of true suchness is wondrous existence and wondrous nonexistence, unlike the absence of intrinsic nature and so forth in the forms, fragrances, and other phenomena of conventional truth. Since it also eliminates the two kinds of attachment to existence and nonexistence, it says: “It cannot be spoken of.”

+ Spoken of by relying on words: This formally explains the phrase in the sutra, “Nor is it the absence of characteristics.” Upon hearing that it cannot be spoken of, a doubter may then suppose that true suchness is entirely ineffable. If true suchness were entirely ineffable, how could one rely upon the scriptural teachings to arouse the aspiration, depend upon explanations to cultivate practice, and attain Buddhahood? This is called “the absence of characteristics.” To counteract this attachment, the response therefore says: “Spoken of by relying on words.” This clarifies that although the essence of true suchness transcends all words and forms, it is not the case that this principle cannot be realized by relying upon sounds and teachings. Hence it says: “Spoken of by relying on words.”

+ These are the four kinds of characteristics of dharmas: This sets forth the four kinds of characteristics that are the objects to be counteracted and summarizes the four kinds of absence of characteristics of dharmas that serve as the means of counteraction. This verse, however, has given only a general indication of the means of counteraction and the objects to be counteracted.

+ What are the four kinds, and so forth? Although the fourth line of the preceding verse says, “These are the four kinds of characteristics of dharmas,” it has not yet stated their names, and so they are now enumerated.

+ What is the meaning of this? The first three lines of the preceding verse, together with the prose passage, speak of the four names given to the objects to be counteracted. This question asks what the meanings of these means of counteraction and objects to be counteracted are: from there being a subject that apprehends and an object that can be apprehended, up to there being no entity.

Understanding this first pair means understanding the means of counteraction and the object to be counteracted in “the characteristics of dharmas—the absence of characteristics of dharmas.” Because that Dharma is without self and has no real existence, it says: “Nor is it the absence of characteristics of dharmas.” Understanding this second pair means understanding the means of counteraction and the object to be counteracted in “not the characteristics of dharmas, nor yet the absence of characteristics of dharmas.”

+ But when it speaks of that Dharma: This refers to the realized Dharma of that true suchness.

+ Without self, empty: This clarifies that the essence of that Dharma of true suchness is not only empty of self and dharmas, but is also empty of non-self and the absence of dharmas.

+ Truly existent: It is feared that, upon hearing that the realized Dharma of true suchness transcends both existence and nonexistence and is called “without self, empty,” someone might then suppose that the realized Dharma is altogether quiescent. Therefore it is said to be “truly existent”; it is not an emptiness devoid of essential nature.

+ That emptiness is the absence of an entity, whereas this cannot be said to exist or not exist and is therefore called “without characteristics”: This comprehends the third pair, the means of counteraction and the object to be counteracted in “characteristics—absence of characteristics.”

+ From “spoken of by relying on words” up to “spoken of by relying on the characteristics of words”: This comprehends the fourth pair, the means of counteraction and the object to be counteracted in “neither characteristics nor the absence of characteristics.”

+ Relying on eight distinct meanings to abandon eight kinds of characteristics: Having separately explained the meaning of the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas, this passage sets forth both the means of counteraction and the objects to be counteracted in order to summarize these two kinds of emptiness together.

+ Therefore, it speaks of possessing wisdom: Above, it was asked what virtue the third kind of person possesses that enables that person to believe in this sutra. It has now been clarified that such a person can comprehend the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas. The Sutra and the Treatise have fully explained this meaning. Wisdom is mentioned again in order to give a general summary of the virtue that enables such a person to believe in the sutra, while the sutra’s statements that there are no characteristics of dharmas and so forth separately summarize the four dharmas within the emptiness of dharmas.

+ Possessing wisdom is therefore sufficient: An objection is raised: If this third kind of person fully understands the two kinds of emptiness and can manifest faith, then such a person is supreme. Thus, if merely speaking of a person possessing wisdom is sufficient, why is it also necessary to discuss the two kinds of people who uphold the precepts and cultivate merit? The answer is: Because there are distinctions in how the meaning of true characteristics arises, the author of the Treatise explains them according to their appropriate conditions in order to show the reasons for these distinctions in the arising of true characteristics.

Question: Why is it necessary to show this? The verse answers: Those people rely upon a mind of faith, and through reverence the true characteristics arise.

– Verse 6: The reason this verse is stated is that, in the preceding prose passage, the Treatise says: A person possessing wisdom has realized an understanding of the two kinds of emptiness and therefore can certainly believe in this sutra without following the instructions of others. If so, this third kind of person is supreme, and one should discuss only this person possessing wisdom, without again speaking of the two kinds of people who uphold the precepts and cultivate merit. Therefore, this verse is presented to explain that faith has many kinds and is common to all three kinds of people.

