金剛仙論

8. Venerable Subhuti! The Tathagata speaks of the paramita of patience: This is the eighth scriptural passage in the Section of Correspondence.

+ The reason for the continuity: The preceding scriptural passage made clear that giving away as many bodies and lives as there are grains of sand in the Ganges does not equal the merit of receiving and upholding four lines of verse from this sutra and also explaining them to others; that merit is incalculable. Properly speaking, the person who, with an initial resolve, relinquishes body and life in giving acts from a conditioned cause; therefore, it does not equal the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra. The author of the treatise explained it according to this intent.

+ The reason it is said that relinquishing body and life causes suffering of body and mind: This is said to initiate the scriptural passage and introduce the doubter’s idea.

+ Why does doubt arise? Those people relinquish as many bodies and lives as there are grains of sand in the Ganges with a mind that grasps at characteristics. Their cause is impure, and the resultant recompense they obtain does not transcend the three realms and is likewise impure; hence the merit they acquire is slight.

Bodhisattvas and others who practice in reliance upon this sutra also relinquish body and life, so their cause should likewise be said to be impure. If the cause is impure, the resultant recompense it brings about is also impure and belongs to the same fruit of suffering. It is like the Patient Sage whose body was severed and mutilated by King Kali; at that time, his body and mind suffered anguish....

That incident is cited to formulate the objection. Therefore, the sutra is used to answer it: The aforementioned relinquishing of as many bodies and lives as there are grains of sand in the Ganges was performed by those below the stages, ordinary beings who had not yet attained insight into non-self and had not eliminated delusions such as the view of a self. They therefore had minds that grasped at characteristics and did not possess the paramita of patience.

Consequently, when relinquishing body and life, they experienced anguish and regarded such relinquishment as difficult; yet, for the sake of the Dharma, they could relinquish them despite the difficulty. Moreover, they regarded the unconditioned Dharma-body as the cause of the conditioned recompense of gods and humans. Because they made such distinctions, both the causes and fruits they obtained were impure.

It is now explained that the Patient Sage was precisely a bodhisattva abiding on the First Stage. He understood that the Dharma-body is unconditioned, had attained patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas, and had perfected a mind free from grasping at characteristics. When relinquishing body and life, his mind was free from affliction, and thus he did not regard it as difficult. For this reason, the cause was pure, and the fruit was also pure. Since these two persons belonged respectively to the ranks of ordinary beings and sages, how could one use the suffering experienced by an ordinary being in relinquishing body and life to object that a sage who practices in reliance upon the sutra likewise experiences suffering when relinquishing body and life?

The following passage therefore explains this matter in order to eliminate that doubt.

+ The Tathagata speaks of the paramita of patience: This makes clear that the Tathagata speaks of practice in reliance upon the sutra. That is, bodhisattvas who have realized the First Stage cultivate the paramita of patience and no longer possess a mind that grasps at characteristics. When relinquishing body and life, they experience no anguish; hence it is said: The Tathagata speaks of the paramita of patience.

+ It is not the paramita of patience: This clarifies that the paramita of patience attained by one on the First Stage is not a state attainable by ordinary beings below the stages or by those of the Two Vehicles; hence it is written: It is not the paramita of patience.

This makes clear that ordinary beings below the stages have not yet attained the patience paramita of a bodhisattva on the First Stage and have not yet understood true non-self. They still possess minds that grasp at characteristics, and their bodies experience suffering. Their case must not be compared with this one and cited as an analogous objection.

How is this known? When in the past King Kali severed and mutilated the limbs of my body... I would have given rise to anger and resentment: This makes clear that the Patient Sage had attained the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas of the First Stage, realized true non-self, and become free from two kinds of affliction: First are the innate afflictions of the deluded view of self that has existed since beginningless time.

Because this view of self exists, it produces the natures of the three wholesome and unwholesome roots, which subsequently arise when conditions are encountered. Second are the subsidiary afflictions, such as anger. Here, “how” explains the question above: “How is this known?” At that time, I had attained the paramita of patience of a bodhisattva on the First Stage, and my merit had reached the other shore; I was not an ordinary being below the stages.

Hence it is written: How?

The statement, “When in the past King Kali...” is then cited in reply.

+ King Kali: This is translated as “evil king.” It makes clear that when the Tathagata was on the causal ground, he once manifested as a non-Buddhist sage cultivating the Way in the mountains. While King Kali was hunting, he questioned the sage about a deer that had run past that place. The sage replied in words, but the king did not heed him.

+ When the king severed and mutilated the limbs of his body, he gave rise to no anger or resentment: Because he had attained the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas of a bodhisattva on the First Stage and understood true non-self, his mind was equal and of one essence. He did not perceive the other as an evil king or himself as one capable of practicing patience; therefore, he gave rise to no anger or resentment. From this it should be known that the paramita of patience exists only in the supreme Dharma of the First Stage. One should not use the suffering experienced by those below the stages when relinquishing body and life—which is already inferior—to object that the patience paramita of those on higher stages is likewise inferior.

+ At that time, I had no characteristic of self, and so forth: This makes clear that the sage had eliminated the innate affliction of the view of self. The four statements concerning the characteristic of self and so forth are explained no differently from the sixth passage above and are therefore not explained again.

+ Without characteristics: This makes clear that this bodhisattva had realized non-self, the true suchness of a bodhisattva on the First Stage, and had perfected a mind of one essence. He therefore no longer saw the other as an evil person capable of killing, nor himself as a bodhisattva and the person being killed. He regarded self and other as alike and serenely contemplated them with equanimity; hence this is called being without characteristics.

+ It is called being without characteristics: This means not only that there is no characteristic of self, but also that there is no characteristic of non-self.

There is another explanation: Because this bodhisattva was said to have realized the First Stage and perfected a mind of compassion of one essence, he was entirely free from discrimination. He did not perceive self and other, nor that he was different from the evil person or that the evil person was different from him; hence this is called being without characteristics.

This in turn gives rise to another doubt: A bodhisattva no longer sees the killer and the one being killed as two different persons; hence he is called one who is without characteristics. Does he possess a mind and yet is said no longer to see, or is it because he has no mind that he is said not to see? If it is because he has no mind that he does not see, then how can a bodhisattva cultivate and benefit sentient beings?

Answer: Nor is it the absence of characteristics: This explains that when this bodhisattva realizes that self and other are nondual, it is not that he is wholly without mind. Rather, his is precisely an undefiled mind that has attained true insight, becoming increasingly excellent in bodhisattvas abiding on the First Stage and above. Having attained this insight, although he no longer sees sentient beings as different from his own person, he can nevertheless universally transform sentient beings with a mind of loving-kindness and compassion, acting solely for the benefit of others and not for his own benefit.

As the Sutra of the Ten Stages states: “All conceptions arising from mental activity are completely extinguished. There is no conception of obstructive dharmas, but this does not mean that there is no conception of antidotal dharmas.” It is likewise here: Because there is no conception of obstruction, it is called being without characteristics. Because it is not the case that there is no conception of an antidote, it is called: Nor is it the absence of characteristics.

Therefore, one should not object that when a bodhisattva attains insight into the equality of one essence, he is without mind while cultivating and transforming sentient beings.

+ Why is this so? In the past, when the limbs of my body were cut apart, if there had been a conception of self and so forth, anger and resentment would necessarily have arisen: This explains the twofold absence of self and person. How is this known? In the past, when King Kali cut apart the limbs of my body, I had already abandoned the various fundamental afflictions concerning self and so forth. Thus it explains: “At that time, if I had had the conceptions of self and so forth, anger and resentment would necessarily have arisen.” Because the delusion of the view of self had been abandoned and insight into non-self had been attained, freedom from anger was thereby realized, and the fundamental delusions of the view of self were severed.

+ Moreover, I recall that in the past, for five hundred lifetimes, I was the Kshanti Rishi… through: There was no conception of a living being: Why is this passage cited again? It is to show that the perfection of patience is of two kinds: the first is before the bhumis; the second is upon the bhumis. It was not only now, upon the First Bhumi, that he attained and perfected the perfection of patience and was therefore able to abandon the two kinds of afflictive obstructions.

Rather, he recalled that in the distant past, for five hundred lifetimes, he had been the Kshanti Rishi. While still on the stage of the spiritual disposition, before the bhumis, he had attained a semblance of patience and completely subdued the afflictions. Thus, even when an evil king cut apart the limbs of his body, he did not give rise to resentment.

How much less, today, upon the First Bhumi, having attained genuine non-self and perfected the practice of patience, would he give rise to resentment? Therefore, this account of the rishi is cited to elucidate the point.

