金剛仙論

Section 7: “Venerable Subhuti! What do you think? If the seven treasures filling a three-thousand-great-thousand world-system were used as gifts…” and so forth: Here there are nine passages of scripture, called Section Seven: The Complete Comparison of Merit.

1. Why is it called the Section on Comparison? It explains that although the merit gained by giving away the seven treasures filling a three-thousand-great-thousand world-system is abundant, the mind performing such giving clings to characteristics. It is a conditioned cause with outflows and produces only conditioned rewards among devas and humans within the three realms. It is unlike receiving and upholding even a single four-line verse from this sutra, which can lead to the unsurpassed fruit of Buddhahood, is complete in merit, and creates a supreme, unconditioned cause free from outflows. Through such a comparison, superiority and inferiority, higher and lower, and greater and equal are shown to differ; hence it is called the Section on the Complete Comparison of Merit.

+ What is the sequence by which this section arises? Here there is a doubt. From where does this doubt arise?

It arises from the preceding sixth section: “The dharmas taught by the Tathagata can neither be grasped nor expressed.” How does the second doubt arise? The Dharma that is realized is not name or characteristic and can neither be grasped nor expressed, whereas the scriptural teaching that is expounded consists of names and characteristics and can be grasped and expounded. Thus, the two dharmas of realization and exposition—one possessing names and characteristics and the other lacking names and characteristics—are clearly different.

Consequently, verbal teaching cannot here be called realization. If it cannot be called realization, then receiving, upholding, reading, and reciting the scriptural teaching that has been expounded brings no merit. If there is no merit, the principle of causation cannot be established.

If the principle of causation cannot be established, then the teaching is empty and brings no benefit. If it brings no benefit, there is no cultivation of the path and no realization of its fruit. Why, then, do other sutras say that the Dharma expounded by the Tathagata is never empty?

If so, does receiving and upholding the verbal teaching of the one who expounds it bring merit or not?

Because there is such a doubt, the scriptural passage concerning the three-thousand-great-thousand world-system is introduced to answer it. The answer means that the merit gained by receiving and upholding a single four-line verse from this sutra far surpasses the merit gained from the aforementioned gift of the seven treasures. This is because, although a verse from the scriptural teaching is empty within the Dharma of realization, it is only because realization is possible that the Dharma can be taught; therefore, this verbal teaching itself constitutes a part of realization.

It is precisely by relying upon this verbal teaching that one comprehends the unconditioned Dharma-body and gives rise to the three kinds of wisdom—hearing, reflection, and cultivation—after which one attains realization. Thus, it should be understood that a single verse from the scriptural teaching can serve as a cause for the Dharma realized in the fruit of Buddhahood and far surpasses the merit of giving the seven treasures.

Therefore, the section on comparison is explained next.

+ A three-thousand-great-thousand world-system: One hundred koṭis of Mount Sumerus, one hundred koṭis of sets of four continents, and one hundred koṭis of suns and moons, extending upward to the Realm of the Summit of Existence and downward to the Wind Wheel—this is called a three-thousand-great-thousand world-system.

+ “If the seven treasures filling it were used as gifts, would the merit gained be abundant?” The Tathagata wishes to compare this with receiving and upholding a single four-line verse from the scriptural teaching and determine which is superior or equal. He therefore first cites the merit of giving the seven treasures and asks Venerable Subhuti whether the merit gained would be abundant.

+ “Extremely abundant, World-Honored One! Extremely abundant, Well-Gone One!” Venerable Subhuti now explains that because the precious objects used in giving are abundant, the merit gained is likewise abundant. To answer the Buddha respectfully, he solemnly invokes two epithets of the Tathagata: World-Honored One and Well-Gone One.

+ Bhagavat (World-Honored One): This is the correct pronunciation from the Western Regions and is rendered according to its meaning as “one who has attained wisdom of all modes.” Sugata is rendered into Chinese as “Well-Gone One.” Subhuti briefly invokes these two virtues in answering the Buddha’s question about whether the merit of giving is abundant.

+ “Why?” This asks the Tathagata why the example of giving the seven treasures filling a three-thousand-great-thousand world-system is said to produce extremely abundant merit. Therefore, it says: “Why?” It immediately answers: “That accumulation of merit is precisely not an accumulation of merit.” Above, it was said that giving the seven treasures produces extremely abundant merit. Now it is said: “That accumulation of merit is precisely not an accumulation of merit.” Why do these two statements contradict each other, as though Venerable Subhuti had lost the wondrous power of the Buddha’s unseen aid?

That merit is extremely abundant, yet his answer seems not to accord with the question. Here Venerable Subhuti clearly shows that he has not lost the wondrous power of the Buddha’s unseen aid, nor is his statement that the merit is abundant contrary to reason. He therefore says to himself: “I still receive the wondrous power of the Buddha’s unseen aid, and so I deeply understand that although the Tathagata considers the merit from giving the seven treasures abundant, it is merit with outflows and cannot lead far enough to the fruit of Buddhahood.

Thus, by comparison, it is inferior to receiving and upholding a four-line verse from the sutra, through which one attains the supramundane, unconditioned Dharma-body—merit free from outflows. Therefore, the latter merit is greater.” Here the meaning of the subsequent section is adopted to make the comparison.

+ “That accumulation of merit”: This refers to the accumulation of merit from giving the seven treasures.

+ “Is not an accumulation of merit”: This explains that although such merit is abundant, it is a cause involving attachment to characteristics and therefore brings about only rewards with outflows among devas and humans; it does not attain the supramundane accumulation of merit free from outflows. For this reason, the Tathagata calls it an accumulation of merit.

+ “An accumulation of merit”: It was previously explained that giving the seven treasures is not an accumulation of merit. Lest someone suppose that there is presently no merit and that it is non-merit, the words of the Tathagata are cited to explain that there are two kinds of accumulation of merit: first, an accumulation of merit with outflows; and second, an accumulation of merit free from outflows.

+ Merit with outflows, like non-merit: If this were so, there should be only one kind and not two. Therefore, one should understand that worldly merit exists, but it is not supramundane merit. Thus, upon hearing the expression “not merit,” one should not understand it as meaning that there is absolutely no merit free from outflows.

+ From the words “The Buddha said” down to “giving the seven treasures”: Because a comparison is intended, the preceding example is repeated once more.

+ “If, furthermore, someone, with respect to this sutra…” down to “cannot be calculated”: This explains that if someone receives and upholds a four-line verse from this sutra, the merit that can be attained is the unconditioned Dharma-body. Therefore, that merit is immeasurable, far surpassing the preceding merit from giving the seven treasures, and cannot be calculated.

+ Here, “a single four-line verse”: One should not ask whether it is verse or prose, provided that it fully expresses the principle of the Dharma-body. Because a single four-line verse is not used to discuss such matters as causes and conditions, the sutra text simply speaks of a single four-line verse.

+ “Venerable Subhuti! Why? Because the bodhi of all Buddhas arises from this sutra. All Buddhas and Tathagatas are born from this sutra”: This explains the doubt contained in the preceding comparison.

+ “Why is this?” Someone may doubt: Why is it that giving the seven treasures, which is also a revealing cause and requires very great effort, produces little merit, whereas receiving and upholding a single verse, which is likewise a revealing cause and requires very little effort, produces much merit? Therefore, it is written: “Why is this?”

In reply, the meaning is clarified that the previously mentioned giving is merit that still clings to characteristics; it can yield only meritorious recompense within the three realms and cannot lead to the attainment of the Buddha’s three kinds of bodhi. By contrast, the merit gained from receiving and upholding this sutra does not cling to characteristics and can lead to the attainment of the Buddha’s three kinds of bodhi.

Therefore, the merit and virtue of receiving and upholding even one verse far surpasses giving the seven precious substances. This is because, although the effort required by the scriptural teaching contained in this single verse is slight, the merit gained is great and can give rise to the fruition of Buddhahood. Thus, by receiving and upholding this sutra, one gives rise to understanding and can even attain the realization-wisdom of the ten bhumis.

Ultimately, with respect to the Dharma-body, it serves as a revealing cause; with respect to the two Buddhas—the Reward-body and the response-body—it serves as a generative cause. For this reason, it far surpasses the former merit.

+ Here, unsurpassed bodhi refers to the unconditioned Dharma-body of unsurpassed complete and perfect enlightenment on the right path. This explains that the Dharma-body has always been definitively quiescent and eternally abiding, and that its essence is not a conditioned, fabricated dharma. Receiving and upholding this scriptural teaching can serve only as a revealing cause, not as a generative cause; therefore, it is said: “All issue from this sutra.”