Not wisdom alone: Because the two kinds of people mentioned previously take upholding the precepts, cultivating merit, reverence, and faith as causes, they can attain the supramundane wisdom of the two kinds of emptiness—of self and dharmas—on the bhumis. It is necessary to clarify the first two kinds of people and not separately clarify only the person of wisdom. Therefore, in the subsequent prose passage, the Treatise says: “It does not speak only of prajna.”

+ Those people rely upon a mind of faith: This explains the two kinds of people who uphold the precepts and cultivate merit. They are bodhisattvas prior to the bhumis who are not yet able to directly see what is revealed at the outset. They follow the Buddha, hear the Dharma, and rely upon faith in order to understand; hence it says: “They rely upon a mind of faith.”

+ Through reverence the true characteristics arise: This clarifies that these two kinds of people revere the Tathagata and follow the Buddha’s teachings; therefore, they can believe in this sutra and regard it as the true characteristics. Thus, it again anticipates the succeeding passage of the sutra.

+ Upon hearing such a sutra expounded, they can give rise to pure faith: This summarizes and confirms the necessity of clarifying the first two kinds of people, rather than discussing only the person possessing wisdom.

+ Hearing sounds, one does not apprehend them: From here onward, comprising half a verse, the text again discusses the third kind of person, the person possessing wisdom. Based upon the preceding doubt, only the two kinds of people above, whose faith differs, should properly have been clarified. Why, then, is the person possessing wisdom mentioned again? There are two reasons:

1. A person possessing wisdom believes through realization, whereas the two kinds of people above believe through hearing.

2. In connection with this, it explains the sutra passage: “One should not apprehend dharmas, nor should one not apprehend dharmas.” Therefore, this is set forth.

+ Hearing sounds, one does not apprehend them: This clarifies that a person possessing wisdom has attained an understanding of the two kinds of emptiness. Therefore, upon hearing the sounds of verbal teachings, such a person does not cling to or apprehend them, but accords with the realized meaning of what is taught—the principle beyond names and forms. Later, in its explanation, the Treatise says: “Furthermore, wisdom means not apprehending meaning according to sounds.”

+ Properly speaking of grasping in this manner: Although one does not grasp the sounds of the verbal teaching as being identical with the meaning realized through attainment, nevertheless, the principle that is expounded cannot be attained without relying on the sounds of verbal instruction; thus, it is not entirely non-Dharma. Later, the Treatise states: “In accordance with the ultimate meaning, correct wisdom speaks of grasping in this manner.” The result is designated as the meaning; because the cause can accord with the result, it is called “accordance.” What does this mean?

That is, what is the meaning clarified in that one verse? The subsequent explanation is divided into two parts. From “That person possesses the merit of observing the precepts” through “not only speaking of prajnaparamita” explains the first half of the verse.

It clarifies that the first two kinds of persons revere the Tathagata and rely upon the scriptural teachings of the sages, and therefore can give rise to pure faith. Although they differ from the third person, whose faith arises through realization, they too can form a definite understanding of the sutra. Therefore, the earlier passage concerning pure faith was explained in advance and then cited as the conclusion to this section of the sutra.

Again, from the words “Possessing wisdom” onward, the Treatise explains the latter half of the verse. It clarifies that the third kind of person possesses wisdom and does not seek realization by grasping sounds literally; therefore, faith arises immediately in that person, who is superior to the first two kinds of persons. Furthermore, it explains in advance why the third person, discussed in the later passage, should not grasp the Dharma. This is the meaning of the subsequent statement: “Venerable Subhuti, one should not grasp the Dharma,” as explained above by the latter half of the verse.

According to the sequence of the sutra, this passage should occur after the statement: “If one grasps the characteristic of Dharma, regarding it as possessing the characteristic of Dharma, one is thereby attached to a self, sentient beings, and so forth.” The reason it is explained here is to demonstrate that a person possessing wisdom does not grasp the meaning according to the literal sounds. For convenience, it is therefore explained in advance. Hence the Treatise says, “Next, it states…” This is the sequence of meanings, not the sequence of the sutra.

Again, the sutra states: “Venerable Subhuti! The Tathagata sees and knows them all.” Previously, each verse was first composed and explained, and the sutra was then cited to summarize the conclusion. Why here is the sutra first cited and the explanatory verse of the Treatise composed afterward? Because the two subsequent passages of the sutra were explained in advance above but had not yet been fully understood, they had to be cited first. Clearly, the author of the Treatise explains the meaning in various ways: sometimes citing first and explaining afterward, and sometimes explaining first and summarizing afterward. Here, following the method of the Chanda Treatise, he explained the two subsequent passages of the sutra in advance and only now returns to explain them here.

+ “Sees and knows them all”: Previously, three kinds of persons possessing faith were clarified, their manifestations being mutually dependent. Because this seeing and knowing is “unrestricted eloquence,” its meaning applies generally to all three kinds of persons. Once the three kinds of persons have been presented, the meaning of seeing and knowing that must be clarified has become manifest, and thus it is now explained. What meaning is clarified here? The author of the Treatise wishes to explain the meaning of the statement that the Tathagata sees and knows all those sentient beings.