+ Therefore, Venerable Subhuti, a bodhisattva should abandon all conceptions and generate the mind of bodhi: This passage is stated again to clarify the meaning of “therefore.” From the First Bhumi onward, one attains equal insight into non-self through the true wisdom of suchness, perfects the perfection of patience, can endure painful practices, and does not regress from the path and fruit of unsurpassed bodhi. Those before the bhumis have not yet attained the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas and have not yet perfected the perfection of patience.

If they encounter painful practices, they can easily regress from the path and fruit of unsurpassed bodhi. Therefore, the lesser bodhisattvas before the bhumis are exhorted to exert themselves, abandon attachment to the conceptions of all dharmas, and skillfully generate the mind of samyak-sambodhi.

+ “Generate the mind of samyak-sambodhi” means exhorting those before the bhumis to generate the mind of unsurpassed bodhi and attain the First Bhumi and beyond.

+ Why is this so? This asks: Why are those before the bhumis exhorted to generate the mind of unsurpassed bodhi, attain the First Bhumi, refrain from grasping at conceptions, and realize genuine non-self?

Thus the reply states: If the mind abides anywhere, it is not true abiding. This indicates that if the mind abides in conditioned objects of the five desires, such as form and so forth, then it is a mind that grasps at conceptions.

+ Abiding is inverted: It is abiding in the conditioned dharmas of the world, not abiding in the unconditioned, supramundane Dharma.

+ It is not true abiding: This explains that abiding in worldly dharmas is not abiding on the First Bhumi, nor is it abiding in the supramundane Dharma—the genuine, undefiled realization of the non-abiding path.

+ One should not generate a mind that abides in form and so forth: This means not being attached to karmic retribution.

+ One should generate a mind that abides nowhere: This means not being attached to the requital of kindness (this point is missing and is not discussed), nor being attached to oneself.

+ Therefore, the Buddha said that when a bodhisattva gives, the mind should not abide in form: “Therefore” means that if one bears a mind that grasps at conceptions, one abides in the world and cannot abide in the supramundane, non-abiding path. Thus, in the preceding fourth section, “Cultivation in Accordance with Reality,” the Buddha said that one should practice giving without attachment to the three matters. Therefore, it is said: When giving, one should not abide in form.

Because it was previously said that one does not abide in the world and does not cling to the three matters, a doubt arises: If a bodhisattva attains supramundane, equal insight into non-self, does not abide in the three matters, and moreover does not perceive the three matters, such as a giver and so forth, then the bodhisattva has transcended the world while sentient beings remain immersed in the world. It is also said that the bodhisattva does not perceive sentient beings.

If so, how can the bodhisattva practice giving to benefit sentient beings?

Thus the reply states: A bodhisattva should practice giving in this way in order to benefit all sentient beings. This indicates that if one practices giving with a mind that grasps at conceptions, one cannot even benefit oneself, much less benefit others. Precisely because one practices giving with a mind free from grasping at conceptions, one can benefit all sentient beings, as explained above. By practicing giving in this way, with a mind free from grasping at conceptions, one attains immeasurable merit.

Another doubt then arises: If one says that giving is practiced to benefit sentient beings, this again constitutes grasping at the conception of sentient beings. Why, then, was it said above that, within the principle of equality, a bodhisattva does not perceive, “I am a bodhisattva,” or, “That is the conception of a sentient being”?

Thus the reply states: World-Honored One! The conception of all sentient beings is itself not a conception.

+ Here, “the conception of all sentient beings” indicates that sentient beings are constituted by the five skandhas and are merely provisional, false designations; sentient beings exist only as nominal conventions.

+ “Is itself not a conception” clarifies that those illusory sentient beings and the five skandhas have always been quiescent. Neither an inherently real spiritual self within sentient beings nor an inherently real possession of self can be found. Therefore, it is said: “Is itself not a conception.” This explains the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of self.

Consequently, another doubt arises: If all sentient beings have always been without self and possessions of self, and because these are empty they cannot be found and thus are not conceptions, why does the Tathagata speak in the scriptures of the existence of sentient beings? For example, this sutra speaks of sentient beings born from eggs and so forth. Judging accordingly, one should know that sentient beings truly exist.

How, then, can it be maintained that sentient beings are not sentient beings? In this way, there would indeed be inherently real sentient beings possessing a spiritual self who could be liberated; hence it is said: “All sentient beings are themselves not conceptions.” Yet this does not mean that there are no illusory sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas. Why, then, would they not be liberated?

Thus the reply states: The Tathagata says that all sentient beings are themselves not sentient beings. This clarifies that the Tathagata speaks of sentient beings as existing on the level of conventional truth, not that inherently real sentient beings exist. Here, the dharmas of the five skandhas are cited to establish the illusory nature of those sentient beings.

The intrinsic nature of the dharmas of the five skandhas has always been quiescent. The provisionally designated sentient beings constituted by these five skandhas are likewise empty; therefore, it is said: “They are themselves not sentient beings.” This indicates that the dependently arisen dharmas of the five skandhas are empty in essence, and even their provisional designations are empty. Thus there are also no illusory sentient beings who could be liberated.

This passage of the sutra is explained by a total of five verses.

– The first verse concerns: Able to endure painful practices. It frames the foregoing in terms of question and answer, with the intent of resolving the doubt.

+ Able to endure painful practices: The first two lines explain the sutra passage concerning the perfection of patience. This indicates that the patience of a bodhisattva upon the First Bhumi is of two kinds: First, the ability to endure sufferings such as being beaten and reviled or having the limbs of one’s body cut apart. Second, attaining the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas. One can patiently expound the Dharma concerning the calamities of arising and cessation and so forth; therefore, this is called being able to endure painful practices. Why is one able to endure them? The following line of the verse states: Because painful practices possess virtue.

“Possess virtue” means attaining the perfection of patience together with the undefiled merit of the wisdom that realizes suchness and penetrates the wondrous principle. Therefore, it is called: “Because painful practices possess virtue.”

+ That merit is immeasurable: This explains the passage in the sutra, “That is not a paramita,” clarifying that the Kshanti Paramita attained by bodhisattvas on the First Bhumi is not within the scope of measurement or discernment of ordinary beings or those of the Two Vehicles. Therefore, the verse says: “Immeasurable.”

+ Such is the most excellent meaning: This confirms what was called immeasurable above, explaining that the bodhisattva on the First Bhumi, having realized Kshanti Paramita, has penetrated the twofold non-self in the supreme Dharma—a state that those of the Two Vehicles and ordinary beings below the bhumis cannot attain.

– The second verse explains the passage in the sutra concerning the rishi whose bodily limbs were severed by King Kali: he practiced patience, was free from the two kinds of afflictions, and gave rise to neither anger nor resentment.

+ Free from self and the mark of anger: This line of verse clarifies that when the bodhisattva formerly lived as a rishi and was tortured by King Kali, he had abandoned two kinds of afflictions: first, the innate affliction of the view of self; second, adventitious afflictions such as anger and hatred.

Free from self: This means being free from fundamental delusions such as attachment to the views of self and person.

And the mark of anger: This means being free from adventitious delusions and afflictions such as anger and hatred. This clarifies that the bodhisattva on the First Bhumi has permanently eliminated the four abiding afflictions, and even their habitual tendencies have been completely extinguished.

+ Truly there is no suffering or distress: This explains the passage in the sutra, “Without marks.” The root of suffering lies in attachment to self and what belongs to self. Since the bodhisattva has abandoned self and what belongs to self, what could still cause suffering or distress? Therefore, the verse says: “Truly there is no suffering or distress.”

+ Together with joy there is compassion: This explains the passage in the sutra, “Nor is it without marks.”

Together with joy: This clarifies that, from the time the bodhisattva first arouses the aspiration onward, he constantly entertains this thought: “When shall I perfect compassion and make my body like earth, water, wind, and fire, so that I may bring genuine benefit to sentient beings?” Therefore, having realized the principle of non-arising on the First Bhumi and accomplished the mind of oneness, the bodhisattva can bring genuine benefit through compassion. This accords with his original vow and is therefore called “together with joy.”

Why is there no suffering? Because he has attained the supreme bliss of Kshanti Paramita. Why does he attain that supreme bliss? Because he has attained the corresponding unified mind of loving-kindness and compassion.

+ Such is the fruit of the practice of suffering: That supreme bliss of compassion is what is attained by a bodhisattva on the First Bhumi.

+ The fruit of the practice of suffering: This does not arise from the causes cultivated by those below the bhumis and confirms that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra mentioned above is far superior.

From the words, “What meaning do these two verses reveal?” onward, this prose passage of the Treatise has two parts. From the beginning through “the mind corresponding with compassion; therefore it is stated thus,” it explains the preceding two verses.