+ All Buddhas, the Tathagatas, are born from this sutra: Only by receiving and upholding the verbal teaching of this sutra can it serve as a generative cause for the Buddha’s Reward-body. This Buddha Reward-body results precisely from receiving and upholding that sutra, arousing the resolve for bodhi, beginning with the planting of roots and proceeding through cultivation until practice and understanding are complete. One cultivates worldly merit and wisdom through one great asamkhyeya kalpa, practices the path, and realizes the first bhumi, which is called the path of seeing.

Through three asamkhyeya kalpas, one practices until the ten bhumis are perfected and passes beyond the vajra-like mind. At that time, the originally inherent nature becomes manifest and is endowed with the two kinds of adornment. As it responds to causes cultivated in the past, it is called causal recompense.

By receiving and upholding the scriptural teaching and cultivating in accordance with it, the recompense attained is the fruition of Buddhahood. Because, in terms of meaning, revelation is spoken of as generation, it is said to be born from this sutra. This is not like the worldly explanation in which an entity itself produces something.

If the Buddha’s Reward-body has a generative cause, is that which is generated conditioned or unconditioned? If conditioned, it must be impermanent. The subsequent passage of the sutra cites the analogy of Mount Sumeru, king of mountains, to explain this.

If the Buddha’s transformation-body arises from a generative cause by relying on the scriptural teaching, it must be a real Buddha. If it is a real Buddha, why does the preceding passage of the sutra state: “There is no fixed dharma by which the Buddha, the Tathagata, attained the mind of bodhi”? If it is definitively not a real Buddha, does making offerings to this Buddha produce merit and virtue or not?

This doubt cannot yet be explained by the later analogy in the sutra concerning minute particles.

Since there is the Buddha’s Reward-body, all transformation-bodies of the Buddha are wondrous functions like images and shadows; therefore, the Buddha’s transformation-body is also said to be born from this sutra.

Having heard that the Buddha-Dharma gives rise from this sutra to the two Buddhas—the Reward-body and the transformation-body—some people consequently give rise to doubt: Giving the seven precious substances requires very great effort, so the merit gained should also be great. Receiving and upholding one verse of the scriptural teaching requires very little effort, so the merit gained should also be slight. Yet it is said that receiving and upholding one four-line verse of this sutra gives rise to the Buddha’s three kinds of bodhi and far surpasses the merit of giving the seven precious substances.

Are these three kinds of the Buddha’s bodhi, then, definitively issued from this sutra and born from this sutra, thus surpassing the merit of giving the seven precious substances, or is this not definitive? This, in general, is the nature of the doubt. It is further said: Here, the three kinds of Buddha are the profound and wondrous Dharma-realm.

If they issue from this sutra and are born from this sutra, then their essence exists, and we should see and know it. Yet at present we neither see nor know it, which indicates that it does not exist. Why, then, is it said that the Buddha-Dharma gives rise from this sutra to the two Buddhas—the Reward-body and the transformation-body?

Understanding that the Tathagata’s teaching concerning these three Buddhas has an exceedingly profound meaning, can anyone believe that they arise from the verbal teaching of a single verse in the sutra, or can no one believe it?

Because of such doubt, the Buddha replied: “Venerable Subhuti! What is called the Buddha-Dharma, that Buddha-Dharma is not the Buddha-Dharma…” This clarifies that all Buddhas, the Tathagatas, realize the three kinds of Buddha-bodhi and expound this scriptural teaching, which in turn explains the Buddha’s three kinds of bodhi. Therefore, to receive and uphold this sutra is to receive and uphold the Buddha’s three kinds of bodhi and to establish the cause for the fruition of the three Buddhas.

These are foremost in the profound and wondrous Dharma-realm. Although they arise from a single verse in the sutra, they are precisely dharmas attained by Buddhas and are not the realm of ordinary beings or followers of the Two Vehicles. Not understanding or knowing this, they instead give rise to doubt: Do these three kinds of Buddha definitively arise from this sutra, or is this not definitive?

Thus, this passage is called an exhortation to faith.

+ The reason this passage of the sutra repeats the expression “Buddha-Dharma” is as follows. “Buddha-Dharma” reiterates the preceding passage of the sutra, which states that the Buddha-Dharma gives rise from this sutra to the two Buddhas—the Buddha Reward-body and the Buddha transformation-body. Hence it states: “Buddha-Dharma—Buddha-Dharma.”

+ According to another explanation, “Buddha-Dharma—Buddha-Dharma” clarifies that these three kinds of Buddha-bodhi dharma are precisely dharmas belonging to Buddhas. Therefore, the expression “Buddha-Dharma—Buddha-Dharma” is repeated.

+ “Is not the Buddha-Dharma”: This explains that the dharma realized by the Buddha is not something attainable by ordinary beings or followers of the Two Vehicles. Because those Two Vehicles are not the Buddha-Dharma, it is said: “Is not the Buddha-Dharma.” Clearly, this Buddha-Dharma is not the realm of followers of the Two Vehicles; therefore, they neither perceive nor realize it.

It may also be said that the question of whether merit and virtue are greater or lesser belongs precisely to the Buddha’s realm and not to the realm of others. It should also be called the Buddha-Dharma, clarifying that it is precisely the Tathagata’s fruition, foremost within the Buddha-Dharma. Therefore, one should simply give rise to faith and not harbor doubt.

– The Treatise states:

What meaning is revealed by this analogy of surpassing merit and virtue?: The author of the Treatise wishes to use verses to explain this passage of the sutra and therefore first raises the question: What meaning is intended to be revealed by this comparative analogy? He then answers: Although the Dharma cannot be grasped or expressed, it is not empty. The doubter thinks: If the Dharma cannot be grasped or expressed, then receiving and upholding this scriptural teaching must yield no merit and virtue.

Now the author of the Treatise elaborates upon the continuation of this sutra passage with the intention of resolving that doubt. He explains that receiving and upholding this sutra does yield merit and virtue and that, by comparison, it far surpasses the merit of giving the seven precious substances; therefore, it is not empty.

This passage of the sutra is explained in the Treatise by two verses.

+ The first verse: Through question and answer, it explains the sutra passage beginning, “The seven precious substances filling the three-thousandfold world-system,” and continuing through, “immeasurable and incalculable,” corresponding to the sutra text.

+ The second verse: It explains the passage beginning, “Why is this, Venerable Subhuti? All Buddhas are born from this sutra,” and continuing through, “That is not the Buddha-Dharma.”

– The first verse states: “Receiving and upholding the Dharma”: This explains the sutra passage, “Receiving and upholding one four-line verse.”

+ “Expounding”: This explains the sutra passage, “Expounding it for others.”

+ “Not devoid of merit and virtue”: This explains the sutra passage, “That merit surpasses the former and is immeasurable and incalculable.”

The first two lines of this verse correspond to a later passage in the sutra, so why did the author of the Treatise explain them first? The latter two lines of that verse correspond to an earlier passage in the sutra, so why were they explained afterward? Because the author of the Treatise regarded the purport of the doubt concerning upholding and expounding the Dharma as important, those two lines of the sutra, although occurring later, come first in meaning and were therefore cited and explained first. The latter two lines of the sutra, although occurring earlier, belong to a later section in terms of how their meaning is expressed, and were therefore explained afterward.

Although it is said that the purport of the doubt was regarded as important, what does this mean? It was stated above that the realized Dharma is not the same as names and characteristics; it cannot be grasped and cannot be expressed. The doubter therefore supposes: Upholding the scriptural teaching brings no benefit. Thus, an analogy was used as a countermeasure, clarifying that upholding the sutra truly brings merit. Because this meaning is presented first, it is explained first.

+ Merit does not tend toward bodhi: This explains the passage in the sutra concerning giving the seven treasures filling the trichiliocosm as alms. This is the first accumulation of merit, clarifying that it is an accumulation of contaminated merit whose essence consists in grasping characteristics; therefore, it cannot tend toward bodhi.

+ Second, that which can tend toward bodhi: This explains that upholding the scriptural teaching and expounding it to others constitute merit that does not grasp characteristics and can therefore tend toward bodhi.

+ Why is it said: “World-Honored One! That accumulation of merit,” and so forth? Because that one verse is to be explained, the latter two lines of the verse are first presented to explain the corresponding passage of the sutra. From “the verse says” onward, the latter half of the verse is cited, showing its connection with the sutra. From “What is the meaning of this?” onward, a question is then raised to explain both the sutra and the verse together.