– Verse 7: Question: What meanings are clarified here by “sees and knows them all”? The verse answers: The Buddha does not know by seeing the result.

This single verse directly explains the passage in the sutra: “The Tathagata sees and knows all those sentient beings.”

+ “The Buddha does not know by seeing the result”: This clarifies that the Tathagata, through direct wisdom, knows and thoroughly comprehends that such a person is certainly capable of faith and is therefore called an observer of the precepts. It does not mean that, upon seeing a person’s dignified outward demeanor, he infers that the person is capable of faith and calls that person an observer of the precepts. In such a case, knowing through an outward characteristic would mean that the characteristic is the basis on which one relies to know by inference. It is now clarified that the Buddha does not understand through such outward appearances; hence it is said: “The Buddha does not know only after seeing the result.”

+ Someone asks: If it is not inferential wisdom that knows, then how does he know?

Answer: He directly sees through the power of aspiration-wisdom. Aspiration-wisdom is the wondrous power of aspiration-wisdom among the Tathagata’s one hundred and forty unique qualities. It is also called the wondrous power of mastery. It is unlike that of the followers of the Lesser Vehicle, who first make an aspiration and only afterward acquire knowledge.

+ The verse says: “Seeking reverence and offerings, that person cannot speak.” The first half of the verse invokes the Buddha as testimony, confirming that the first two kinds of persons can have faith in the sutra. The latter half identifies those who violate the precepts and therefore cannot have faith. Although such a person does not truly observe the precepts, for the sake of material gain he deceitfully claims to observe them.

That person cannot truthfully say of himself: “I am a person who observes the precepts and possesses merit; therefore, through the empowering wondrous power of the Tathagata, I can have faith in this sutra.” What does this mean? The subsequent prose passage discusses this in two parts. The first part, extending through “cannot speak of himself,” explains the preceding verse.

The second part, beginning with “Those bodhisattvas,” explains two passages of the sutra lying outside the verse. Within the first part that explains the verse, there are again two sections. From “observing the precepts, and so forth” through the following two statements explains the first half of the verse.

From “That observer of the precepts, and so forth” through “directly sees through the wondrous power of aspiration-wisdom” explains the meaning of seeing and knowing in the first half of the verse. From “The Tathagata knows them all; therefore, he fully possesses…” onward, the next section contains two statements. The author of the Treatise raises the objection that it is unnecessary to clarify both the qualities of seeing and knowing.

He then answers that the meanings of both seeing and knowing should be clarified together.

+ Why is this said? The author of the Treatise raises the question: Why is it necessary to formulate questions and answers concerning seeing and knowing, and why must seeing and knowing be discussed? Why should it be stated in this manner? The answer is that two expressions are used. Thus, it is clarified that knowing may be direct knowing or inferential knowing, while seeing may be seeing with the Buddha-eye or seeing with the physical eye. Since two distinct expressions occur here, these questions and answers are set forth to enable people to understand that the Tathagata’s seeing and knowing refer to knowing through direct wisdom and seeing with the Buddha-eye, not to knowing through inferential wisdom or seeing with the physical eye.

Again, from “Why does the Tathagata speak in this manner?” onward, the Treatise clarifies the second meaning within seeing and knowing and explains the latter half of the verse.

+ “Again, why does the Tathagata speak in this manner?” The author of the Treatise poses this question: Does the Tathagata merely know that the two kinds of persons possess faith, or does the clarification of knowing and seeing have some further meaning? He then cites the latter half of the verse in reply, clarifying that the Tathagata does not merely see and know that those two kinds of persons possess virtue and therefore can have faith. If someone truly does not have faith in this sutra, that person truly does not observe the precepts. Seeking reverence and offerings, that person deceitfully claims to observe the precepts and to possess faith.

“The Tathagata also sees and knows” clarifies that the Treatise subsequently explains the seeking of offerings and so forth mentioned in the latter half of the verse.

+ “Those bodhisattvas generate immeasurable aggregates of merit and acquire immeasurable merit”: “Generate” here clarifies that the first two kinds of persons possess merit and therefore can have faith, and that this can certainly serve as a cause of bodhi; hence it is called “capable of generating the cause.”

+ “Acquire”: The Treatise explains this as the meaning of the result produced by the perfuming cultivation of one’s own essence. It clarifies that this single thought of faith not only can definitively establish the meaning of the cause of the Buddha-fruit, with that single thought of faith serving as its cause, but can also enable one to cultivate, eliminate afflictions, and manifest the Dharma-body in the fruit of unsurpassed Buddhahood.

+ Furthermore, why, Subhuti, does grasping at the characteristics of dharmas constitute attachment to a self and so forth?