+ Although that practice of suffering is similar to the fruit of suffering, that practice of suffering involves no weariness: As the author of the Treatise is about to answer directly the doubt raised by citing the painless relinquishment of one’s life, he first briefly acknowledges the intent of the doubt and therefore says, “Although that practice of suffering is similar to the fruit of suffering.” This clarifies that although the suffering endured by the Rishi Kshanti when he was tortured by King Kali resembles the previous relinquishment of one’s life, this practice of suffering involved no weariness, because when the rishi was tortured, he did not regard that painful practice as suffering.

In this painful practice of relinquishing the body, his mind felt neither aversion nor weariness; therefore, he did not retreat from the path to the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi.

+ Because the Kshanti Paramita he attained is called supreme: This clarifies that, for this reason, the rishi could relinquish his life without weariness.

+ He did not retreat from the path to the fruit of bodhi: Because he had perfected the Kshanti Paramita of a bodhisattva on the First Bhumi, he gave rise to no suffering or distress. This was unlike those below the bhumis, who suffer when relinquishing the body; how, then, could his act be considered difficult? This explains the first line of the verse.

+ The other shore has two meanings: This explains the second line of the verse, “Because there is virtue in the practice of suffering,” and also explains the meaning of “paramita” in the sutra.

+ First, the essence of the pure roots of virtue in the paramita: This refers to the essence of the myriad virtues within the pure roots of virtue, namely, the wisdom of a bodhisattva on the First Bhumi that realizes suchness.

+ Second, the merit of reaching the other shore is immeasurable: This clarifies that the essence of that realizing wisdom is supreme and possesses the wondrous functions of myriad virtues. Those wondrous functions of myriad virtues are not an object that ordinary beings or those of the Two Vehicles can measure or discern; therefore, it is said to be “immeasurable.”

Having completed the explanation of the meaning of “paramita,” this statement consequently introduces the meaning of “not a paramita.”

+ As stated in the sutra, “That is not a paramita”: This consequently cites the second statement from the sutra as a summary, after which the meaning of “not a paramita” is explained.

+ Therefore, the supreme Dharma is attained: This means that the Kshanti Paramita attained on the First Bhumi is not within the scope of measurement or discernment of those of the Two Vehicles or ordinary beings below the bhumis. Thus, those below the bhumis have not yet attained penetration into non-self; only a bodhisattva who has realized the First Bhumi attains the supreme Dharma of Kshanti Paramita.

This practice of suffering is even superior to that relinquishment of one’s life; how much more so when the rishi had realized the First Bhumi and abandoned the mark of self and the mark of anger—how could this not surpass the previous relinquishment of the body? This statement summarizes its superiority to the relinquishment mentioned earlier and thus explains the first line of the second verse: “Free from self and the mark of anger.”

+ Furthermore, that practice entails no suffering: This explains the line of the verse: “Truly there is no suffering or distress.”

+ Not only is there no suffering, but there is also joy, because there is compassion: This explains the line of the verse, “Together with joy there is compassion,” and summarizes it in accordance with the sutra.

+ Here, the corresponding mind of compassion is clarified; therefore, it is stated thus: The author of the Treatise himself explains why he composed the verse:

Truly there is no suffering or distress;

Together with joy there is compassion.

It is intended to explain the passage in the sutra, “Without marks, nor is it without marks.” Because he attained the unified mind corresponding with compassion, when relinquishing his life he experienced no suffering but instead possessed bliss. Thus, these two lines of verse may be said to provide the explanation; therefore, it is written, “It is stated thus.”

+ If a bodhisattva has not abandoned the mark of self and so forth: The second prose passage in this section of the Treatise prepares for the composition of the third verse, explaining the passage in the sutra from “A bodhisattva should abandon all marks” through “The mind should not abide in form when practicing giving.” It first introduces ordinary bodhisattvas who have not yet attained penetration into non-self. When faced with painful practices, they become weary and may wish to retreat from the bodhi mind. To encourage them to cultivate practice without grasping at marks and to practice without retreating, this introductory passage is presented. The phrase “as in the sutra, and so forth” cites and summarizes the exhortation in the sutra.

+ What meaning is clarified here?: This question is directed to the author of the Treatise, asking what meaning is clarified by the cited passage that summarizes the sutra. The explanation is that those who have not yet aroused the supreme bodhi mind are subject to such faults.

+ It clarifies that those who have not yet realized the supreme bodhi mind of the First Bhumi are liable to the fault of retreating from the bodhi mind when they encounter painful practices.

– In order to prevent that fault: To prevent the fault of retreating, the third verse is composed, explaining the passage in the sutra that prevents this fault. Its meaning is: “Because the initially aroused mind is not abandoned.”

This third verse clarifies that a bodhisattva on the First Bhumi does not abandon the bodhi mind and inspires those below the bhumis to practice without grasping at marks. It explains the passage in the sutra: “Therefore, a bodhisattva should abandon all marks and arouse the aspiration to seek the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi.”

+ Not abandoning the mind: This means that a bodhisattva on the First Bhumi does not abandon the bodhi mind.

+ It clarifies that bodhisattvas prior to the grounds, who have not yet aroused the mind of non-self of the First Ground, perceive painful practices as suffering and therefore may regress.

+ Now it is stated thus: This is guidance for bodhisattvas prior to the grounds. Because a bodhisattva on the First Ground does not relinquish the mind of bodhi, bodhisattvas prior to the grounds who aspire toward the higher grounds arouse the practice of skillful means without grasping at characteristics and gain certain understanding of true non-arising patience. Therefore, it is written: Because the aroused mind is not relinquished.

+ Cultivation becomes steadfast: This first line concerns arousal. This is called cultivation. It clarifies that a bodhisattva on the First Ground understands non-arising and is forever irreversible and indestructible; therefore, it is written: Cultivation becomes steadfast.

The reason it is stated that those prior to the grounds must cultivate and practice skillful means is to demonstrate that a bodhisattva on the First Ground has attained certain penetration of the principle of non-arising. Therefore, it is written: Cultivation becomes steadfast.

The preceding line states: Because the aroused mind is not relinquished. Here it states: Cultivation becomes steadfast. The meaning is one, though the designations differ.

+ This is the Perfection of Patience: This explains the preceding two lines. Although those two lines have already been fully explained, the third line is given because these four lines successively explain one another and are called a completed verse.

Thus, this third line further explains and confirms the first line, clarifying that the reason a bodhisattva on the First Ground can practice without relinquishing the mind of bodhi is that, having accomplished the Perfection of Patience, the bodhisattva does not perceive painful practices as suffering and does not relinquish the mind of bodhi. The Perfection of Patience is also the penetration of the principle of non-arising on the First Ground.

+ Cultivate the mind capable of learning that: This fourth line of the verse explains the second line above.

+ Cultivate: This means to practice and cultivate.

+ That: This refers to that certain penetration of the principle of non-arising on the First Ground.

+ The mind capable of learning: This is the preliminary practice of skillful means of one on the First Ground. It clarifies that the certain penetration of the unsurpassed Dharma of equality on the First Ground causes those prior to the grounds to cultivate skillful means in accordance with the mind capable of learning. That mind capable of learning is itself cultivation; therefore, it is written: Cultivate the mind capable of learning that.

+ What is the meaning of this, and so forth?: This prose passage in the Treatise has, in brief, two points.

+ From the beginning through the statement: Encompasses the six paramitas: This explains the preceding verse.

+ With what minds are the characteristics of practice aroused and cultivated?: This asks about the second line of the verse.

+ With what minds are characteristics not relinquished?: This asks about the first line of the verse. If arranged sequentially, it would also be acceptable to begin by asking about the first line. Here, after raising these two questions, the latter half of the verse is used to answer:

This is the Perfection of Patience;

Cultivate the mind capable of learning that.

+ Furthermore, the mind of ultimate meaning: This identifies the foremost mind mentioned in the introductory section preceding the verse.

+ Having entered the First Ground, one attains the Perfection of Patience: This pertains to the Perfection of Patience attained in the latter half of the verse. Because one has entered the mind of ultimate meaning of the First Ground, this answers the two questions just raised and completes the explanation.

+ This is called the non-abiding mind: This means that the Perfection of Patience is the mind of the path of non-abiding on the First Ground. As in the following passage of the sutra: The sutra is cited again to summarize the point.

+ Why?: This asks why this passage of the sutra states: One should depart from all characteristics to arouse the mind of bodhi. Therefore, it is written: Why?

It then explains: One also gives rise to a non-abiding mind.

+ It indicates that one no longer grasps or clings to dharmas such as form: This meaning can illuminate the mind of bodhi of the First Ground. It explains the passage in the sutra: Why? Because if the mind abides, it is not true abiding.

+ If the mind abides in dharmas such as form, that mind does not abide in the Buddha's bodhi: This clarifies that one who grasps and clings to dharmas such as form cannot realize the mind of bodhi of the First Ground. It explains the passage in the sutra: One should give rise to a mind that does not abide in form, through to: With a mind not abiding in form, one practices giving.