Yet the first two lines of the verse still have not been explained. Why, then, is the latter half of the verse cited out of sequence? Because it pertains to the passage of the sutra that must be explained. The first two lines of the verse, however, explain the purport of the comparison. Because that purport comes first, the first two lines of the verse were composed first to explain the later comparative passage of the sutra, enabling the prose of the Treatise to follow the beginning of the sutra and explain it in sequence. Therefore, the passage of the sutra, “World-Honored One, it is an accumulation of merit,” and so forth, is cited first; that is, the latter half of the verse is used out of sequence because it pertains to the passage requiring explanation.

+ What are the two? To explain the first half of the verse, a question is raised concerning the two things in the fourth line that can tend toward bodhi. There are two: first, upholding; second, expounding. These two are established in relation to oneself and others, the internal and the external. The next passage of the sutra requiring explanation is thus cited in order to summarize the point.

+ Why is it called an accumulation of merit?

Question: Why are both the merit from giving the seven treasures and the merit from upholding the sutra called an accumulation?

Answer: “Accumulation” has two meanings:

1. The meaning of gathering: This generally explains both the merit from giving the seven treasures and the merit from upholding the sutra. Both have the meaning of gathering and are therefore called an accumulation.

2. The meaning of advancing toward: This clarifies that although these two kinds of merit both have the meaning of gathering, they differ in that one tends toward the goal while the other does not. The merit from giving the seven treasures has only the first meaning, that of gathering, and cannot advance toward the goal. This clarifies that the merit from upholding the sutra has the meaning of gathering and also the meaning of advancing toward the goal.

+ As a person bears a heavy burden, it is called an accumulation: This is a specific analogy for the merit from upholding the sutra, which is an accumulation possessing the meaning of advancing toward the goal.

+ Thus, that accumulation of merit…: This explains an accumulation that does not advance toward the goal. It clarifies that giving the seven treasures produces the causes and fruits of devas and humans and, because it has the meaning of gathering, is called an accumulation. Yet because it cannot bring about bodhi, it is called not an accumulation of merit.

+ Those two can tend toward great bodhi: This explains that upholding and expounding can lead one eventually to attain the fruition of the path of bodhi; they constitute an accumulation possessing the meaning of advancing toward the goal.

+ Therefore, compared with that accumulation of merit, this merit is far superior: Having used the verse and prose to explain this passage of the sutra, the author of the Treatise concludes that the merit from upholding the sutra is far superior to the merit from giving the seven treasures.

+ Why can those two attain great bodhi? The author of the Treatise intends to compose the second verse to explain the following passage of the sutra, and therefore connects it to the statement in the preceding verse that the two can tend toward bodhi. That is, what causal significance is possessed by upholding and expounding even a single verse of the scriptural teaching?

“As stated in the sutra below” introduces the sutra passage cited in answer: It possesses causal significance. Although that passage of the sutra is cited to show that it has causal significance in relation to bodhi, the reason it establishes this causal significance has not yet been explained. Therefore, the sutra passage, “Why is it said that the bodhi of all Buddhas…” is repeated as a question and then explained by means of a verse.

– The second verse states: “In relation to the Real, it is called a revealing cause.” This second verse explains the passage in the sutra: “The unsurpassed bodhi of all Buddhas arises from this sutra.” It clarifies that upholding this sutra serves as a revealing cause for the Buddha-Dharma—the Buddha’s Dharma-body—and does not create it as a producing cause. Therefore, it says only: “In relation to the Buddha, it is called a revealing cause.”

The Real: This clarifies that the unconditioned Dharma-body has always been quiescent by nature, its essence utterly transcending every conditioned path of falsity and delusion; therefore, it is called the Real.

+ It is also another kind of producing cause: This explains the passage in the sutra: “All Buddha-Tathagatas are born from this sutra.” It clarifies that this sutra not only can serve as a revealing cause for the Buddha-Dharma—the Buddha’s Dharma-body—but also serves as a producing cause for the two Buddhas of the reward-body and the manifested transformation-body. It explains that the Buddha’s reward-body is the necessary recompense of the myriad practices cultivated during the causal stage. Since its meaning is established through that causal function, revelation may be spoken of as production. Therefore, it says: “It is also another kind of producing cause.”

The reason it also serves as a producing cause for the manifested transformation Buddha is this: It clarifies that manifestations and transformations arise from the True. Since this principle is evident, it may also be called production.

+ Exclusively the Dharma of the Buddhas: This explains the passage in the sutra: “The Buddha-Dharma is precisely not the Buddha-Dharma.” “Exclusively the Dharma of the Buddhas” means that it is realized only by the Buddhas and cannot be attained by ordinary beings or followers of the Two Vehicles.

+ The fourth line: “Merit accomplishes the foremost essence”: This is the concluding line that elucidates the point.

Merit: This is the merit from upholding the sutra.

The foremost essence: This confirms that the two causes previously mentioned—the revealing cause and the producing cause—bring about the three bodies at the fruition of unsurpassed Buddhahood: the Dharma-body, the reward-body, and the manifested body. These are the foremost essence and are not dharmas attainable by ordinary beings or followers of the Two Vehicles.

Upholding this sutra enables one to attain the three kinds of a Buddha’s bodhi and thus possesses merit; this is therefore the meaning of “body.” It confirms that the teaching of the Dharma is not empty. How, then, could one claim that because it cannot be grasped or expressed, its exposition is empty and useless?

+ From “What is the meaning of this?” onward: In the prose of the Treatise, two points are presented to explain the passage of the sutra just cited. From the beginning through “all are born from this sutra” explains the first half of the verse and the sutra passage: “arises from this sutra” and “is born from this sutra.”

+ Bodhi: This is the unconditioned Dharma-body.

+ That essence is truly unconditioned: This explains the two words “in truth” in the preceding line of the verse. It explains that receiving, upholding, and expounding the Dharma are the revealing cause with respect to the Dharma body. Therefore, it first makes clear that the essence of the Dharma body is not a conditioned dharma and is thus called unconditioned. Hence, with respect to that Dharma body, these two can serve as the revealing cause.

+ They do not constitute the producing cause: This makes clear that the merit from receiving and upholding the sutra cannot bring the essence of the Dharma body into being and does not serve as its producing cause. It can only reveal the Dharma body and thus serves as the revealing cause.

+ The other [is also another producing cause]: This refers to receiving the fruition of the Buddha’s marks and excellent characteristics and to the Buddha’s response and transformation bodies. By receiving, upholding, and expounding this sutra, one can bring forth the wondrous functions of these two Buddhas. In summary, this is the producing cause.

+ Because it can serve as a cause of bodhi, it is therefore called a cause: This is a general explanation of the meanings of producing cause and revealing cause.

+ This reveals that, among those merits, this merit is preeminent: Having completed the explanation, this summarizes the meaning of its superiority.

+ From the words “As stated in the sutra” onward: This cites the passage of the sutra being explained in order to conclude the discussion.

+ From the words “How is this meaning established?” onward: This is the second point in the Treatise. It explains the latter two lines of the verse and also explains the passage in the sutra concerning “Buddha-dharmas—Buddha-dharmas…”

+ How is this meaning established?: This restates the doubt raised in the preceding section of the sutra. The doubt is: How can receiving and upholding a single verse from the teaching of this sutra constitute the producing cause and the revealing cause of the three Buddhas? I am not yet able to give rise to faith in this; hence it asks, “How is this meaning established?” The verse is then cited in reply:

Exclusively the Dharma of all Buddhas;

Merit brings forth the foremost essence.

This makes clear that the three kinds of bodhi of the Buddha arise from a single verse of this sutra and that it functions as the two causes. This is the realm of the Buddha and is not an object of your knowledge; therefore, you should simply give rise to faith.

+ “Venerable Subhuti! What are called Buddha-dharmas…” up to “the foremost exclusive meaning”: Once again, the latter half of the verse is cited to explain the following passage of the sutra. The meaning of that passage is briefly explained, and the verse is then cited to summarize it.

+ Because it can serve as the cause of the foremost Dharma: That is, the merit from receiving and upholding the sutra serves as the cause of the foremost Dharma—the three kinds of bodhi of the Buddha.

+ Therefore, among those merits, this merit is preeminent: Having used the verse and the prose of the Treatise to explain this passage of the sutra, the author of the Treatise gives a general conclusion: the merit gained from receiving and upholding the sutra surpasses the merit of giving the seven treasures. Thus, this exposition is not without purpose.

2. Venerable Subhuti! What do you think? Can a stream-enterer think, “I have attained the fruit of stream-entry,” and so forth?: This is the second scriptural passage in the Section on Comparison.

+ The reason for this continuation is that a doubt arises here. This doubt is also the third doubt arising from the sixth passage: “The Tathagata teaches that dharmas cannot be grasped or expressed, and that sages all receive their designation by virtue of the unconditioned dharma.” Why does this doubt arise? If all sages receive their designation by virtue of the unconditioned dharma, which cannot be grasped or expressed, then stream-enterers and the others are also sages.