This passage of the sutra comes after the scriptural passage concerning the two kinds of emptiness: the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas. The reason it is explained here is that, in relation to the remaining scriptural text, this passage occurs later, yet it is explained first. It elucidates the remaining portion of the sutra and confirms that those possessed of wisdom clearly understand the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas. Since the implications of the meaning are mutually dependent, the scriptural passage already explained above is cited as evidence that bodhisattvas from the second bhumi onward have, during the path of cultivation, eliminated the delusions. Since placing it in the later section makes the meaning flow more naturally, it is included here.

+ There are only ignorance and the latent tendencies: These are precisely the functioning of the delusions, the afflictions that obstruct wholesome dharmas. This explains the two sentences in the sutra: “If one grasps at the characteristics of dharmas, one is attached to a self and so forth.”

+ No coarse and heavy afflictions are presently active: This means that none of the coarse and heavy delusions—such as the view of self—belonging to the four abiding afflictions throughout the three realms are present. The statement “No coarse and heavy afflictions are presently active” is intended to show that the view of self is devoid of self. The afflictions of the four abodes take the self as their root. The sixty-two kinds of wrong views likewise arise because of the self. If that root is absent, it is evident that the other delusions are also absent.

– Verse 8: That does not abide, yet accords: This explains the analogy of the raft in the sutra and confirms the statement above: One should not grasp dharmas, yet neither should one fail to grasp dharmas. Here, the Sutra and the Treatise follow the same sequence: first the citation is presented, and then it is explained.

+ That: This refers to the twelve divisions of the scriptures, which are called the teaching of the Dharma.

+ Does not abide: With regard to the teaching of the Dharma in those scriptures, it does not abide within the realized Dharma that is free from names and characteristics. This explains the passage in the sutra: “Even the Dharma should be relinquished,” clarifying that the principle which is the object of exposition wholly transcends the path of verbal teachings, names, and characteristics.

An objection then arises: If the realized principle that is the object of exposition wholly transcends the names and characteristics of verbal teachings, then the entire teaching of the Dharma that serves as the means of exposition is consequently not the Dharma. The verse immediately answers: Yet accords. Although the teaching of the Dharma that serves as the means of exposition is not itself the Dharma that is realized, neither is it the case that the realized Dharma can be attained without relying upon that which expounds it. It is therefore said to accord.

Those two words, “yet accords,” explain the passage in the sutra stating that the Dharma is not to be discarded. Since the principle is attained by means of the teaching of the Dharma, the teaching is not to be discarded entirely.

+ Within the Dharma realized by wisdom: This explains the phrase above, “That in which it does not abide.”

It merely says that it does not abide, but it is not yet clear where it does not abide. It is therefore stated: Within the wisdom of realization, it does not abide in sounds, words, or the teaching of the Dharma.

+ The verse says: As a person relinquishes a boat or raft: This explains the analogy of the raft in the sutra.

+ The meaning within the Dharma is likewise so: This is the Dharma corresponding to the analogy. Here it should say: “As a person takes hold of a boat or raft, the meaning within the Dharma is likewise so.” The reason it says only “relinquishes” is that the line of verse is brief and constrained.

What does this mean? The passage that follows, down to “Because wisdom can be realized, the Dharma is relinquished,” explains the phrase above in the verse, “That in which it does not abide.” The second line, “Within the Dharma realized by wisdom,” clarifies that the teaching of the Dharma that serves as the means of exposition is not the realized Dharma; therefore, one does not grasp the teaching as though it were realization. The analogy of the raft is then cited to support and confirm this.

+ From “yet accords” onward: This explains the two words “yet accords” in the first line of the verse, clarifying that although verbal teachings are not the Dharma that is realized, neither do they fail to accord with that Dharma.

Because one grasps verbal teachings as the Dharma, they cannot be relinquished entirely. Therefore, the analogy of taking hold of a raft is again cited as the basis for the concluding summary.

– From this point onward: This is the second scriptural passage. The author of the Treatise introduces the emptiness of dharmas and the emptiness of self from the later section. From the beginning down to “It is not because of conditioned excellent characteristics that he is so designated,” it again presents the fifth preceding scriptural passage because another doubt arises in connection with it.

From “If that is so” onward: This raises a question concerning the doubt, formally presents the substance of that doubt, and then explains it extensively, no differently from the account of its arising in the sutra.

The Buddha said to the Venerable Subhuti: “What do you think? Did the Tathagata attain Sambodhi…?” This scriptural passage still belongs to the section discussing the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas, confirming that there are people capable of believing the preceding sutra passage. In what sequence does it arise? It arises at the beginning of the fifth passage.

+ It says: The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the accomplishment of characteristics: This clarifies that the Dharma-Buddha, the Tathagata, cannot be seen by means of the three characteristics that constitute the sixteen-foot body, because the Tathagata’s Dharma-body neither arises, abides, nor ceases and is not a conditioned characteristic.