+ This elucidates the practice of giving with a non-abiding mind: This summarizes the preceding explanation of the next two statements in the sutra.

+ This passage of the sutra presents the non-abiding mind as the basis for arousing the practice of skillful means: The cited passage of the sutra clarifies that if a person can arouse a mind free from attachment, that mind can serve as the cause of skillful means for the First Ground.

+ Because the Perfection of Giving encompasses all six: As in the fourth section above, “Cultivation in Accordance with Reality,” where one was used to encompass all six; the meaning can be understood.

+ How does one cultivate for the benefit of sentient beings without this being called abiding in things? This is the second point in the verse. The author of the Treatise is about to compose the fourth verse to explain the sutra. He first raises the doubt, citing the passage of the sutra that eliminates the doubt to summarize the point, and only afterward employs the verse to explain it.

– This fourth verse clarifies departure from the characteristics of sentient beings and the phenomena of the five skandhas, explaining the passage in the sutra: A bodhisattva should practice giving in this manner for the benefit of all sentient beings.

+ Cultivate for the benefit of sentient beings: This single line separately explains the statement that one should practice giving in this manner for the benefit of all sentient beings. Here a doubt arises: If one does not perceive the three factors and does not grasp the characteristics of sentient beings, how can one practice giving and establish the meaning of causality?

Therefore, the answer is: Cultivate for the benefit of sentient beings. This clarifies that although a bodhisattva does not perceive the three factors and does not grasp the characteristics of sentient beings, this does not mean that the bodhisattva fails to practice giving for the benefit of sentient beings; thus, the meaning of causality is established. Therefore, the next line of the verse states: Such a cause should be understood.

Such a cause: The Perfection of Giving itself is the practice of the revealing cause. Since the meaning of causality has been established, one is exhorted to understand it.

From this, another doubt arises: To practice giving for the benefit of sentient beings is precisely to grasp the characteristics of sentient beings. Therefore, the latter half of the verse answers: Sentient beings and the characteristics of things—Their abandonment should also be understood.

This explains the passage in the sutra: All characteristics of sentient beings are in fact not characteristics.

+ Abandonment: This means not grasping the characteristics of sentient beings.

+ Should also be understood: This clarifies that not only are the characteristics of sentient beings abandoned, but the characteristics of the five skandhas are also abandoned; this should accordingly be understood.

+ A bodhisattva on the First Ground benefits sentient beings and practices the perfections: This is not a practice that grasps at characteristics.

+ Benefit is the essence of the cause: This explains the first half of the verse.

+ A bodhisattva cultivates and brings benefit without grasping the characteristics of sentient beings: This explains the latter half of the verse.

+ What are the phenomena of sentient beings? This question provides the transition to the fifth verse.

– This fifth verse further confirms the preceding fourth verse and explains the passage in the sutra: Why does the Tathagata say that all sentient beings are in fact not sentient beings? How does it confirm the fourth verse? The preceding verse directly stated: Abandon the characteristics of sentient beings and things regarded as truly existent. Yet it had not clarified why the five skandhas of those sentient beings have no true existence and are therefore to be abandoned. Thus, this verse formally sets forth the explanation.

+ Provisional designation: This indicates that the designation “sentient being” is provisional.

+ And the phenomena of the skandhas: These are the phenomenal characteristics of the five skandhas.

+ Another doubt arises: It was stated above that one abandons the characteristics of sentient beings. It is true that no truly existent sentient beings are present to be liberated, but illusory sentient beings are not nonexistent; why, then, are they not liberated? Therefore, the answer is: The Tathagata is free from those characteristics.

Those five skandhas constitute a sentient being, yet their nature is unreal, like an illusory light, and has always been quiescent. Therefore, there are likewise no illusory sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas who could be liberated.

+ As for the nonduality of the Buddhas: This is no different from the second line above.

However, according to the method of the Chanda Treatise, although the meaning may be fully explained in one, two, or even three lines, it is necessary to complete the verse; therefore, it may be stated once again.

+ Because they clearly perceive the true Dharma: This explains why the Tathagata is free from the two characteristics of the nominal and the real. It is because he clearly perceives the true Dharma of suchness within the ultimate truth and realizes Buddhahood, in which those two characteristics do not exist. Therefore, one should know that sentient beings and the five skandhas are essentially illusory and have always been quiescent. Because they are not real, the Tathagata remains apart from them. If they were real, the Buddhas ought to retain them.

+ What meaning is expressed here?: The prose passage in the Treatise, from its beginning through “the selflessness of persons,” explains the first line of the verse and confirms the preceding fourth verse.

+ The name and characteristics of sentient beings, together with that matter: This refers to the provisional designation and the matter of the five skandhas in the first line.

+ How does a bodhisattva cultivate while remaining free from the matter and characteristics of sentient beings?: This asks about the preceding fourth verse, which states that when a bodhisattva cultivates and benefits sentient beings, this is called remaining free from the characteristics of sentient beings and the characteristics of the five skandhas. What does this mean? It should be explained as follows: The conception of their names and characteristics is not a characteristic. This clarifies that provisionally designated sentient beings are essentially illusory; hence it is said, “They are not characteristics,” because no real entity corresponding to them exists.

+ The reason that provisionally designated sentient beings are empty: This clarifies that, within provisionally designated dharmas, when one seeks the real entity of a sentient being, it cannot be found.

+ Because of this meaning, a sentient being is therefore not a sentient being: This cites the sutra by way of conclusion.

+ By means of which dharmas?: That is, by means of which dharmas is this sentient being constituted, such that the entity of a sentient being is said to be empty?

The answer is: The dharmas of the five skandhas are called a sentient being. This explains that through the conjunction of the five skandhas, these dharmas are provisionally given the name “sentient being.”

+ If the conjunction of the five skandhas is given the name “sentient being,” then a sentient being exists; why is it said to be empty?

The explanation is: Those five skandhas are not the entity of a sentient being. This clarifies that although this sentient being is a sentient being based upon the five skandhas, within those five skandhas there has never truly been a sentient being that can be apprehended. Previously, the Treatise explained the emptiness of the selflessness of persons.

+ Because it is not real: This clarifies that dharmas arising through causes and conditions are selfless.

+ The reason no entity of a sentient being exists within the five skandhas: It is because those five skandhas are like illusions and magical transformations; their very essence is empty. This clarifies that the constituent factors—the five skandhas—are empty in essence, and therefore that which they constitute, the sentient being, is likewise unreal.

+ Thus are explained the selflessness of dharmas and the selflessness of persons: This concludes the designations of the two kinds of selflessness.

+ Why is this so?: This asks how it is known that the sentient being of the five skandhas is empty and unreal in essence.

The explanation is: All Buddhas are free from all characteristics. This clarifies that because the Buddhas are free from them, they realize and know that the five skandhas of sentient beings are empty in essence.

+ This statement clarifies that those two characteristics are unreal: Together with the Treatise’s preceding two statements that the Buddha is free from them, this statement clarifies that because the two characteristics are unreal, the Tathagata is free from them. Thus, the final three lines of the verse are used to conclude and confirm the point.

+ What meaning does this set forth?: This asks what meanings are set forth by the final three lines of this verse. The explanation is: If those two things truly existed, then the Buddhas and Tathagatas should possess those two characteristics. This clarifies that if sentient beings and the five skandhas truly existed and were not empty, then the Buddhas and Tathagatas should possess those two characteristics within the ultimate truth. But because the Buddhas are free from them, it is clearly known that they are unreal.

It is further explained in detail: Why is this so? If those two things were real, they should be present among the myriad virtues of the Tathagata. Because the Buddhas and Tathagatas have clearly perceived the true truth of suchness, yet do not perceive those two characteristics and are moreover free from them, this demonstrates that the five skandhas and sentient beings, whether considered nominally or as real entities, are both empty.

9. Venerable Subhuti! The Tathagata is one who speaks truthfully, and so forth: This passage of the sutra is the ninth scriptural passage in the Section of Comparisons.

+ The reason this is stated here: It is also intended indirectly to explain the doubt raised in the sixth passage: Sages receive their designation by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma. Since that Dharma cannot be grasped or expressed, there would therefore be no merit in accepting and retaining the verbal teaching of this sutra.

Nevertheless, the Section of Comparisons has thus far explained extensively that even if one were to fill as many worlds as there are grains of sand in three thousand Ganges Rivers with the seven precious substances, and were also to relinquish one’s body and life in giving, although the merit would be great, it would still not equal the merit of accepting and retaining a four-line verse from this sutra. Although this comparison has been made and explained extensively, the doubts in the minds of many sentient beings still remain and have not been entirely dispelled.