Do they receive their designation by virtue of conditioned dharmas or by virtue of the unconditioned dharma? If they receive their designation by virtue of conditioned dharmas, it should not be said that they have transcended fragmentary birth and death. If they receive their designation by virtue of the unconditioned, is that unconditioned dharma graspable and expressible, or is it ungraspable and inexpressible?

If it is ungraspable and inexpressible, is it the same as or different from the unconditioned dharma attained by the Buddhas and bodhisattvas mentioned above? If that unconditioned dharma is different, they cannot be called sages. If that unconditioned dharma is the same, there should be no difference between them.

Moreover, since there is the attainment of the four fruits of a śramaṇa, such as stream-entry and the others, why is it said that they cannot be grasped? Again, when a person expressly says, “I have attained the fruit of a śramaṇa,” why is it said that they cannot be expressed? Thus, the attained dharma is clearly graspable and expressible. Why, then, is it said that the attained dharma cannot be grasped or expressed?

Because such a doubt exists, the answer makes clear that the four fruits of a śramaṇa likewise cannot be grasped or expressed. Therefore, the sutra says: “In truth, there is no dharma called a stream-enterer,” through “In truth, there is no dharma called an arhat.” At the time these four persons attain their respective fruits, they do not perceive any dharma that can be attained as a fruit and called stream-entry, up to arhatship. Therefore, these four fruits of a śramaṇa likewise cannot be grasped or expressed.

+ Here, the reason it is said, “In truth, there is no dharma called a stream-enterer,” and so forth: This is a specific discussion in response to the doubt concerning what can be grasped and expressed. If explained extensively, these four fruits of a śramaṇa may also be called graspable and expressible. They may likewise be called ungraspable and inexpressible.

They may also be described as conditioned, and they may also be described as unconditioned. The four fruits of a śramaṇa are uncontaminated wisdom. Their essence is impermanent and does not escape arising and ceasing; since they are conditioned, they may also be called conditioned.

Through comprehending the indeterminate nature of the arising aggregates, one can sever the afflictions of the three fetters. This is the unconditioned fruit of the sphere of emptiness, whereby one does not undergo retribution in the three evil destinies. This extends up to the arhat, who severs the delusions of the four abodes and no longer undergoes retribution within the three realms.

This is the bliss of the unconditioned and thus may also be called unconditioned. Practitioners of these two vehicles attain the correct principle of non-self and likewise eliminate the fetters. Because this is unconditioned, they are called sages.

Yet they have not attained the twofold emptiness of dharmas pertaining to true suchness and causes and conditions, nor can they completely extinguish the ignorance involved in the birth and death of transformation and become wholly unconditioned. Therefore, they are not like Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Since there are differences in the depth of what they attain, they are clearly distinct.

How could one take the unconditioned to be identical and thereby regard the two vehicles as equal to Buddhas and bodhisattvas? Here, because sages and the unconditioned are considered one, distinctions must be drawn. The explanation in this sutra clarifies their differences.

+ These four fruits of a śramaṇa are said to be graspable: This means grasping the unconditioned fruit.

+ They can be expressed: This means that, in accordance with their own attainment, practitioners rely upon provisionally established names and words to expound it to others.

+ They are said to be ungraspable: This means that, upon attaining the four fruits of a śramaṇa, practitioners gain understanding of non-self and emptiness. Within the dharmas of the five skandhas constituting sentient beings, there is not a single dharma called a stream-enterer, and so forth.

+ Furthermore, they are ungraspable: This means not grasping the objects of the six senses, such as forms and the others.

+ They cannot be expressed: This makes clear that the attained dharma can only be known through the mind and cannot be reached through words; hence it is called inexpressible. Those who have attained the four fruits realize those fruits by taking only the emptiness of persons as their object, yet even their attainments cannot be grasped or expressed. How much less could the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, who receive their designation precisely by virtue of pure true suchness, be grasped or expressed?

It is in order to eliminate that doubt that this passage is introduced in sequence.

+ What does the Venerable One think? Can a stream-enterer think, “I have attained the fruit of stream-entry”? Here the Tathagata asks the Venerable Subhuti: What does the Venerable One think?

When stream-enterers and so forth, having gained insight into non-self and eliminated identity view, attachment to precepts and observances, and doubt, realize the noble fruit, can they still give rise to the discriminating thought, “I have attained the fruit of stream-entry”? Therefore, the Venerable Subhuti answers that they cannot, and then explains why. Because in truth there is no dharma called a stream-enterer.

This makes clear that when stream-enterers and so forth realize the fruit, they gain insight into non-self. With regard to conventionally designated beings and the dharmas of the five skandhas, all is quiescent—one emptiness in which there is nothing to discriminate—even the six sense objects are empty. Within the internal dharmas of a being’s five skandhas, they do not perceive any fixed, real dharma that could be called a stream-enterer.

Nor do they perceive within the domain of the six sense objects any dharma that can be grasped. Therefore, they do not form the thought, “I have attained the fruit of stream-entry,” and so forth.

From “stream-enterer” through “There is no dharma called an arhat”: This collectively adduces the four fruits and makes clear that they cannot be grasped. It is set forth to explain the preceding doubt; their meanings are the same and can therefore be understood accordingly. From the question about the arhat not forming the thought, “I have attained the fruit of arhatship,” a doubt arises: If, upon realizing the fruit, an arhat does not think, “I have attained the fruit,” then why does an arhat still have the thought, “I have attained the fruit of arhatship”?

Therefore, the reply states: “World-Honored One! If an arhat were still to think, ‘I have attained the fruit of arhatship,’ he would be attached to a self, a person, and so forth.” The meaning of this reply makes clear that the earlier statement, “I do not think that I have attained the fruit of arhatship,” refers to the time when the fruit of arhatship is realized. Since the afflictions of the four abodes have then been completely eliminated, the thought, “I can attain the fruit,” does not arise.

Yet this arhat still retains habitual tendencies because the affliction of ignorance has not been eliminated; therefore, the thought “I have attained the fruit” may subsequently arise again. This does not mean that there remain the identity views belonging to the four abodes, such as attachment to a self, a person, a living being, and so forth.

This sutra, however, discusses only the case of an arhat who has not completely eliminated habitual tendencies; it does not discuss the afflictions not yet eliminated by those who have realized the preceding three fruits. According to the explanation later in the Treatise, it treats the first three kinds of persons collectively, making clear that those who have realized the first two fruits have only recently eliminated the two inverted views of self and permanence, but have not yet completely eliminated the latter two inverted views; therefore, they still engage in afflicted conduct.

Those who have realized the latter two fruits have also eliminated the two inverted views of bliss and purity; therefore, they no longer engage in afflicted conduct, although the habitual tendencies of ignorance remain.

+ “World-Honored One! I have attained the samadhi of non-contention and am foremost among men,” and so forth: The Tathagata has always said that one should disclose evil deeds and conceal wholesome qualities. Why, then, does the Venerable Subhuti here declare of himself, “The Buddha says that I am foremost among those who have attained the samadhi of non-contention”?

The Venerable Subhuti wishes to cite his own realization: although he has attained the samadhi of non-contention, he does not form the thought, “I have attained the samadhi of non-contention; I am an arhat free from desire who has realized the foremost fruit.” Is this the same as, or different from, the principle of non-grasping? It explains that when those arhats say, “I do not form such a thought,” they no longer possess the coarse afflictions of the four abodes, although they may not yet have eliminated the habitual tendency of attachment to self.

When the Venerable Subhuti now says that he does not form such a thought, even the habitual tendency of attachment to self does not arise, because he has skillfully subdued it, though it has not been permanently eliminated. This is stated so that people may develop faith that Subhuti truly realized this dharma.

+ Yet the Venerable Subhuti says that he does not form such a thought: This means that he constantly maintains a vigilant mind, preventing the habitual tendency of attachment to self from arising.

Furthermore, the Venerable Subhuti is a Dharma-body bodhisattva who manifests as a sravaka and is forever free of habitual tendencies; therefore, he does not form the thought, “I have attained arhatship.”

+ “The Buddha says that I am foremost among those who have attained the samadhi of non-contention.” The reason this samadhi is called the samadhi of non-contention is that the Venerable Subhuti was well able to maintain a vigilant mind against habitual tendencies. He himself did not give rise to greed, anger, or delusion toward sentient beings, nor did he cause sentient beings to give rise to greed, anger, or delusion toward him.

Thus, in the sutra, the Venerable Subhuti says: “If someone takes offense at my sitting, I shall stand for the entire day without changing my place. If someone takes offense at my standing, I shall sit for the entire day,” and so forth. Therefore, even when going to seek alms, the Venerable Subhuti would always observe sentient beings with a concentrated mind.