Someone may consequently give rise to this doubt: If the Buddha Shakyamuni Tathagata was born in the royal palace, practiced austerities for six years, cultivated the path and became a Buddha, remained in the world for forty-five years teaching the Dharma, and afterward entered nirvana, then, because he possessed those three characteristics, he was not a Buddha. Yet those three characteristics constitute the Tathagata’s sixteen-foot body.

Is that body, then, a Buddha, or is it entirely not a Buddha? If it is a Buddha, one should not say: “The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the accomplishment of characteristics.” If it is not a Buddha, he should not have said: “I aroused the aspiration for bodhi, practiced austerities, went to the place of enlightenment and became a Buddha, and turned the Dharma wheel.” Did this Buddha Shakyamuni Tathagata truly arouse the aspiration for bodhi, practice austerities, go to the place of enlightenment, become a Buddha, attain realization, and teach?

Or did he not arouse the aspiration for bodhi, not practice austerities, not attain the path, not attain realization, and not teach?

Because such a doubt exists, an answer is given next. Its meaning is to clarify that the Shakyamuni Tathagata is not the Dharma-body Buddha, yet neither is he not a manifested transformation Buddha. A manifested transformation Buddha exists because sentient beings perceive him in response to their capacities.

He possesses no real substance as a sentient being, is not composed of the four great elements, has no mind, thought, or consciousness, does not become accomplished through cultivation, and is not a real Buddha. Since he is not a real Buddha, it is clear that he did not truly arouse the aspiration for bodhi, practice austerities, become a Buddha at the place of enlightenment, or truly attain realization. Since there was no real attainment of realization, there was likewise no teaching of the Dharma.

To dispel the doubt above, the following scriptural passage presents this explanation. In the preceding fifth passage, the Dharma-body Buddha was elucidated by means of its particular characteristics. Now, in this scriptural passage, the manifested transformation Buddha is likewise explained by means of his particular characteristics.

+ Subhuti! What do you think?: This indicates that, because the Venerable Subhuti harbored doubt in his mind, there should have been a question, and the Tathagata should also have given an answer. Since the sutra text here is concise and much of its meaning is implicit, it does not formulate a question-and-answer exchange. The Buddha merely asks the Venerable Subhuti directly, “What do you think?” thereby enabling the Venerable Subhuti, through compliance with the Tathagata’s wondrous and unseen sustaining power, to answer the meaning himself. The Venerable Subhuti understood the Buddha’s intention and immediately replied: “World-Honored One! There is no fixed dharma by which the Tathagata attained Sambodhi.”

This clarifies that the manifested transformation Buddha exists because sentient beings perceive him in response to their capacities. Therefore, according to the principle of the path, there is no fixed dharma whereby the manifested transformation Tathagata actually engaged in practice, aroused the aspiration and cultivated it, eliminated afflictions, and attained bodhi.

The statement that there is no fixed Dharma by which the Tathagata attained samyak-sambodhi does not mean that there is absolutely no bodhi that can be realized, nor that there is truly no practitioner who realizes bodhi.

+ Nor is there any fixed Dharma that the Tathagata can expound: Ordinarily, because there is realization, there is exposition. If there is no realization, there is no exposition. Clearly, the transformation Buddha neither realized the fruit nor expounded the teaching on the basis of realization.

+ Why is this so? Some, upon hearing that the transformation Buddha, the Tathagata, neither cultivated the path nor realized the fruit, and moreover did not expound the Dharma, give rise to doubt and slander, claiming that there is absolutely no bodhi, that there are no bodhisattvas who cultivate the path, realize the fruit, and become Buddhas, and that there is also no exposition of the Dharma.

If there were no Buddha and no Dharma, why did the Tathagata Shakyamuni say: “Through three asamkhya kalpas I practiced until my cultivation was complete, attained great bodhi, and turned the Dharma wheel”? This indicates that there was realization and an exposition of the Dharma. Why, then, is it said that the Tathagata did not attain samyak-sambodhi and did not expound the Dharma?

Furthermore, if there were absolutely no Buddha and no Dharma, how could bodhisattvas give rise to the aspiration for bodhi, cultivate arduous practices, and seek attainment of Buddhahood? Because there are doubts such as these, the text states: “Why?”

It then answers: “The Dharma expounded by the Tathagata.” The intent of this answer is to clarify that the Tathagata truly does expound the Dharma.

+ However, the preceding statement that there is no realization and no exposition of the Dharma explains that the transformation Buddha neither realizes nor expounds.

+ The present statement that the Tathagata expounds the Dharma refers to the Tathagata as the reward-body Buddha. It is not the case that there is no actual practice, no generation of the aspiration to cultivate, no eradication of delusions, no realization of the fruit, and no exposition of the Dharma. How could the fact that the transformation Buddha does not truly realize and therefore expound be used to claim that the reward-body Buddha also has absolutely no realization and gives no exposition?

+ If the reward-body Buddha expounds the Dharma, then what is the Dharma expounded by the Buddha? This question ought to arise here, but it has not yet been answered. It will be explained later, in the section on eliminating doubts, where the question of whether the Buddha expounds the Dharma or does not expound it will be addressed.