Moreover, doubts arise because of the preceding comparisons. Above, it was extensively explained that the essence of the realized Dharma-body is utterly beyond names and forms, and that no words of exposition can reach it. It was also said that within the verbal teachings of the twelve divisions of the scriptures, there is no realized Dharma that can be expounded.

Thus, the teaching that explains and the Dharma-body that is explained are clearly different. Here, moreover, the verbal teaching itself is said not to be the Dharma. How, then, could accepting and retaining one verse of the verbal teaching enable one to realize the Dharma-body and produce merit surpassing that of relinquishing immeasurable bodies and lives in giving?

From this, doubt arises, and people do not believe.

Since such doubt exists, the Tathagata should again introduce an analogy to make a comparison.

+ Yet the reason he does not make another comparison: Because the preceding words might give rise to further doubts, and doubt would ultimately be endless. Even if the Tathagata were to abide for immeasurable kalpas and extensively cite every manner of giving away internal and external possessions, bodies, and lives as comparisons, their merit would still not equal the merit of accepting and retaining a four-line verse from the sutra. Therefore, the Tathagata merely answers by directly exhorting them with these words: Simply believe what I say and do not give rise to further doubt. I am one who has attained omniscience and will never deceive you.

+ Therefore, the sutra answers by saying: “The Tathagata is one who speaks truthfully,” through “one who does not speak strange or differing words”: This clarifies that the four kinds of speech and so forth praised in the Tathagata are all unfailing, and it exhorts people to believe the Tathagata’s sincere words. Therefore, the following passage explains them.

+ Venerable Subhuti! The Tathagata is one who speaks truthfully: This clarifies that the Tathagata is one who has attained omniscience and realized such fruits as the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and all manner of virtues. In accordance with what he has realized, he expounds it truthfully for others, without falsehood; therefore, he is called one who speaks truthfully.

For followers of the Lesser Vehicle, the Tathagata teaches the Dharma of the Four Truths. These shravakas contemplate the principle of the Four Truths, eliminate the fetters of the three realms, and realize the fruit of the Lesser Vehicle. Although this is not the true ultimate, within that stage there are objects of contemplation and defilements to be eliminated, without error; therefore, he is called one who speaks truthfully.

+ One who speaks correctly: This clarifies that the Tathagata teaches bodhisattvas the Dharma-nature of suchness. Those followers of the Great Vehicle personally realize it and expound it correctly in accordance with principle, without error; therefore, he is called one who speaks correctly.

+ One who speaks without difference: This clarifies that when the Tathagata teaches the events of the three periods of time, his words accord with dharmas, whether illusory or real, and are never erroneous or confused; therefore, he is called one who speaks without difference.

+ Venerable Subhuti! The Dharma realized and expounded by the Tathagata means that the Tathagata himself declares: I too, by receiving and retaining the Dharma conveyed in the words of this sutra, realized the fruition that is the unconditioned Dharma-body. Having realized it, I in turn expound it for everyone, entirely without falsehood. You should therefore give rise to faith and harbor no doubt.

+ The Dharma realized: This means the Dharma of realization.

+ The Dharma expounded: This means the Dharma conveyed through verbal teaching.

Having heard this statement, one may again consequently give rise to doubt: If the Tathagata says, “I realized this Dharma and in turn expound it for others,” exhorting them to give rise to faith, then that Dharma which is expounded can be grasped and expressed through names and characteristics. If so, this returns to the preceding doubt. It was stated above that the realized Dharma has neither names nor characteristics and cannot be grasped or expressed. Thus, these statements are inconsistent.

Because such a doubt arises, the reply is: “The statement is not true.” This clarifies that the present assertion that the Dharma is realized and expounded is made in reliance upon the realm of names and characteristics belonging to conventional truth; thus it is said that there is realization and exposition. It is not that within the principle of true suchness there are names and characteristics by means of which it can be expounded.

In the principle of true suchness, from time immemorial, every path of language has ceased and every sphere of mental activity has been extinguished. Therefore, there is neither attainment nor exposition. How then can one raise the doubt that there are attainment and exposition, thereby making the realized Dharma identical with names and characteristics that can be grasped and expressed?

Since the realized Dharma is not names and characteristics, if one maintains that the realized Dharma is identical with names and characteristics and can be attained and expounded, then that statement is untrue.

Another doubt arises: If the realized Dharma is entirely without names and characteristics, why did the Tathagata previously say, “I am one who speaks truthfully, speaks correctly,” and so forth, exhorting people to receive and retain the scriptural teaching that serves as the means of exposition?

Yet it is now said that the previous statement is untrue. These two statements contradict one another. This again resembles the second preceding doubt. Clearly, apart from the realized Dharma, there is the verbal teaching that serves as the means of exposition; that verbal teaching is therefore not Dharma, and even if one receives, retains, reads, and recites it, there will be no benefit. It was stated above that the verbal teaching is Dharma in the sense of being its cause. Thus, the present statement is inconsistent.

The reply is: “It is not false speech.” This clarifies that the Tathagata truly realized true suchness and in turn expounded the Dharma of true suchness. That verbal teaching issued from within the realized Dharma and is a portion of the realized Dharma; therefore, it cannot be regarded as entirely non-Dharma. Moreover, because this verbal teaching speaks of true suchness, by receiving and retaining that scriptural teaching one can, in turn, realize true suchness. Since it brings such great benefit, it is not false speech.

– The Treatise states: “Here a doubt arises,” and so forth. As the author of the Treatise is about to compose verses to explain the sutra, he first briefly sets forth the meaning from which the doubt arises. He then cites the sutra and briefly clarifies the meaning of eliminating the doubt. There are altogether three verses explaining this passage of the sutra.

– The first verse formulates the question and answer in order to explain the doubt and generally presents the four kinds of speech as an exhortation to faith. The first two lines explain the preceding doubt, while the last two lines explain and set forth the four statements, with the intention of exhorting faith.

+ The verse says:

Although the fruition does not abide in the path,
The path is nevertheless able to serve as its cause.

“Fruition” means the fruition of the realized Dharma. “Path” means the path of verbal teaching. This line should be understood as saying: The path of verbal teaching does not abide within the fruition of the realized Dharma. Nevertheless, that teaching and path can, in turn, serve as the cause of the realized Dharma. Since the verbal teaching reveals the fruition to be realized, it is a cause.

The objection above states: The realized Dharma has neither names nor characteristics, whereas verbal teaching has names and characteristics. How can a Dharma having names and characteristics serve as the cause of a Dharma having neither names nor characteristics?

Therefore, the reply is:

Because all Buddhas speak truthfully.

This clarifies that all Buddhas are those who have attained omniscience and are endowed with the four kinds of truthful speech. Their speech accords with principle; one should simply believe and not doubt.

Some may consequently give rise to another doubt: The objects encompassed by the Tathagata’s wisdom are immeasurable and boundless. Why, then, is it said that there are only four kinds of truthful speech?

Therefore, the reply is:

That wisdom has four kinds.

This clarifies that only four kinds of speech are stated because they are based upon four objects. Although these four objects are narrow in name, their meaning is broad. Although dharmas are immeasurable, none lies outside the Buddha-fruition, the Lesser Vehicle, the Great Vehicle, or conditioned dharmas of the three periods of time, and so forth. Because these four designations completely encompass all dharmas, only these four kinds are briefly clarified.

The first two lines of the preceding verse, together with the following second verse, serve as headings for separate explanations; the text is presented fully in the latter verse.

“What is the meaning of this?” and so forth, through “There are four kinds of truthful speech,” explains the last two lines of the first verse and provides the transition leading to the second verse.

– The second verse formally explains the four kinds of wisdom and their objects:

+ True wisdom and the Lesser Vehicle:

This single line jointly explains two kinds of speech.

“True wisdom” explains “speaks correctly” in the sutra.

“The Lesser Vehicle” explains “speaks truthfully” in the sutra.

+ Expounding the Mahayana Dharma:

“Mahayana” is a Sanskrit transliteration, rendered in Chinese as “Great Vehicle.” This explains “speaks in accordance with principle” in the sutra.

+ And all predictions:

This explains “does not speak divergently” in the sutra.

+ Because he does not speak falsely:

This is a rapidly shifting meaning that applies throughout the four preceding lines. Therefore, each of the ensuing explanations states, “Because he does not speak falsely.” It clarifies that since the Tathagata possesses the four kinds of truthful speech, whatever he expounds is entirely free from falsehood. All of you in the assembly, even when the Tathagata does not speak of the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra, should simply give rise to profound faith in his words and harbor no doubt. Therefore, the four kinds of truthful speech are clarified in order to confirm that his exposition is free from falsehood.