Only if those ahead would not be obstructed by him would he enter the village; if they would be obstructed, he would stop and not proceed on his alms round. This makes clear that in all four modes of deportment, the Venerable Subhuti always skillfully guarded against his habitual tendencies and prevented them from arising. Because he attained this samadhi and no longer contended with others, having completely eliminated that portion of the afflictive hindrances, he is said to have attained the samadhi of non-contention.

Other arhats, such as the Venerable Sariputra and others, could not skillfully restrain their habitual tendencies and thus came into contention with things; therefore, they did not attain the samadhi of non-contention. At this point, someone may raise an objection: The Tathagata has completely eliminated all defiled habitual tendencies. Why, then, was he still slandered by Sundari and others? Could it be that some habitual tendencies had not yet been eliminated?

Answer: The Tathagata was not slandered by others because he possessed habitual tendencies. There are two meanings here. Because the Tathagata knew the capacities of sentient beings, he allowed others to slander him: first, in order to use that occasion to teach and transform them; and second, in order to reveal the Buddha’s merit and virtue.

The Tathagata’s five hundred great disciples attained samadhis in differing numbers, yet each was called foremost. The Venerable Sariputra attained ten thousand samadhis and was foremost in wisdom. The Venerable Maudgalyayana also attained ten thousand samadhis and was foremost in supernormal powers. The Venerable Subhuti attained sixty thousand samadhis and, among the Buddha’s disciples, was foremost in attaining the samadhi of non-contention. Therefore, before the great assembly, the Tathagata often praised this virtue of the Venerable One.

The Venerable Subhuti attained sixty thousand samadhis and innumerable kinds of merit and virtue. Why was only this one praised? Because this samadhi was superior to those sixty thousand samadhis, it was praised separately.

+ “The World-Honored One says that I am an arhat free from desire,” and so forth: This praises the Venerable Subhuti’s foremost practice of emptiness. From what desires was he free? The domains of the five sense objects are called desires.

Here, the objects encountered are designated as desires; it does not mean that afflictions such as craving are called desires, for afflictions such as craving had long since been completely eliminated. This explains that the Venerable Subhuti skillfully realized the emptiness of the domains of the five sense objects. Although he engaged with the five sense objects, those desirable objects could not obstruct his mind.

Because he had entirely removed the hindrances to this samadhi, he possessed a corresponding degree of mastery in the samadhi he had attained. Therefore, he is called free from desire.

+ “Because the Venerable Subhuti in truth has no place of practice”: This makes clear that the Venerable Subhuti is free from the two hindrances. He does not form the thought, “I have attained the foremost samadhi of non-contention; I am an arhat free from desire.” Therefore, it is said: “In truth, he has no place of practice.”

+ Yet the Venerable Subhuti is said to be free from contention and to practice non-contention: This reiterates the two scriptural phrases cited above—“the Samadhi of Non-contention” and “an arhat free from desire”—in order to clarify that because the Venerable Subhuti did not entertain the thoughts, “I have attained the foremost Samadhi of Non-contention” and “I am an arhat free from desire,” and because even his habitual tendencies no longer became active, he was free from the two kinds of hindrance and was therefore described by the two designations “free from contention.”

+ What are the two kinds of hindrance? The first is the hindrance of afflictions. The second is the hindrance to samadhi.

The Venerable Subhuti had skillfully attained the practice of emptiness; therefore, all that had to be eliminated within the sphere of ignorance had been exhausted, and the purity attained through samadhi had become still more evident and certain. What had not been attained could not be known; what had been attained was known exactly as it truly was, without error. Since the delusions belonging to that sphere of ignorance could no longer obstruct or obscure his mind, he was said to be free from the hindrance to samadhi.

The hindrance of afflictions refers to the habitual tendencies of afflictions such as greed, anger, and delusion. This clarifies that the Venerable Subhuti had attained penetrating understanding of selflessness and emptiness. He had first completely eliminated the inherent delusions of attachment associated with the four abodes, and he also skillfully guarded his mind, so that toward sentient beings he himself gave rise to no habitual tendencies of greed, anger, or delusion.

He likewise caused sentient beings not to give rise toward him to such afflictions as craving. Since neither of these two kinds of delusion, coarse or subtle, could hinder his mind, he was free from the hindrance of afflictions. Because he skillfully subdued habitual tendencies, he was free from the hindrance of afflictions and could therefore know the minds of others without entering into contention with the objects of his knowledge.

Because he skillfully comprehended objects that were not presently manifest, he was free in his attainment of samadhi; objects did not obscure his mind, and he did not conflict with the objective realm. Therefore, he was said to be free from contention and to practice non-contention.

Other arhats cannot skillfully penetrate the empty nature of the five sensory objects; therefore, the samadhis they attain contain much confusion, error, and so forth. Because the wisdom of the sravakas remains inferior and shallow, and their contemplative minds have not fully penetrated reality, they are hindered by presently manifest objects. Thus, the samadhis they attain are impure, and they possess the hindrance to samadhi. Moreover, because they do not skillfully restrain their habitual tendencies, they possess the hindrance of afflictions. Because they have these three deficiencies, they do not possess the two practices of non-contention.

The limitation of the sravakas is not merely that the samadhis they attain are not completely pure. Even if they exercise miraculous powers and produce hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of transformations, they can cause only one mind to perform one act; they cannot cause many minds to manifest many transformations.

Bodhisattvas, however, are not like this. Bodhisattvas thoroughly understand that the five sensory objects are illusory and have always been quiescent, and they are also able directly to perceive the principle of the equality of true suchness. Therefore, the myriad objects cannot disturb or hinder their minds. They exercise their attained miraculous powers freely and at will, universally manifesting throughout the Dharma realm many minds with many distinct transformations.

The sravakas are limited not only to one mind performing one act; the objects of their knowledge also do not reach what is profound and vast. An example is their examination of one person’s roots of goodness throughout many lives and many kalpas in order to liberate that person by leading him to leave the household life, and so forth.

– The Treatise states: “It was just said concerning the noble ones…” through “…cannot be expressed”: This reiterates the source of the doubt arising from the scripture cited in the sixth section above.

“If a stream-enterer and so forth…” through “…why does this become inexpressible?”: This presents the four fruits in order to raise an objection. The objection does not differ from the course of the discussion in the scripture.

From here onward, the scriptural passage is presented to eliminate that doubt by citing an earlier passage of scripture to explain the point in question and clarify the meaning of “cannot be grasped and cannot be expressed.”

Does the Treatise explain this entire scriptural passage with a single verse? The first two lines of the verse generally explain the four fruits in the scriptural text. The last two lines separately explain how the Venerable Subhuti alone attained the Samadhi of Non-contention, as stated in the subsequent scriptural text.

+ Cannot be grasped or spoken: This clarifies that when practitioners realize the four fruits, they have become free from such delusions as the view of a personal self. With regard to the five skandhas of sentient beings and the six sensory objects, they do not perceive any dharma that could be called a fruit. Nor do they entertain the thought, “I am able to attain the fruit.” Therefore, it cannot be grasped and cannot be expressed. There is no fixed dharma that can be realized as a fruit. Nor is there any attained dharma possessing a form that could be expressed and pointed out to others. Therefore, it is said: “Cannot be grasped or spoken.”

+ But why, in what follows: This is the second line, which states that one does not grasp one’s own fruit. It should also state here that the four fruits can be expressed, but because the meaning that they cannot be grasped or expressed was already established above, this was omitted and not discussed.

+ Concerning that Subhuti: This refers precisely to the Venerable Subhuti. “Free from the two kinds of hindrance” clarifies that because the Venerable Subhuti attained the Samadhi of Non-contention, was free from desire, and practiced emptiness, he was free from the two hindrances.

+ What does this mean? The ensuing passage of the Treatise contains two points. From the beginning through “I am able to attain the fruit,” it explains two lines of the verse and the portion of the scriptural text concerning the four fruits.

+ Noble ones receive their designation through the unconditioned Dharma-body… through “…are called arhats”: This explains that those who have realized the four fruits realize the unconditioned Dharma-body and are called noble ones.

+ Stream-enterer… through “…arhat”: This explains the doubt raised above and confirms the meaning that they cannot be grasped or expressed.

+ Yet it is not that noble ones do not grasp the unconditioned dharma in order to grasp their own fruits. This clarifies that although the noble ones of the four fruits do not grasp anything at the time of realization—thus confirming the meaning of “cannot be grasped or expressed”—nevertheless, after emerging from the state of realization, they again consider themselves to have attained that unconditioned fruit. Therefore, there is also a sense in which it can be grasped and expressed.