Some may hear that there truly are realization and exposition and consequently give rise to this doubt: If the Tathagata as the reward-body Buddha truly realizes and expounds, then the essence of the Dharma that is realized must be an appearance that can be apprehended and expressed. Why was it said above that the essence of the Dharma realized in suchness has neither name nor form, that every path of language is cut off, that every sphere of mental activity is utterly stilled, and that it cannot be apprehended or expressed?

Therefore, the sutra answers: “It can neither be apprehended nor expressed.”

The intent of the answer here is this: The reward-body Buddha's exposition of the Dharma relies upon the names and forms of conventional truth. Thus, within the path, it can be said that there are practice, cultivation, realization of the fruit, and exposition of the Dharma for others. If considered according to the principle of suchness, however, there is only the quiescence of the single characteristic; there is no cultivation or attainment, nor is there realization or exposition.

+ “It can neither be apprehended nor expressed”: This clarifies that the essence of the Dharma realized in suchness is not name or form. Because it cannot be attained through auditory consciousness, it is said to be incapable of being apprehended. Because it is not of the nature of sound and cannot be distinguished through words, it is said to be incapable of being expressed.

+ “It is not Dharma”: This explains that the essence of the realized Dharma discussed above is not name or form and cannot be apprehended or expressed. Therefore, sounds and verbal teachings are not the realized Dharma. This confirms the preceding statement that it can neither be apprehended nor expressed.

+ “Nor is it not Dharma” (neither non-Dharma): As stated previously, the Dharma realized by wisdom is not of the nature of sound and therefore can neither be apprehended nor expressed. Does this mean that the scriptural teachings, which serve as the means of explanation, are completely separate from the principle that is explained, and that the scriptural teachings are consequently altogether not Dharma? To resolve this doubt, the text says, “Nor is it not Dharma.” This clarifies that although the scriptural teachings serving as the means of explanation are not the realized Dharma, it is nevertheless not the case that the principle cannot be attained through the teachings.

Therefore, one cannot say that they are altogether not Dharma. They are Dharma, thereby confirming the Dharma expressed above.

+ “Why? Because all noble ones receive their designation through the unconditioned Dharma”: The words “Why?” clarify the preceding statement, “Nor is it not Dharma.” Although the teachings serving as the means of explanation are not the realized Dharma, exposition becomes possible only because of realization, and realization is attained by relying on the teachings. Thus, it is clear that verbal teachings are Dharma and are not entirely non-Dharma. Therefore, the phrase “all those noble ones” is cited to explain and confirm this meaning.

+ Why is this so? Here the question is: Why are verbal teachings Dharma rather than non-Dharma? It is because all noble ones from the First Bhumi upward realize the unconditioned Dharma of suchness and, in turn, expound that unconditioned Dharma. Thus, it is clear that this Dharma is not non-Dharma.

+ “All receive their designation through the unconditioned Dharma”: The Dharma of suchness is called unconditioned. This clarifies that bodhisattvas at the First Bhumi contemplate the three kinds and the two truths together, thereby realizing the two kinds of emptiness and eliminating the habitual tendencies of ignorance belonging to the five abiding grounds. Transcending mind, mentation, and consciousness is called the path of seeing. Up through the Ten Bhumis, counteragents are applied at each stage to effect elimination. This makes clear that, by seeing the true principle of suchness, one can eliminate the afflictions; hence it is said that noble ones receive their designation through the unconditioned Dharma.

– The Treatise states: “Because of this meaning”: The author of the Treatise has not yet offered an explanation, so how can he directly state, “Because of this meaning”? This refers to the preceding passage of the sutra. The Tathagata posed the question, and Venerable Subhuti reverently replied that the Tathagata has no fixed Dharma by which the Tathagata realizes or expounds. Just as in the preceding sutra passage the two noble ones, in their question and answer, mutually understood one another, so too do I understand the intent of this sutra passage. No separate explanation is offered; instead, the sutra itself is presented as the explanation. Therefore, it says: “Because of this meaning.”

Shakyamuni Buddha is not the Buddha, nor does he expound the Dharma: What does this mean?

The Treatise uses one verse to explain the meaning of this sutra passage. What is its intent? The verse answers: “The responsive and transformation bodies are not the true Buddha.” This one verse explains the preceding sutra passage.

+ “The responsive and transformation bodies are not the true Buddha”: This directly explains the sutra passage: “There is no fixed Dharma by which the Tathagata realizes samyak-sambodhi.” It clarifies that the Tathagata Shakyamuni manifested the eight aspects of attaining the path in response to the capacities of beings.

The term “Buddha” refers to the responsive and transformation Buddha.

“He is not the true Buddha” means that he is not either of the two true Buddhas: the Dharma-body Buddha and the reward-body Buddha.

+ “Nor does he expound the Dharma”: This explains the sutra passage: “There is no fixed Dharma that the Tathagata can expound.”