+ What meaning is being established here? This refers to a passage of prose in the Treatise. Its general import is twofold. From the beginning through “not inverted,” it explains the verse in sequence and uses the sutra to summarize its meaning. It then provisionally raises an objection and explains that objection extensively in sequence.

+ From “Because the Tathagata’s true wisdom does not speak falsely concerning the path and fruition of the Buddha’s bodhi” through “the four kinds of speech are stated in sequence”: This jointly explains the four lines of the verse.

From the phrase “As the sutra states” onward, it cites the sutra to summarize the four kinds of speech together.

+ Not speaking falsely concerning the Lesser Vehicle, and so forth: The reason this statement is presented is that the author of the Treatise provisionally raises an objection: The Great Vehicle expounded by the Tathagata is true in principle and ultimate in fruition; it can therefore be called truthful speech. For those of the Lesser Vehicle, however, he teaches the Four Truths, whose principle is not ultimate. Although they realize arhatship, their fruition is not yet complete.

Moreover, the Mahayana sutras extensively refute the Lesser Vehicle, declaring it not to be true. How, then, can the exposition of the Four Truths be called truthful speech? The explanation is: The truth of suffering and the other truths of the Lesser Vehicle are truths only.

This clarifies that when the Tathagata teaches the Dharma of the Four Truths and so forth, people of the Lesser Vehicle rely upon that teaching to cultivate practice, attain the emptiness of the person, understand the selflessness of persons, eliminate the afflictions of the four abodes, and realize the fruition of arhatship. It is true only in relation to the Lesser Vehicle; therefore, it is said, “They are truths only.”

+ Not speaking falsely in giving predictions: Another objection is provisionally raised: The dharmas of the three periods of time are in flux and lack reality; their nature is illusory. Why, then, is speaking about matters of the three periods of time called “not speaking divergently,” that is, not contradictorily? The explanation is: Predictions are given concerning everything in the past, present, and future; therefore, he expounds them just as their meaning truly is, without inversion.

+ According to that meaning: That is, according to the Dharma of those three times. What is provisional is expounded as provisional; what is real is affirmed on the basis of reality, and therefore it is not inverted.

+ The sutra further says: Venerable Subhuti! The Dharma realized and expounded by the Tathagata, and so forth: This is the second point in the prose passage of the Treatise. Since the third subsequent verse is about to be composed to explain it, this passage of the sutra is first cited, and a transitional question is raised: Why should it be said thus?

– Verse 3:

In accord with that true wisdom,

What is spoken is neither real nor false.

This explains the passage in the sutra: The Dharma realized and the Dharma expounded are not real.

+ In accord with that true wisdom: This explains the passage in the sutra: The Dharma realized and expounded by the Tathagata is not false speech. It clarifies that although the Tathagata uses sounds and verbal teachings to expound the Dharma he has realized, the realized Dharma is forever without names; therefore, the verbal teaching that expounds it is not itself the realized Dharma. Clearly, although the verbal teaching is not the realized Dharma, it is not expounded without being based upon realization. Through the teaching, realization is attained. Because this verbal teaching can serve as a cause for realizing the Dharma, the verse says: “In accord with that true wisdom.”

+ What is spoken is neither real nor false: This explains the passage in the sutra: It is neither real nor false speech. It clarifies that the realized Dharma of true suchness transcends all names and characteristics. If one considers sounds, names, and characteristics to be identical with the realized Dharma, that is called falsehood; hence it is said: “What is spoken is not real.”

Although the sounds and verbal teachings are not realization itself, they are not unrelated to realization when it is expressed; in turn, through the teaching one comprehends the principle. The verbal teaching is Dharma; hence it is said: “What is spoken is not false.”

+ Because it is spoken as an antidote to taking realization according to the sounds one hears: This raises the question: In the preceding passage of the sutra, the Tathagata himself said: I am one who speaks truly, and so forth, comprising four kinds of truthful speech. He further said: The Dharma realized and the Dharma expounded are neither real nor false speech. Why do these two passages of the sutra contradict each other? The latter half of the verse is then used to answer:

According to sounds heard, one grasps realization;

As an antidote, it is spoken thus.

The intent of the answer is that, lest sentient beings take realization according to sounds and suppose that the Dharma of true suchness is identical with verbal teachings consisting of sounds, and thus possesses names and characteristics, this instruction is given as an antidote to that attachment: Do not grasp what is heard in sounds as the realized Dharma.

+ As an antidote, it is spoken thus: That is, as an antidote to grasping in accordance with sounds, it is said either that it is not real or that it is not false.

+ What is the meaning of this?: This prose passage of the Treatise has two points. From its beginning through the words: It is expressed by relying upon phrases and words, it explains the first half of the verse and also explains the passage of the sutra beginning with: The Dharma that is realized, and continuing below.

From the words: The Dharma expounded by the Buddhas, through: That realized Dharma cannot be apprehended, it explains the first line of the verse.

From the words: Why is this?, through: Therefore, it is not false speech, it explains the second line of the verse.

+ If so, why is it said that the Tathagata realizes the Dharma and expounds the Dharma?: This raises an objection: If wisdom that grasps realization according to sounds heard is not real, then not even a single statement concerning the realized Dharma can be made. Why, then, does the Tathagata himself say: The Dharma realized and expounded by me? This is explained: It is spoken by relying upon phrases and words. This clarifies that the realized Dharma is without names and characteristics and cannot be apprehended or expressed, yet this does not mean that verbal teachings cannot be relied upon initially to discuss the wondrous principle.

+ Why did the Tathagata previously say: I am one who speaks truly, but then say that the Dharma expounded is neither real nor false, and is not false speech?: This is the second objection raised in the prose passage of the Treatise. Relying upon the words, it raises an objection on the grounds that the Tathagata’s statements in the sutra are contradictory. Therefore, the latter half of the verse is cited to explain that the meaning of the question and answer is no different from that in the verse.

– Part 8: Venerable Subhuti! It is as when a person enters darkness and sees nothing at all, and so forth: This comprises two passages of the sutra. It is the eighth part of the larger sutra passage, clarifying that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature of true suchness. This passage explains that all sentient beings possess the nature of true suchness and are named on that basis.

In what sequence does this arise? In the sixth passage above, it was said that all noble ones are named on account of the unconditioned Dharma of true suchness. This gave rise to the eighth doubt. Through the seventh passage, it was extensively explained that all noble ones are named on account of the unconditioned Dharma.

The doubt raised is this: It should properly be said that all sentient beings are named on account of the unconditioned Dharma of true suchness. Why does it speak only of all noble ones? It should be so because, as in the third sutra passage above, in the discussion of the enduring mind, it was said: If a bodhisattva has a conception of sentient beings, then he is not a bodhisattva.

This clarifies that if a bodhisattva does not relinquish the conception of self with regard to all sentient beings, he is not called a bodhisattva who comprehends true suchness. Only by comprehending that all sentient beings equally possess the self of Buddha-nature and true suchness is one called a bodhisattva. When this bodhisattva realizes the First Ground, he understands all sentient beings to be like his own body.

Because all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature and true suchness, and his own body also presently possesses Buddha-nature and true suchness, they are equal, nondual, and without distinction; therefore, he regards sentient beings as his own body. Moreover, as stated in many passages throughout the sutras: All sentient beings possess Buddha-nature. If all sentient beings and the noble ones are identical in the principle of true suchness, why are all sentient beings, who have minds of attachment, not named on account of pure true suchness, while only the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, who have no minds of attachment, are named on account of pure true suchness?

Therefore, it should be known that the noble ones, being named on account of the Dharma of true suchness, may possess Buddha-nature. All sentient beings, however, not being named on account of the Dharma of true suchness, would therefore not possess Buddha-nature. If sentient beings did not originally possess Buddha-nature and the noble ones acquired it only later through the causes and conditions of cultivation, then the Buddha-nature that sentient beings lacked before but possess now would be impermanent.

Furthermore, if all sentient beings equally possess Buddha-nature and true suchness, why do some see it while others do not?

Because there is such a doubt, the analogy of a person entering darkness, and so forth, is cited in reply. The intent of the answer is this: Although sentient beings all equally possess Buddha-nature and true suchness, the Buddhas and bodhisattvas, through cultivation, have eliminated delusions and therefore can see the nature. All sentient beings, however, have not yet been able to cultivate and eliminate their afflictions, and therefore they do not see the nature.

+ Nevertheless, one who sees the nature and has eliminated delusions is named on account of pure true suchness. One who does not see the nature and has not yet eliminated delusions is not named on account of pure true suchness. This clarifies that, although ordinary beings and noble ones are equal in this respect, they differ according to whether they see or do not see. Thus, one should not use the fact that all sentient beings equally possess it as a provisional basis for concluding that they are all named on account of pure true suchness.

