金剛仙論

+ Suppose there were a person whose bodily form was as immense as Mount Sumeru, king of mountains: This introduces an immense body as an analogy for the Buddha’s reward body, which resembles the appearance of that king of mountains; this resemblance constitutes the meaning of the analogy. Moreover, because that mountain surpasses all other mountains, it is called the king of mountains.

+ A person: This means that the Buddha’s reward body is spoken of as a person. “A person” may also refer to a person of the world.

+ Like the king of mountains: This presents an analogy for comparison. It clarifies that just as the bodily form of a person in the world may be as immense as Mount Sumeru, so too is the Buddha’s reward body. When the practices of the ten bhumis have been perfected and, after attaining the vajra mind, the originally inherent nature is revealed, this is called the Buddha’s Dharma body. When the myriad virtues cultivated through wisdom are completely fulfilled, this is called the Buddha’s reward body. Because he is the king among the noble ones, his body is called immense. Its essence is unconditioned and eternally abiding, unlike a conditioned body; therefore, the latter is merely borrowed as an analogy.

+ Venerable Subhuti! What do you think? Is that body immense?: Having used the king of mountains as an analogy for the Buddha’s reward body, the Tathagata then asked Venerable Subhuti: Is that Buddha-body immense? Venerable Subhuti understood and immediately replied: Blessed One! It is exceedingly immense. This elucidates that the Buddha’s reward body is perfect in the myriad virtues and is the king among the noble ones. Because it is in some respect like the king of mountains, it is said to be exceedingly immense.

Upon hearing that the Buddha’s reward body is called an immense body like the king of mountains, a doubter might consequently suppose that the Buddha’s reward body, by virtue of the analogy with the king of mountains, is a body possessing a conditioned form. If it were a body possessing form, it would be an impermanent body subject to arising and cessation. Because this implication could arise, the answer states: The Buddha said that it is not a body; therefore, it is called an immense body.

The intent of this answer is to clarify that the immense body of the Buddha’s reward body is unlike the conditioned body possessing form found in the world. The essence of that body is quiescent and devoid of the falsely discriminated characteristics produced by the conditioned and contaminated mind, manas, and consciousness. Because the king of mountains and the Buddha’s reward body are similar in some respect, the former is introduced as an analogy.

+ In truth: This means that they are plainly as utterly separate as heaven and earth; therefore, it is said: It is not a body. Yet there is a supreme immense body, quiescent and eternally abiding, endowed with immeasurable merit and wisdom; therefore, it is called an immense body. It may also be explained: That body is not a body; therefore, it is called an immense body.

This explains that the immense body of the Buddha’s reward body is not an immense body in the ordinary sense, because it is not a conditioned and contaminated body possessing form. Therefore, it is called an immense body: This means that the originally inherent nature is revealed and its wondrous functions become manifest; this is called the Buddha’s reward body. It possesses wondrous and quiescent characteristics and immeasurable great functions.

This is called the true immense body of the Buddha’s reward body.

– The Treatise states: One should understand this meaning in this way. This refers to the meaning of the Buddha’s reward body in relation to the Pure Land. As stated in the sutra, it should be understood through the questions and answers exchanged between the Buddha and Venerable Subhuti. The author of the Treatise has not yet offered an explanation, so why does he say that it should be understood? This clarifies that Venerable Subhuti harbored a doubt in his mind but had not yet expressed it in words. The author of the Treatise therefore answers with the verse: “Wisdom cultivated, only consciousness penetrates.” This verse explains the portion of the sutra beginning, “If a bodhisattva says: ‘I adorn the Buddha-land…’” and continuing through “…should thus give rise to that mind.”

+ Wisdom: This is true wisdom. The Pure Land takes wisdom as its essence. The reason that Pure Land takes wisdom as its essence is to clarify the two kinds of fruition pertaining to the Tathagata: the dependent recompense and the direct recompense. To speak of their essence is to encompass the entirety of Dharma-nature. In terms of the functions manifested universally, however, there are the two distinctions of body and land. Thus, although the dependent recompense and direct recompense are not identical, both take wisdom as their essence.

+ Cultivated: Subsequent wisdom relies upon and learns from prior wisdom; this is called cultivation. The cultivation of the preceding mind serves as a cause. Because that cause can bring about a corresponding result, the understanding that follows does not differ from what preceded it, yet becomes increasingly refined and superior; this is called the cause of cultivation. Because it can reveal the true nature without obstruction, it is called penetration.

+ Penetrates: The eighth consciousness within Buddha-nature is unobstructed; therefore, it is called penetrating. Thus, the verse says: “Wisdom cultivated, only consciousness penetrates.” Only when the eighth consciousness, the alaya-consciousness, has completely illuminated the uncontaminated state of a bodhisattva of the ten bhumis and correctly realized the wisdom of Buddhahood can one penetrate and behold that Pure Land and realize its wondrous functions.

Therefore, the following line of the verse exhorts: “Thus choose the Pure Land.” Above, the question concerned the meaning of the Pure Land. Here, the essence and characteristics of the causal practices leading to the Pure Land are elucidated. This is precisely their essential meaning.