It was stated above that the transformation Buddha does not realize bodhi. This line says that, since the transformation Buddha does not realize bodhi, he also does not expound the Dharma.

+ “In expounding the Dharma, he does not grasp the two”: The words “expounding the Dharma” explain the sutra's question: “Why does the Tathagata expound the Dharma?” This clarifies that the Buddha, the Tathagata as the reward body, truly realizes bodhi and truly expounds the Dharma.

“Does not grasp the two” explains the sutra passage: “It can neither be apprehended nor expressed.”

Why are the two things not grasped? The hearer does not grasp the verbal teaching concerning that which is expounded as being the realized Dharma, nor does the hearer grasp the verbal teaching in its entirety as being non-Dharma. The person who expounds it likewise does not grasp the sounds of the Dharma teaching as being the realized Dharma. Because neither the sounds nor the verbal teaching are grasped as being entirely non-Dharma, this is called: Not grasping the two things.

+ Not expounding, free from the marks of words: This explains the passage in the sutra: “It is neither Dharma nor non-Dharma,” and further explains and confirms the preceding statement that the two things are not grasped.

+ It is not Dharma: This means that names, marks, and verbal teachings are not the Dharma of suchness that is realized. It makes clear that this realized Dharma has been manifest since the original limit, that its intrinsic nature is pure, and that its essence utterly transcends every avenue of names and marks. One should not regard the realized Dharma that is the object of explanation as identical with the sounds of verbal teaching. Therefore, it is called: Not expounding, free from all marks of words. Here, the foregoing statement is further confirmed: “It is not non-Dharma” makes clear that the verbal teaching is Dharma and is not non-Dharma.

+ If the realized Dharma is without names, marks, or verbal teachings, then it is not Dharma: This would mean that it utterly transcends every avenue of verbal expression and could no longer be presented and explained by relying upon the teaching, nor could an explanation be sought through which it might be comprehended. Because there is such an objection, the proper response should be: “Not apart from the marks of words.” Yet because the verse is brief and constrained, it states directly only: “Free from the marks of words,” making clear that it is precisely by relying upon verbal teaching that the wordless is realized.

+ What is the meaning of this, through to: It is also not an exposition of the Dharma: This jointly explains the first two lines of the verse, and it contains two points. From the beginning through: “There is no fixed Dharma that the Tathagata can expound,” two statements are set forth to clarify the meaning. Although all three Buddhas are cited together, the intention is to select the transformation Buddha, making clear that the Tathagata Shakyamuni, being a transformation Buddha, does not truly realize complete, perfect enlightenment, nor does he expound the Dharma. This is a citation from the sutra by way of conclusion.

+ From “If so” onward, through: “Nor does he expound the Dharma”: Upon hearing the preceding explanation that the Tathagata neither realizes enlightenment nor expounds the Dharma, the author of the Treatise takes up the sutra passage, “The Dharma expounded by the Tathagata,” and provisionally raises it as an objection. That is, he presents the objection of one who harbors doubt. In response to this objection, it should be made clear that slander is to be prevented. Therefore, it is said that the Reward-body Buddha does realize and does expound; this is not a discussion of the transformation Buddha as realizing and expounding.

The verse is again cited by way of conclusion, establishing that the transformation Buddha does not truly expound.

+ “In expounding the Dharma, the two are not grasped; not expounding, one is free from the marks of words,” through to: “There is truly no mark of self”: This presents the last two lines of the verse in order to explain them successively.

+ Both the hearer and the speaker do not grasp the two marks: This explains the third line of the verse.

+ Why? Since the fourth line of the verse is about to be explained, it asks, “Why?” Above it was stated that both the hearer and the speaker do not grasp the two things with respect to the Dharma being expounded. This explains that the Dharma is neither Dharma nor non-Dharma. Here, however, according to the proper sequence, “Not expounding, free from all marks of words” should be explained. Yet this line was originally intended to explain the sutra passage, “It is not non-Dharma.” Therefore, this passage from the sutra is cited in explanation. “Why is this so?” means that upon hearing it, one will understand the verse.

+ On what meaning does the exposition rely? This asks: If the Dharma being expounded is not non-Dharma, then on what meaning is this said?

The answer is: It is expounded in reliance upon the meaning of suchness.

+ To say that it is expounded in reliance upon the meaning of suchness: This makes clear that the Tathagata realizes the Dharma of suchness and, in turn, expounds that Dharma of suchness for sentient beings; yet that teaching of the Buddha is neither Dharma nor non-Dharma.

+ It is not Dharma: That is, all dharmas are without essential marks. “All dharmas” refers to the sounds of the Dharma teachings of the twelve divisions of scripture.

+ Without essential marks: This means that within the teaching there are no essential marks of the wisdom that is realized.