In order to eliminate that doubt, the following passage provides the explanation.

+ Just as a person who enters a dark place sees nothing at all: Regarding this matter, the sutra presents two analogies. They illustrate two kinds of persons—the foolish and the wise—and clarify that one who has cultivated the path and eliminated delusions can see Buddha-nature and is therefore designated by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma. One who has not cultivated the path and has not yet eliminated afflictions cannot see that nature. Because such a person cannot see that nature, they are not designated by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma.

+ Just as a person who enters a dark place sees nothing at all: This introduces the analogy.

+ If a bodhisattva's mind abides in things, it is likewise, and so forth: This applies the analogy. It illustrates ordinary beings, followers of the Two Vehicles, and lesser bodhisattvas, who possess the darkness of the four abiding states of ignorance and habitual tendencies and practice along the path of grasping at characteristics; therefore, they cannot see Buddha-nature—suchness.

Although followers of the Two Vehicles have attained realization and clearly comprehended genuine freedom from outflows, the reason they are nevertheless called persons who grasp at characteristics is that, although they do not grasp at the characteristics of conditioned dharmas, they still grasp at the characteristic of unconditioned nirvana.

+ Just as a person with eyes sees various forms, and so forth: This introduces the analogy.

+ If a bodhisattva does not abide in things, it is likewise: This applies the analogy. It illustrates bodhisattvas from the First Bhumi upward, who gradually sever and eliminate the four abiding states of ignorance and habitual tendencies, practice without grasping at characteristics, possess luminous wisdom, and attain genuine freedom from outflows; therefore, they can see Buddha-nature and the wondrous principle of impermanence and permanence.

– The treatise states: “Again, there is a doubt,” and so forth: Here the author of the treatise wishes to use verses to explain this portion of the sutra. He therefore briefly records the doubter's thought to provide a transition to the verses that follow.

+ If sages are designated by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma: This states the point in the sixth preceding passage of the sutra from which the doubt arises.

+ That suchness exists at all times and in all places: This raises an objection based on the third passage of the sutra and cites both portions of the sutra. Two objections are then presented.

+ Why does a mind that does not abide attain the Buddha's bodhi? Would this not mean that it does abide? If beings throughout the three times all possess Buddha-nature—suchness—then all beings should be designated by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma. Why is it that only Buddhas and bodhisattvas possess a mind that does not abide and thereby attain the Buddha's bodhi?

A person whose mind does not abide attains the fruit of the Buddha's bodhi and is designated by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma. Yet among all beings, some possess a mind that does not abide and some do not; those who lack a mind that does not abide do not attain the Buddha's bodhi and are not designated by virtue of the unconditioned Dharma.

+ If suchness exists at all times and in all places, why can some people attain it while others cannot?: Here the sutra is repeated once more to present the second objection: seeing and not seeing. This can be understood from the subsequent portion of the treatise. To eliminate these two doubts, the treatise briefly cites the sutra's analogy of “entering a dark place,” extensively discusses the meaning of eliminating the doubts, and then composes verses to explain it. Altogether, two verses explain this passage of the sutra.

– The first verse explains the doubt through a question and answer. Since a doubt concerning the preceding passage has already been raised, the verse answers:

Time and place truly possess it.

+ Time: This refers to the three times. The essence of Buddha-nature does not belong to the three times. Because beings exist throughout the three times, Buddha-nature is spoken of in relation to beings and is thus called “of the three times.”

+ Place: This refers to the places of all beings throughout the three times. This indicates the distinction from insentient things such as wood and stone.

+ Truly possess it: This means that those beings throughout the three times truly possess Buddha-nature. This does not differ from the doubter's understanding.

+ Yet they do not attain suchness: This states the objection: If beings throughout time and place truly possess Buddha-nature, why do they not attain it? Therefore, the third line of the verse states:

Lacking wisdom because they abide in dharmas.

+ Lacking wisdom: This refers to ordinary beings and followers of the Two Vehicles who have not attained the wisdom free from outflows of the First Bhumi.

Why do they lack wisdom? Because their minds abide in and cling to dharmas.

+ Abiding in dharmas: This clarifies that ordinary beings below the bhumis are perpetually entangled in the two hindrances and therefore possess attached minds. Because ordinary beings and followers of the Two Vehicles abide in dharmas and practice with attachment, they cannot see Buddha-nature—suchness.

+ The others, possessing wisdom, attain it: This clarifies that bodhisattvas who have entered the bhumis and those above them, together with all Buddhas and Tathagatas, have attained supramundane resolute understanding and therefore can see this Buddha-nature.

+ The prose of the treatise from “What is the meaning of this?” down to “Therefore, they can attain it”: Here the author of the treatise formulates three sets of questions and answers to explain the preceding verse. This can be understood from the treatise.

+ Because of this meaning, all Buddhas and Tathagatas are designated as pure. Therefore, those whose minds abide and cling do not attain the Buddha's bodhi: This jointly examines and clarifies the reason why some are designated as such and others are not.

– The second verse explains together the two analogies of darkness and light in the sutra and their applications.

+ Darkness, light; the foolish lack wisdom: The two words “darkness” and “light” introduce the two analogies as topical headings. The subsequent passage applies the analogies in sequence.

Foolish: This applies specifically to the word “darkness” above. It explains why such a person is called foolish: it is because that person lacks wisdom. In this line, the final three words provide the explanation. This completes the application of the analogy of darkness.

+ The one in light is like a person with wisdom: “The one in light” repeats the word “light” in the preceding line and applies the analogy to a person with wisdom; therefore, it states, “like a person with wisdom.”

+ The opposed dharma and its counteragent, and so forth: From here onward, the latter half of the verse explains the second analogy in the sutra.

The opposed dharma: This indicates, first, entering into the dharma of darkness, which illustrates the dharma to be counteracted.

And its counteragent: This indicates the light in the analogy and applies it to both wisdom-dharmas in the analogy.

+ Attaining the dharma that eliminates it in this way: “Attaining” means attaining luminous wisdom as the dharma that serves as the counteragent. “Eliminates” means eliminating the foolish darkness of the dharma that is counteracted. Just as sunlight, acting as a counteragent, can dispel darkness, understanding generosity without grasping at characteristics counteracts the mind that abides in things, namely the foolish mind that grasps at characteristics. Therefore, it states:

The opposed dharma and its counteragent—

Attaining the dharma that eliminates it in this way.

+ What is the meaning of this? The analogy of darkness and light concerns similar dharmas: Darkness and light, foolishness and wisdom, and Dharma and analogy are similar in meaning; therefore, they are used for comparison.

+ Darkness: This indicates the absence of wisdom.

+ Sunlight: This indicates the presence of wisdom. Each is applied separately to the two analogies. This explains the first half of the verse.

+ A person with eyes: What meaning does this indicate? Although the preceding explanation discussed the two analogies of darkness and light together, it did not yet state the intent of the subsequent analogy. The latter half of the verse is now used to explain the second analogy in the sutra. It summarizes and establishes the meanings of that which counteracts and that which is counteracted; therefore, the next passage of the sutra is cited.

Question: What meaning does “a person with eyes” indicate? The answer is given in the verse:

The opposed dharma and its counteragent—

Attaining the dharma that eliminates it in this way.

+ In this sequence: This means that the opposed dharma is first clarified, after which its counteragent is made clear.

+ Again, “a person with eyes,” and the passage that follows: This presents the sutra in sequence, explains the counteragent, and afterward uses the sutra to summarize the matter.

– Furthermore, Venerable Subhuti, if a good man or good woman is able, with regard to this Dharma, to accept and uphold it, read and recite it, and cultivate it: This is the second scriptural passage in the eighth section.

+ This passage of scripture is presented for the following reason: The preceding passage made clear that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature within true suchness, using the two analogies of darkness and light to illustrate that practitioners see the nature, whereas non-practitioners cannot see it. A difficulty is raised: Practitioners see the nature, but it is not yet clear upon which Dharma methods they rely, what skillful means they employ, and what they take as the cause that enables them to see Buddha-nature within true suchness.

Because such a difficulty is raised, the scripture is cited in reply, making clear that by relying upon this Diamond Prajnaparamita Sutra and the other Mahayana sutras, and by receiving and retaining, reading and reciting, and practicing them in three ways, one accomplishes supreme karma. Taking these skillful means and the myriad practices as causes, one can therefore see Buddha-nature. This will consequently be explained in the following section.

This passage of scripture has two parts: First, it elucidates the three kinds of practice. Second, it elucidates the comparison of merit and establishes a connection with the ninth section below, which discusses benefits.