+ If noble ones give rise to the thought, “I am able to attain the fruit,” this is attachment to a self, a person, and so forth: What does this mean? It explains that this is due to the afflictive fetters, not to actively manifest afflictions.

+ Afflictions and latent forces: These are two kinds of affliction—habitual tendencies and ignorance.

+ Not actively manifest afflictions: This means that those who have attained the latter two fruits do not display their outward characteristics: they do not display the conduct of supporting wives and children, engaging in worldly affairs, or practicing afflictive conduct involving coarse and heavy delusions.

Of those who have realized the four fruits, the first two remain householders. Although stream-enterers and once-returners have eliminated the outward manifestation of attachment to a self and thus no longer manifest such attachment, they still support wives and children and engage in worldly affairs; consequently, they still engage in afflictive conduct. Moreover, because they still possess habitual tendencies and ignorance, they also possess the latent forces of affliction.

Those who have attained the latter two fruits do not display these outward characteristics. Because they do not display them, they do not engage in worldly affairs or practice afflictive conduct. Only ignorance and habitual tendencies remain; therefore, they possess the latent forces of affliction.

+ Now, the statement that they do not act in accordance with afflictions: This separately explains non-returners and arhats. It could also be said generally of those who have attained the first two fruits that they possess afflictions and latent forces and engage in afflictive conduct; however, the author of the Treatise has abbreviated the discussion and distinguishes only the persons who have attained the latter two fruits.

+ Why is it that, when those persons realized the fruits, they had become free from such afflictions as attachment to a self?

Why is this so? This clarifies that the author of the Treatise wishes here to reveal this meaning and therefore provisionally raises a question: If those abiding in the first two fruits still have active afflictions, why is it said that those who have attained the fruits of stream-enterer and so forth have abandoned such delusions as attachment to the view of self and are called noble ones? Therefore, it says: Why is this so?

The answer is: At the time of realization, they have abandoned afflictions such as attachment to self. This clarifies that those who have attained the first two fruits, at the very moment of realization, have understood selflessness and eliminated manifest delusions such as the view of a personal body and so forth. Because they have no thought of grasping the fruit, they are called noble ones.

+ The reason they still have active afflictions: Upon emerging from the realm of realization, they again give rise to unmanifest aspects of delusions such as the view of self and so forth, and while functioning in the world they therefore have active afflictions.

+ Therefore, they do not have the thought: “I am able to attain the fruit”: This summarizes the meaning that those who have attained the first two fruits do not grasp at attainment. Thus, the sutra records that a certain bhiksu who had attained the fruit of stream-enterer proclaimed aloud: “The various afflictions of sensual desire burn within my mind.” He then abandoned cultivation of the path, returned to his family, and practiced worldly ways. From this, it may be understood that those who have attained the first two fruits still have active afflictions.

+ Why did the Venerable Subhuti praise himself for having received a prediction? What follows is the second purport of this passage, explaining the latter half of the verse and the scriptural passage concerning the Samadhi of Noncontention. First, a question is posed: The Tathagata always taught that evil deeds should be disclosed, while wholesome qualities should be concealed. Why, then, did the Venerable Subhuti praise himself before the assembly for having received a prediction? The explanation is that, because he had personally realized the fruit, he made clear that the Samadhi of Noncontention had been attained by the Venerable Subhuti alone and not by others, thus revealing his own merit.

+ In order to engender faith in that meaning: This answers the preceding doubt. The intent of the doubt is this: Someone may think, “Although the Tathagata said that the Venerable Subhuti had attained the Samadhi of Noncontention and was an arhat free from desire, it is unclear whether he had truly attained it or not. By what can it be known that the Venerable Subhuti had attained it?”

Thus doubt arises and there is no faith. Before the assembly, the Venerable Subhuti praised the fact, saying, “The Blessed One says that I have attained the Samadhi of Noncontention.” This dispelled that doubt and caused them to engender faith, confirming the statement above: He did not give rise to the thought, “I am able to attain the fruit.” Because the Venerable Subhuti had realized it, he did not give rise to that thought.

+ A further explanation: Why did the Venerable Subhuti reveal his own merit? The answer is: In order to engender faith in that meaning. This clarifies that the Venerable Subhuti used the supreme Dharma he himself had attained to encourage other practitioners of the Two Vehicles, causing them to engender faith.

+ Why is only the practice of noncontention mentioned? The objection states: The Venerable Subhuti had attained as many as sixty thousand samadhis. Why did he praise only the Samadhi of Noncontention and not his other merits?

The answer has two meanings:

1. To clarify supreme merit: This explains that, within the Dharma of the sravakas, attaining the Samadhi of Noncontention is the most excellent merit and the foremost Dharma. It was attained by the Venerable Subhuti alone and not by others; even if others attained it, they would not equal him. Therefore, it alone is praised.

2. To engender profound faith: This is intended to cause other arhats who have not yet gained entry into that samadhi to engender resolute faith and seek to realize that Dharma. Therefore, it is called profound faith.

+ Why is it said that through the Venerable Subhuti… up to: This reveals freedom from the two kinds of hindrances: Here the sutra is cited, a question is posed, and then a verse is used to answer it.

+ The two kinds of hindrances… up to: Therefore it is called having no sphere of activity: This presents the verse stating that the Venerable Subhuti had become free from the two kinds of hindrances, thereby explaining the phrase in the sutra: “having no sphere of activity.”

+ From the statement: “Because of that meaning, they are called the two kinds of contention,” onward: This explains together the two kinds of contention and noncontention.

+ Because of that meaning: This single statement provides a general explanation of the two expressions “contention” and “noncontention.” If a person does not skillfully guard the mind, that person is obstructed by the objects of the five desires, and thus there are two kinds. Because these two hindrances cause conflict with persons and things, they are called the two kinds of contention.

+ Because he had become free from those two kinds of hindrances, it is called having no sphere of activity: This clarifies that the Venerable Subhuti was one who skillfully guarded his mind and was not obscured by the objects of desire; therefore, he was free from the two hindrances. Because he had become free from the two hindrances, these are called the two kinds of practices of noncontention.

3. The Buddha said to the Venerable Subhuti: “In the past, did the Tathagata receive a prediction in the presence of Dipankara Buddha?” This is the third scriptural passage in the Section on Comparison.

Why does this passage follow? The preceding sixth main section clarified that none of the dharmas taught by the Tathagata can be grasped or expressed. From this, a doubt arises: Why, then, did the Tathagata, when he was formerly practicing as a bodhisattva, receive from Dipankara Buddha a prediction of future Buddhahood?

This would mean that the realized Dharma could be grasped and expressed. Thus, the realized Dharma would have names and characteristics and could be grasped and expressed. Why, then, is it said that the realized Dharma has no names or characteristics and cannot be grasped or spoken?

The doubt assumes that the bodhisattva at that time had received the prediction of the Patience of Nonarising. To eliminate that doubt, the answer is given: When Dipankara Buddha spoke the words of prediction, the bodhisattva had not yet attained the wisdom of realization, and therefore those words could be grasped and expressed. Later, when realization occurred, the paths of names and characteristics were utterly cut off.

How could one use the verbal prediction to challenge the nature of the realized Dharma, claiming that it likewise possessed names and characteristics and could be grasped and expressed?

To eliminate this doubt, it is asked whether the Tathagata had attained bodhi long ago in the presence of Dipankara Buddha. The explanation is that this refers to the Tathagata as a transformation Buddha. If he was a transformation Buddha, then he neither cultivated nor realized the fruit. Why, then, is the prediction received in the presence of Dipankara Buddha cited to confirm the meaning that a bodhisattva truly has realization?

Although a transformation Buddha is not real, he nevertheless never says, “I am a transformation Buddha.” Because the transformation proceeds from the true, the matter is discussed on the basis of its source. Therefore, the actual practice of the bodhisattva in the time of Dipankara Buddha must be cited as evidence. This clarifies that it is not that there was no bodhisattva; rather, because he had not yet realized anything, it is said, “There was truly no object of attainment,” confirming the meaning stated above: “It cannot be grasped or expressed.” At that time, the Tathagata was still an ordinary bodhisattva at the stage of the lineage of cultivation prior to the bhumis.

He had not received a prediction directly in his presence; there were only words, but as yet no realized Dharma. Therefore, it could be grasped and expressed. Nevertheless, this does not mean that there are no truly realized bodhisattvas.

Rather, because the objectors based their question on the stage prior to the bhumis, at which realization had not yet occurred, the answer had to accord with what was asked.

+ But a truly realized bodhisattva: In the subsequent scriptural passage, it is said: One who comprehends the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas and attains the two kinds of selflessness is called a true bodhisattva. The bodhisattva points this out as the direct answer.