+ It is not non-Dharma: That is, within suchness there truly is no mark of self. This establishes that although the essence of the Dharma of suchness utterly transcends every avenue of existence and nonexistence—that is, it is selfless—its essence is nevertheless endowed with the ten thousand virtues of wondrous existence, serene and clear, and is therefore called truly existent. The Tathagata relies upon this Dharma and therefore gives verbal expression to it. This verbal expression, in turn, explains the Dharma of suchness; hence verbal teaching is Dharma and is said not to be non-Dharma. Up to this point, the explanation of the verse is complete.

From this passage onward, the portion of the verse that does not correspond to the sutra will be explained.

First, a question is raised: In the preceding passage of the sutra it is said that, because exposition relies upon suchness, there is verbal teaching. Why does it speak only of the Dharma expounded by the Tathagata and not of the Dharma realized by the Tathagata? The answer is: The existence of verbal teaching itself confirms the meaning of realization. This makes clear that if there were no realization, there could be no exposition. Therefore, it is known that when it now speaks of the dharmas expounded by the Tathagata, realization is thereby already understood.

From “As the sutra states” onward: The as-yet-unexplained passage of the sutra is presented in order to conclude and confirm the point. Once that conclusion and confirmation have been made, the passage of the sutra is then explained in sequence.

+ What meaning does this statement clarify? This asks what meanings that single statement from the sutra sets forth, such that it can conclude and confirm the preceding point—namely, that the existence of verbal teaching means that the meaning of realization is already understood. The answer is: That Dharma is spoken of as a cause. This makes clear that noble ones have verbal teaching only because they realize suchness. Therefore, this sutra passage is cited to demonstrate and confirm the preceding statement that the existence of verbal teaching entails realization.

+ Why? Why can that unconditioned Dharma of suchness serve as the cause that produces and gathers verbal teachings? The answer is: All noble ones receive their designation in reliance upon pure suchness. This establishes that, from the First Bhumi upward, all noble ones realize the unconditioned Dharma of suchness, eliminate the two kinds of obstruction, and receive the designation “noble one.” It concludes by saying: They receive their designation by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma.

+ Because of this meaning: It is by virtue of the noble ones’ unconditioned Dharma that they receive their designation and meaning. The noble ones, in turn, expound the unconditioned Dharma; hence it is confirmed that the realized Dharma is the cause of verbal teaching.

+ Again, by virtue of what meaning? An objection is raised: If noble ones realize the unconditioned Dharma and in turn expound the unconditioned Dharma, then this realized Dharma of suchness has names and marks and therefore can be grasped and expounded. Again, by virtue of what meaning—and why—is the realized Dharma of suchness nameless, formless, incapable of being grasped, and incapable of being expounded?

The answer is: The Dharma realized by those noble ones cannot be expressed in that manner, much less grasped in that manner. This makes clear that the essence of the realized Dharma is not of the nature of sound and therefore cannot even be expressed through words, much less retained through auditory consciousness. Hence it is said: “It cannot be expressed in that manner, much less grasped in that manner.”

Thus, it is immediately explained, saying: Why is that Dharma separated from the characteristics of language and incapable of being expressed as a matter? This clarifies that although those sages realize the unconditioned Dharma and in turn expound the unconditioned Dharma, that unconditioned Dharma is apart from all language and therefore cannot be apprehended or expounded.

+ Why does it not speak only of the Buddha, but instead speak of all sages? Here the author of the Treatise provisionally raises an objection: If all sages are so called by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma, then only the Buddha has fully comprehended the ultimate reach of the principle of the unconditioned and can therefore be so called by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma. From the First Bhumi upward, out of compassion, the sages have not yet seen this principle to its ultimate extent, so they should not be said to be so called by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma. Why, then, is it said that all sages are so called by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma?

The reply is: All sages are so called on the basis of pure suchness. This makes clear that, from the First Bhumi upward, all sages directly perceive the same realm of suchness and are therefore called sages. Thus, it does not speak only of the Buddha. From this, an objection arises: If, from the First Bhumi upward, all sages directly comprehend suchness and are called sages, then what distinction is there between the Buddha and bodhisattvas? Therefore, the answer is: there is complete purity and purity in part. This indicates that the Tathagata possesses the perfect fulfillment of the myriad virtues, clearly sees the ultimate reach of the principle of suchness, and has forever eliminated the two obstructions; therefore, the Buddha is called a sage of complete purity.

From the First Bhumi upward through the Tenth Bhumi, although bodhisattvas also perceive the sublime principle, their realization is not yet perfect, and their elimination of delusions is not yet complete. Yet it is not that they fail to perceive the principle and eliminate delusions in accordance with their respective measure and capacity; they fully comprehend their respective sublime portion. Therefore, bodhisattvas are called sages of purity in part.

Thus, the Buddha and bodhisattvas differ in superiority and inferiority. How, then, could one raise the objection: If, from the First Bhumi upward, all sages are so called by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma, what distinction is there between the Buddha and bodhisattvas?

END OF VOLUME 3