Practice in this way. Choose in this way. It is neither inverted nor a false attachment.

Therefore, it is written: “Thus choose the Pure Land.”

+ The verse says: “Without form, the supreme essence.” Without form: That true Pure Land is not a conditioned form. The supreme essence: If that Pure Land is not a conditioned form, must it then be entirely formless, like empty space? Here it is clarified that although this land does not possess form in the sense of conditioned forms, neither is it devoid of the unconditioned and supramundane form, for it is the Pure Land adorned with the supreme essence of ultimate truth.

+ It is not adornment: This means, as stated in the preceding line, that it is not the adornment of worldly forms.

+ The subsequent “adornment”: This is the adornment of ultimate truth. This line should read: “It is not adornment; it is adornment.” However, owing to the constraints of the verse, it merely says: “It is not adornment.”

+ Intent: This is the meaning of choosing the Pure Land. Such is the essential intent.

+ What is the meaning of this?: This asks how this verse explains the meaning of the Pure Land.

The explanation is: “The Buddhas have no determinate act of adorning…” through “…is to speak untruthfully.” This explains the first two lines of the verse and also explains the first portion of the sutra passage, from “If a bodhisattva says…” through “…speaks untruthfully.”

+ The Buddhas have no act of adorning a land: This establishes that the Tathagata has no act of adorning a land through worldly forms.

+ The true wisdom of the Buddhas, the Tathagatas, cultivates a consciousness capable of penetration: This clarifies that the adorned Buddha-land attained by the Tathagata is precisely supramundane wisdom, the wondrous adornment and functioning of ultimate truth. These two lines directly reveal the essence of the Pure Land.

+ Therefore, that land cannot be grasped: This summarizes the opening portion of the preceding sutra passage in order to explain the intent of the doubt.

+ Therefore: Because the Pure Land of the Buddhas is not a conditioned form but the characteristic of true wisdom within ultimate truth, it cannot be grasped. How, then, could one entertain the doubt that a bodhisattva’s adornment of a Buddha-land can be grasped and described? One should not impose names upon the unconditioned Dharma.

+ If a person grasps the forms of that land: Since it has been clarified that the essence of this Pure Land is ultimate truth and not a conditioned form, if a person grasps that Pure Land as being the same as conditioned forms, that person speaks untruthfully.

+ “As stated in the sutra,” and so forth: This introduces the subsequent passage to explain the doubt arising in the following section of the sutra, confirming what was stated above: to grasp conditioned forms as the true Pure Land is to speak untruthfully. Therefore, this sutra passage is cited again.

+ Here, however, the sutra elucidates adornment through conditioned forms. This is not the true Pure Land. Therefore, one should not regard what is fabricated as the genuine Pure Land.

+ Why is it stated thus? The latter half of the verse is about to be used to explain the preceding passage of scripture; therefore, it first begins with a question. Question: This passage of scripture has clearly spoken of adorning the Buddha-land. It further says that this is not adornment. Why are these statements contradictory? The author of the Treatise answers with the verse:

Neither form nor appearance; the foremost Essence;

That which is not adornment.

(It is neither form nor appearance; its Essence is the truth of the ultimate meaning.

That which is not adornment is precisely adornment.)

+ Adornment is of two kinds: This explains and sets forth the two kinds of adornment mentioned in the verse.

+ Furthermore, it is not adornment: Above, the scripture and the verse were correlated to set forth the names of the two kinds of adornment. They are now explained in sequence.

+ Furthermore, it is not adornment... through: Therefore, it is not adornment: This explains the passage in the scripture: “The Tathagata says that adorning the Buddha-land is not adornment.” It also explains the words in the verse: “Neither form nor adornment.” That is, of the two kinds just set forth, the first is form and appearance.

+ Thus, non-adornment... through: The accomplishment of adornment: This explains the passage in the scripture: “That is called adornment,” and explains the meaning of the verse: “The foremost Essence is adornment.” That is, of the two kinds of adornment, the second is the characteristic of the ultimate meaning.

+ If a person discriminates concerning the Buddha-land... through: And gives rise to such a mind: From here onward, the purpose is to explain the scriptural words, “One should thus give rise to a pure mind and not abide in the three matters,” thereby revealing that one who abides in and clings to the three matters cannot attain the true Pure Land.

If someone gives rise to a discriminating mind, regards the Buddha-land as conditioned form and appearance, and cultivates while abiding in the three matters and practicing with attachment, believing that he has thereby attained the genuine Pure Land, then that person is not cultivating the cause of the true Pure Land.

In order to prevent such an idea, the passage that follows formally sets forth that one who wishes to cultivate the cause of the Pure Land must not abide in or cling to the three matters. The scripture is used to summarize this; its meaning can readily be understood.

+ It was previously said: The Buddha’s reward body experiences bliss: The second verse is now about to be composed to explain the scriptural analogy of the king of mountains. The two doubts raised above are reiterated, and the similarity between the Buddha’s reward body and the king of mountains is introduced in order to give rise to the following verse.