+ Here, concerning Dipankara, there are four kinds of predictions in the three periods:

1. Within the lineage of cultivation.

2. Within the lineage of intrinsic nature, without receiving a prediction directly in one’s presence.

3. On the first bhumi, receiving a prediction directly in one’s presence.

4. On the Buddha-bhumi, receiving the prediction of the Patience of Nonarising.

+ Now, regarding the prediction bestowed by Dīpaṃkara Buddha: This refers to Śākyamuni Buddha, who at that time was still a bodhisattva at the stage of the lineage of cultivation, had not yet attained the First Bhūmi or any higher stage, and had not yet realized the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. Here the Tathagata asks Venerable Subhūti: Do you think that at that time the Tathagata had already realized the First Bhūmi, attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, and received the prediction of bodhi?

Venerable Subhūti replied: At the abode of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, the Tathagata merely received a verbal prediction; he had not yet attained the First Bhūmi or received the prediction associated with the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas. Therefore, it is said: “In the presence of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, he truly attained no dharma whatsoever.”

As recorded in the Bhagala Sutra: “Long ago, when I was still at the stage of the lineage of cultivation, during the Constellation Kalpa, I made offerings to seven billion nayutas of Buddhas. Each of those Buddhas remained in the world for six billion nayutas of kalpas, yet none of them bestowed a prediction upon me. Why? Because I had not yet attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas.”

– The Treatise states:

Again, there is a doubt. The author of the Treatise is about to present a verse to explain this third passage of the sutra, and therefore introduces the intent of the fourth doubt concerning the meaning of “cannot be apprehended or expressed,” discussed above.

+ First, the doubt is raised: The questioner mistakenly cites the previous Buddha of the past as evidence that there was something apprehended and expressed, thereby presenting an objection. Now, when speaking of the dharma realized, he takes it to have the same meaning as something that can be apprehended and expressed. To dispel this doubt, from this point onward the author of the Treatise answers by means of the sutra. The intent is to clarify that in the presence of the Buddha of the past, the bodhisattva had not yet attained the realized dharma. This confirms the meaning of “cannot be apprehended or expressed” and answers the doubt that there was something apprehended and spoken.

+ “As stated in the sutra”: This is a general citation explaining the doubt and concluding the point by means of the sutra.

+ Why is this said? The doubter cites the event involving Dīpaṃkara Buddha to object that something could be apprehended and expressed. The response in turn explains that it could not be apprehended or spoken. Why, then, is it said: “There was truly no attainment of the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi”? This is stated to answer that improper objection.

+ One verse: “The Buddha, in the presence of Dīpaṃkara, was told”: This explains this passage of the sutra. Here, “the Buddha” means the present Śākyamuni Buddha.

+ “Was told in the presence of Dīpaṃkara”: This means that while in the presence of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, he received only a verbal prediction.

+ “He did not apprehend the wisdom of ultimate truth”: This clarifies that when he received the prediction, he had not yet realized the true wisdom of the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas.

+ “Because of that true meaning”: This has two aspects: 1. It confirms the meaning of “cannot be apprehended or expressed” in the sixth passage above. 2. It confirms the meaning stated above that it is not a dharma.

1. How does it confirm the meaning of “cannot be apprehended or expressed” stated above? Earlier it was said that the realized dharma utterly transcends every avenue of names and characteristics, and therefore cannot be apprehended or expressed. The objection cites the event in the distant past when the prediction was received from Dīpaṃkara Buddha. The response clarifies that what was originally received from Dīpaṃkara Buddha consisted only of words. Words have the nature of sound and thus can be apprehended and expressed; it is not the realized dharma that can be apprehended and expressed. Therefore, this confirms the meaning stated above: it cannot be apprehended or spoken.

2. If the realized dharma is likewise without name or characteristic and cannot be apprehended or expressed, this returns to the second doubt raised above: “Verbal teaching as a whole is not Dharma.” The response clarifies that although the realized dharma is beyond words, it can be spoken of because it is realized. Through those words, one can in turn attain realization; therefore, verbal teaching is Dharma and is not non-Dharma. Hence it is said: “Because of that true meaning,” that which cannot be apprehended or expressed has been confirmed. Thus, the words of prediction cannot be regarded as the ultimate meaning of realized wisdom; this also confirms that realized wisdom cannot be apprehended or expressed.

+ This also pertains to the second meaning: Precisely because the essence of realized wisdom has no name or characteristic, its true meaning also cannot be apprehended or expressed. Therefore, the following line of the verse states: “Thus it establishes that which cannot be apprehended or expressed.”

+ “What is the meaning of this?”, and what follows: This prose section of the Treatise has two intents. From the beginning through “cannot be apprehended or spoken” it explains the first half of the verse and also explains the intent of the sutra, while citing the second half of the verse to conclude the point.

+ “Furthermore, if the noble ones,” and what follows: This is the second occasion on which the author of the Treatise introduces the intent of a doubt, arising from the analogies of the Pure Land and the Mountain King in the later portion of the sutra.

+ From “the noble ones” through “cannot be expounded”: This cites the sutra passage in the sixth section.

+ “How do bodhisattvas choose a pure Buddha-land?”: This doubt arises specifically from the later passage of the sutra concerning the Pure Land.

+ “How do they experience bliss in the Buddha’s reward body?”, and what follows: There are two doubts here, arising specifically from the analogy of the Mountain King in the later passage of the sutra.

4. The Buddha told Venerable Subhūti: “If a bodhisattva were to say: ‘I adorn a Buddha-land’”: This is the fourth sutra passage in the Section of Correspondence.

Why does it arise? It arises from the fifth doubt generated by the statement “cannot be apprehended or expressed” in the sixth passage. The foregoing doubt states: If noble ones receive their designation on account of the unconditioned Dharma, and that Dharma cannot be apprehended or expressed, then is the dependent reward attained by Buddhas and bodhisattvas—the Pure Land—a conventional truth or the ultimate truth? If it is the ultimate truth, can it or can it not be apprehended and expressed? If it is the conditioned realm of conventional truth, then it can be apprehended and expressed.

+ The doubter says: If that Pure Land is conditioned, then why is it said that the Pure Land chosen by the bodhisattvas cannot be apprehended or expressed? If the dependent reward of the Pure Land is conditioned, then noble ones still receive a contaminated recompense. Why, then, is it said that noble ones receive their designation on account of the unconditioned Dharma, which cannot be apprehended or expressed?

Here, the doubt equates the supramundane Pure Land with the conditioned realm. Therefore, in the later portion of the sutra, the Buddha answers that there are two kinds of Pure Land: First is the conditioned Pure Land of those prior to the bhūmis, adorned with the visible characteristics of the seven precious substances and belonging to the three realms. Second is the supramundane Pure Land of those upon the bhūmis, adorned with the ultimate truth and not belonging to the three realms. From the First Bhūmi upward, the reward portion of noble ones transcends the three realms. How, then, can you use a mundane Pure Land to object to a supramundane Pure Land? That true Pure Land is not the same as a mundane Pure Land that can be apprehended and expressed.

This directly answers the doubt concerning “cannot be apprehended or expressed” in the sixth passage and also indirectly answers the doubt in the fifth passage.

+ Suppose there were a person whose bodily form was as immense as Mount Sumeru, king of mountains…: This also explains the doubt concerning “cannot be grasped or expressed” in the sixth section. If a sage receives his designation on account of the unconditioned Dharma, and that Dharma cannot be grasped or expressed, then the Tathagata’s reward body of the Buddha, having perfected the practices of the ten bhumis, receives recompense upon a lotus dais, attains Buddhahood, and acquires immeasurable merit and virtue; he declares himself the Dharma King and furthermore chooses a pure land adorned with splendor.

If so, then the Dharma realized can be grasped and expressed. If it can be grasped and expressed, this reward body of the Buddha belongs to the conditioned. Since it belongs to the conditioned, it is impermanent.

If it is impermanent, then its outflows have not been entirely extinguished, and therefore it is not a Buddha. But if it is unconditioned, is it identical with or different from the Dharma body of the Buddha? If they are identical, then because the Dharma body of the Buddha has no material form, the reward body of the Buddha must likewise have no material form.

If it is different from the Dharma body of the Buddha, then that reward body of the Buddha arises from a generative cause. If it arises from a generative cause, then, formerly nonexistent, it now exists; and having come into existence, it will again cease to exist, and thus must be impermanent. Why, then, is it said that a sage receives his designation on account of the unconditioned Dharma, which cannot be grasped or expressed?