+ What are the three kinds of practice? They are:

1. Practice through reception: That is, receiving the teaching by drawing near to others.

2. Practice through retention: That is, inwardly reading and retaining it oneself, without allowing it to be forgotten.

3. Practice through reading and recitation: Reading and reciting all the scriptures is also called practice.

These three kinds of practice all belong to wisdom derived from hearing and are not shared by the two wisdoms derived from reflection and cultivation. Therefore, the scripture says: If good men and good women are able, with respect to this Dharma method, to receive and retain, read and recite, and practice it…

On account of the three kinds of practice stated above, another doubt arises: Although the Tathagata says that those who receive and retain, read and recite, and practice it will certainly be able to see Buddha-nature, it is not yet clear whether those who practice in reliance upon this scripture will definitely see it or will not see it. Therefore, the reply is: The Tathagata is one who entirely knows, entirely sees, and entirely comprehends.

+ Entirely knows: This means knowing by means of the Buddha's wisdom.

+ Entirely sees: This means seeing by means of the Buddha-eye.

+ Entirely comprehends (awakens): This means comprehending and thoroughly understanding all things by means of the wisdom of all modes. This clarifies what the Tathagata himself said: I am one who has attained omniscience; all avenues of knowledge and vision are completely clear and thoroughly penetrated. Therefore, that those who rely upon this Dharma method and practice it in these three ways can see Buddha-nature is certain and beyond doubt.

On this account, another doubt arises: Although it has been made clear above that these three kinds of practice enable one to see Buddha-nature, it is not yet known how much merit is attained when that nature is seen—whether it is great or little.

Because such a doubt exists, the reply is: They all accomplish immeasurable and boundless aggregates of merit. This makes clear that when practice leads to seeing the nature, attaining the Way, and realizing the unconditioned Dharma-body, the merit of the fruit attained cannot be measured and is not an object knowable through numerical calculation. How, then, could one raise the question: How much merit is attained—great or little? This is to speak of the fruit within the cause.

+ Venerable Subhuti! If, in the morning, a good man or good woman were to give away as many bodies and lives as there are grains of sand in the Ganges… chiefly for the purpose of extensively explaining it to others…: This cites the example of relinquishing one's body and life and compares it with the merit of receiving and retaining the scripture.

+ The seventh section above already extensively explained the comparison of merit. The reason the comparison of merit is again clarified here is this: Above, the doubt was raised that receiving and retaining, reading and reciting, and practicing this scripture enables one to see Buddha-nature, but it was not yet known whether the merit attained upon seeing Buddha-nature is great or little. The Dharma was first expounded to make clear that immeasurable and boundless aggregates of merit are attained.

Although this answer had already been given, the meaning of possessing abundant merit had not yet been revealed. Therefore, the worldly example concerning an inferior portion is again cited in comparison to answer this point. It makes clear that the merit of practicing in reliance upon this scripture and seeing the nature is not subject to numerical calculation and cannot be measured.

The merit of relinquishing one's body and life, however, is conditioned, subject to quantity, and involves grasping at characteristics; therefore, although it is great, it is not equal to the former. This elucidates the greater aspect of the immeasurable, not an inferior portion of the scripture.

The preceding comparison already set forth the example of relinquishing one's body and life; what superiority or inferiority remains to be explained? Therefore, this is clarified again here. There are two kinds of superiority: First, in terms of the bodies and lives. Second, in terms of the long duration of time and kalpas. Because these two kinds of superiority exist, the matter is explained once again.

+ If there is again someone who, upon hearing this Dharma method, has a mind of faith and does not malign it: This makes clear that merely hearing the scripture directly, having faith in one's mind, and not opposing it already yields merit surpassing that of relinquishing one's body and life by immeasurable asamkhyeyas. How much more so if one can also transcribe, read, and recite it, practice in accordance with what has been taught, and expound it to others? Such merit is still greater—immeasurable asamkhyeyas.

The Treatise explains this passage of scripture by means of three verses.

– Verse 1: Together with the two passages of scripture and the preceding and following portions of the Treatise, five verses serve as their basis. The first line gives rise to the second verse within this section. The second line gives rise to a passage within this section. In meaning, the third line gives rise to the subsequent scriptural passage that discusses benefits; it directly treats the section on benefits, for which three verses serve as the basis. The fourth line gives a general conclusion to the preceding three lines, with two root verses used for cultivation.

+ In what Dharma does one practice?: This asks upon which Dharma method one relies in practice so as to be able to see Buddha-nature.

+ It further asks: Through practicing and seeing the nature, “What merits are attained?”

+ What karma is further accomplished?: This further asks how merely receiving and retaining this scripture enables one to see Buddha-nature and also to accomplish such supreme practices, thereby cutting off delusions and seeing the nature.

+ Practice in accordance with the teaching: The question above asks: How does one practice so as to be able to see Buddha-nature? This is called practice; therefore, it says: “Practice in accordance with the teaching.”

This first verse gives rise collectively to the two passages of scripture and takes the five verses as its basis.

+ In what Dharma does one practice?: This sets forth the first line of the verse as a question that establishes the connection.

+ Revealing the practice: This answers the preceding question, revealing that one relies upon the teaching of this scripture and undertakes the three kinds of practice—receiving and retaining, reading and reciting, and practicing—thereby establishing the transition to the second verse.

– This second verse answers the first line of the first verse, “In what Dharma does one practice?” It directly explains the section of the scripture concerning the three kinds of practice: receiving and retaining, reading and reciting.

+ Names, written words, and the three kinds of Dharma: These are likewise the three kinds of practice. Therefore, the second line of the verse indicates this matter: receiving and retaining, hearing, and extensively explaining are the three aspects of wisdom derived from hearing that pertain to names and written words. Although the substance of the three aspects of wisdom derived from hearing was discussed above, the actual method of practice remains unclear. Therefore, the latter half of the verse says: Practice from others and inwardly; What is heard is the cultivation of wisdom.

+ Practice from others: This means following and drawing near to Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and other spiritual friends in order to hear the Dharma; this is practice through reception.

+ And inwardly: Having received it from others, one obtains its contents and oneself reads, recites, and retains them, not allowing them to be forgotten. This is practice through retention. According to the Western Regions, there are three methods of recitation: First, reciting aloud. Second, reciting softly. Third, reciting silently.

+ What is heard: This makes clear that hearing is not limited to receiving and reciting, which are called wisdom derived from hearing; being able to read through the scriptures in turn is also called wisdom derived from hearing. This is practice through reading and recitation.

+ Is the cultivation of wisdom: Through these three aspects of wisdom derived from hearing, wisdom becomes clear and penetrating. In summary, this is the wisdom derived from hearing within the three kinds of practice.

+ What meaning does this reveal?… up to: Receiving and retaining, reading and reciting: This explains the first half of the verse and then concludes it.

+ How is that practice attained… up to: Because it can be cultivated: This raises the question, provides a transition, and then uses the latter half of the verse to answer it. Thereafter, it is explained in sequence.

+ It was just stated that the name and the written words also arise through practice: This reiterates the preceding section, providing a connection to the following verse.

– The third verse answers the second sentence in the first verse: What merits are attained? It explains the section in the sutra concerning comparison.

+ This is self-maturation: This reiterates the three kinds of practice mentioned above, clarifying that the three kinds of wisdom derived from hearing constitute the virtues of practice for one's own benefit.

+ The remainder is the transformation of sentient beings: This clarifies that extensively expounding the teaching for others fulfills the practice of benefiting others. This was already explained earlier, so why is it presented again here? It is in order to introduce and set forth a comparison by means of an analogy.

Previously, with regard to outward practice for oneself, teaching and transforming others, and receiving and retaining the sutra, the question was how much merit is attained upon seeing the nature. It is now clarified that, upon seeing the nature and realizing the unconditioned Dharma-body, one attains immeasurable and boundless merit that cannot be quantified. Although it cannot be quantified, the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra is further compared with giving away as alms as many bodies and lives as the sands of the Ganges throughout the three periods of time; even the latter does not equal a small fraction of the former.

Therefore, this is presented again.

+ Because the deed and the duration are great: “Deed” means the act of relinquishing one's body and life. “Duration” means the great number of kalpas, clarifying that immeasurable bodies and lives are relinquished over many periods of time. Therefore, it is written: Because the deed and the duration are great.

+ The merit superior among merits: This clarifies the two kinds of merit: relinquishing the body and receiving and retaining the sutra. Of these two kinds of merit, the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra is superior, while the other merit is inferior. Therefore, it is written: The merit superior among merits.

+ What does this mean? … up to: Extensively expounding the Dharma: This explains the first half of the verse.

+ From “What merits are attained?” onward: This discusses the comparison that was not yet asked about. The latter half of the verse is used to answer it; it is then explained in sequence, after which the sutra is used to summarize and conclude. This can be understood on the basis of the Treatise.

END — FASCICLE 6