Furthermore, in the section on the arising of the discourse, the Treatise says: Why do other worlds also regard that Buddha as possessing the body of a Dharma King? This seventh doubt arises from the statement “cannot be grasped or expressed” in the sixth section. The doubt is stated thus: The Buddhas of the ten directions and those in other worlds also say: In such-and-such a world, such-and-such a bodhisattva perfected the practices of the ten bhumis, received the fruition of Buddhahood as recompense, and was also regarded as a Dharma King. If the reward body of the Buddha can be grasped and expressed for the sake of others, why is it said that one receives this designation on account of the unconditioned Dharma, which cannot be grasped or spoken?

The Tathagata cited the analogy of Mount Sumeru, king of mountains, in reply to this doubt, clarifying that the essence of the reward body of the Buddha is unconditioned and cannot be grasped or expressed; it is not conditioned such that it could be apprehended or spoken. This is because, through the Buddha’s cultivation, all causes and conditions of delusion are eliminated, and the nature that has “existed from the beginning” manifests its wondrous functions; this is called the reward body of the Buddha.

Since there is the true fruition of the reward body of the Buddha, there is also its dependent recompense: the true pure land, whose wondrous functions are sovereign and unhindered. It is unconditioned, not conditioned, and it is eternal because it is not something made manifest by another.

+ Above, the reason it was said that the Tathagata’s reward body of the Buddha arises from a generative cause is this: In contrast to its essence, the aspect of the reward body’s wondrous functions is said to be newly existent. Thus, provisionally in meaning, the revelatory cause is called a generative cause. It does not mean that the essence of the reward body of the Buddha arises from a generative cause and is therefore impermanent. This directly resolves the doubt in the seventh section and indirectly resolves the doubt in the fifth section; it will therefore be clarified next.

+ If a bodhisattva says, “I adorn the Buddha-land,” that bodhisattva does not speak truthfully: This refers to a bodhisattva prior to the bhumis who still grasps at forms, yet has acquired various conditioned treasures as adornments and eliminated defiling things such as sand, stones, and thorns, considering this to be the true pure land. Such a bodhisattva does not know that there is also a true, supramundane pure land. Precisely because such a bodhisattva considers what has been attained to be the true pure land, identical to the Lotus Treasury World, and fails to distinguish it from the true unconditioned pure land, it is said: “He does not speak truthfully.”

+ Why?: This raises a doubt. The objection is: If adornment having material form is not the true pure land, why did the Tathagata say that the pure land attained by him possesses supremely splendid adornments like the palaces of the Heaven of Sovereignty? In my pure land, sentient beings are free from sensual desire, as in the Heaven of Brahma’s Sovereignty.

Moreover, why, when teaching sentient beings, did he say: “The Tathagata cultivated a pure land and, at the same time, had roads repaired, thorns removed, and high and low places leveled, and so forth, to make a pure land; through this, he obtained a share of the recompense of this pure land”? According to the Tathagata’s truthful words, that pure land appears to possess form and shape. Since it possesses material form, it belongs to the three realms and can therefore be grasped and expressed.

Why, then, is it said that the pure land does not consist of adornments having material form and cannot be apprehended or expressed? If one grasps at adornments having material form, then one does not speak truthfully. Therefore, the text says: “Why?”

The Buddha therefore replied: “The Tathagata teaches of an adorned Buddha-land”: This is intended to guide those who have newly begun their training, using what is near as an analogy for what is distant; hence it is said that the pure land attained by the Buddha resembles the palaces of the Heaven of Sovereignty, and so forth.

Moreover, this teaching is given in accordance with the ways of the world. Worldly people regard forms fashioned from pearls, jewels, and the seven treasures as a pure land. The Buddha therefore accords with conventional truth when teaching of that pure land; he does not regard it as the true pure land of ultimate truth. Hence the text says: “The Tathagata teaches of an adorned Buddha-land.” Nevertheless, what is described is indeed the world’s defiled and conditioned adornment having material form.

+ It is not adornment: This is spoken in accordance with worldly convention and is designated a pure land, but it is not the true, supramundane pure land of ultimate truth. Hence the text says: “It is not.”

+ Therefore, it is called adorning the Buddha-land. Thus, it is not adornment having material form: It is the true adornment of ultimate truth.

+ It may also be said: Adornment having material form is not adornment; therefore, it is called non-adornment.

+ Yet what is called the pure land here is precisely the dependent recompense of all Buddhas, the realm of true wisdom within ultimate truth. That realm takes the Dharma-nature of true suchness as its essence; it is the Lotus Treasury World. Compared with the true reward body of the Buddha, this pure land is identical in essence but different in function.

From the time the Tathagata first aroused the aspiration until the present, he cultivated the myriad practices of merit, virtue, and wisdom, and adorned that realm with these two. It is attained through supreme, undefiled, supramundane causes. The Ten Bhumis Sutra says: “It surpasses all worldly realms and arises from supramundane roots of virtue.” Thus, it is not something attained through the defiled causes and grasping at characteristics of those prior to the bhumis.

Its essence does not belong to conditioned adornments having material form. The Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says: “The pure lands of all Buddhas do not belong to the three realms of desire, form, and formlessness.”

Why is it said that the true pure land does not belong to the three realms? The explanation is: Since it is not situated upon the great earth, it does not belong to the desire realm. Since it is not situated in empty space, it does not belong to the form realm. Since its essence is form, it does not belong to the formless realm. Although it is not encompassed by the three realms, it occupies the same place as they do without obstructing them. Even when the three calamities arise and the world is consumed by fire, that pure land remains peaceful and unchanged. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says:

Sentient beings see the kalpa’s end,

When raging fires consume the world;

My pure land remains peaceful,

Ever filled with gods and humans.

This is precisely the true and eternal pure land; therefore, the three calamities cannot destroy it. Furthermore, the pure lands of all Buddhas are equally pure, neither dual nor different. The Ten Grounds Sutra states: “One Buddha-land is all Buddha-lands.

All Buddha-lands are one Buddha-land.” Now, in explaining that pure land, it is said that purity and impurity occupy the same place. This differs from the interpretation of the doctrine traditionally distinguished as: “The substance is one, but what is seen differs.” The reason is that, fundamentally, the two lands, pure and impure, do not occupy different places. They are not like the two lands of Saha and Bliss, which are distinct from each other and therefore clearly different.

If so, why are there regions of stone, sand, copper, and iron, as well as the seven precious substances, pearls, and jewels, appearing everywhere in countless different forms? Or why do some sentient beings take empty space to be earth, or earth to be empty space, and so forth? All such differences arise from the karma of sentient beings that produces impurity or purity.

Their wisdom may be bright or obscured, and what they perceive and know may differ in myriad ways; this is not because the lands themselves are different. It is like the ever-swiftly flowing waters of the Ganges River: hungry ghosts may come together to drink, yet some see flowing fire, some see blood and pus, some see ashes and charcoal, some see the riverbed completely dry, and some see ghosts and spirits guarding it and preventing them from approaching.

All these perceptions arise from the causes and conditions of the sinful karma created by sentient beings. Thus, at the very same river, what they experience differs and what they see is not the same. It should not be said that the water is one while what is seen differs.

As the Vimalakirti Sutra relates, Brahma Sikhin and Sariputra did not see the same thing. It is also like two heavenly beings eating the same rice, yet its color and appearance differ for each.

The matter here is likewise. Therefore, one should understand that the dwelling place is one, yet the lands differ according to the differing perceptions of those who see them. It is not that there is one substance while what is seen differs. This principle is indeed clear.

+ Therefore, Venerable Subhuti, a bodhisattva should give rise to a pure mind in this way, and so forth: Here the sutra exhorts and instructs bodhisattvas who have newly aroused the aspiration to choose the true pure land.

+ Therefore: Since such practice is the mark-grasping practice of those below the grounds, it can attain only a pure land adorned with conditioned forms and appearances; it does not embody the meaning of the supramundane pure land adorned according to ultimate truth. Therefore, great bodhisattvas must cultivate from the First Ground onward, without grasping at marks when practicing the paramitas; only then can they realize the true, unconditioned, supramundane pure land. They should not, with a mind that grasps at marks, take the conditioned, worldly realm of forms and appearances that they attain to be the true pure land. Hence it is said: One should give rise to a pure mind in this way.

+ One should give rise to a pure mind in this way: This means that, as in the fourth section above, the mind does not cling to the three things associated with giving.

+ Yet without abiding anywhere: This means not clinging to one’s own person, not abiding in or clinging to other things such as form, and not greedily clinging to the recompense of the five sensual pleasures enjoyed by devas and humans within the three realms.

+ One should therefore abide nowhere at all: This means not greedily clinging to the expectation that kindness will be repaid. These three are precisely the three things previously discussed.

END OF FASCICLE 4