+ What is the meaning of this? Here it is asked in what respect the Dharma and the analogy resemble each other, in response to the question concerning their meaning. The author of the Treatise answers with the verse: “Like the king of mountains, it does not apprehend.” This verse explains the scriptural passage from “Suppose there were a person...” through “That is called a great body,” in order to answer the two subsequent doubts.

+ Like the king of mountains: This means like Mount Sumeru, the king of mountains. Since it is foremost among the ten mountains, it is called the king.

+ Does not apprehend: Mount Sumeru, the king of mountains, is an indeterminate, insentient object and has no mind with which to consider itself: “I am the king of mountains, surpassing the other nine mountains.” Therefore, the verse says: “Like the king of mountains, it does not apprehend.”

+ The experience of the reward is likewise: This line applies the analogy of the king of mountains. It should say: “The Buddha’s reward body, in its experience of bliss, is likewise.” However, because the verse is limited in the number of syllables, it is stated in abbreviated form. This reveals that the Buddha’s reward body, in its experience of bliss, has attained immeasurable merits such as the ten Powers, the four Fearlessnesses, and so forth; that it is always sovereign within the Dharma and surpasses all the noble ones, and therefore is called the king. Because its mind neither discriminates nor apprehends characteristics, it also does not think: “I am the Dharma King.” Therefore, the verse says: “The experience of the reward is likewise.”

Here the author of the Treatise raises an objection: The king of mountains has no mind and therefore does not apprehend itself as “I am the king of mountains.” But the Buddha’s reward body has a mind; why does it not regard itself as the Dharma King? Therefore, the latter half of the verse answers:

Far removed from all outflows,

And from all conditioned dharmas.

+ Far removed from all outflows: This clarifies that the Buddha’s reward body has permanently eradicated discrimination with respect to the two obstructions and has completely abandoned the cause of apprehending the characteristics of the outflows.

+ And from all conditioned dharmas: This reveals that it has not only abandoned the cause of apprehending characteristics but has also abandoned the conditioned result of apprehending characteristics.

Because discriminative apprehension of characteristics has been permanently and completely eradicated, it does not apprehend itself as the Dharma King. It is not like Mount Sumeru, the king of mountains, which does not apprehend because it has no mind. This clarifies that the Buddha’s reward body, in its Essence, has transcended the conditioned domain of the causes and effects of birth and death. It is therefore quiescent and permanently abiding, not produced by the three characteristics; hence it is called unconditioned and is also called free from outflows.

+ What is the meaning of this? The prose passage in the Treatise, from its beginning through “Because there is no discrimination,” explains the first half of the verse, showing the similarity in meaning between the king of mountains and the Buddha’s reward body—the analogy and the Dharma. Then, from “As stated in the scripture” onward, the passage is cited to explain the doubt concerning the quoted scriptural section, concluding and confirming that the Buddha’s reward body and the king of mountains share the meaning of non-discrimination. Next, the doubt is raised and the question concerning this scriptural passage is asked again, after which each point is explained separately.

+ Why is it set forth thus? This asks why, in this scriptural passage, the Buddha says, “It is not a body,” and then calls it “a great body.” Why are two indeterminate statements made here? The latter half of the verse is used to answer:

Far removed from all outflows,

And from all conditioned dharmas.

+ The Buddha’s reward body, in its experience of bliss, has an Essence free from all outflows: This passage explains the verse and reveals that the Buddha’s reward body is free from the two obstructions among the outflows and has no discriminating mind that apprehends characteristics; therefore, it does not apprehend itself as the Dharma King.

+ If so, then there is no existent thing: If the Essence of the Buddha’s reward body is thus free from the two obstructions among the outflows, then it contains none of the myriad conditioned characteristics nor the entity of a false self. Therefore, the following line says: “Because it is far removed from conditioned dharmas.”

This explains the scriptural passage: “The Buddha says that it is not a body.”

+ If so, then it is called an existent thing: If the Essence of the Buddha’s reward body is thus complete with the two kinds of adornment, then it possesses the myriad unconditioned virtues and the entity of the true self. It may therefore also be said: If so, then it is without the characteristic of a false self; it is thus the entity of the true reward body. Therefore, the following line says: “Because there is only the pure body.” This explains the scriptural passage: “That is called a great body.”

+ Because of this meaning, the Essence of the self truly exists: Because the absence of an entity means that there is only the pure body, the Buddha’s reward body truly exists as a wondrous, permanently abiding body, complete in its Essence of the true self with the eight masteries.

+ Because it does not depend upon other conditions in order to abide: This reveals that the Essence of the true self in the Buddha’s reward body does not arise from causes and conditions.

5. The Buddha said to Venerable Subhuti: “Consider the quantity of sand presently found in the Ganges River”: This is the fifth scriptural passage in the Section on Comparison. It sets forth the second analogy in the comparison involving the giving of external objects.

+ This second analogy is presented for the following reason: Although it was previously explained that the merit of receiving and upholding a verse from this sutra far surpasses the merit gained by giving enough of the seven treasures to fill the three-thousandfold world-system, that comparison alone, though completed, gives rise to another doubt: Although the Tathagata has already extensively explained above that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra is greater than that of giving the seven treasures, confirming that what was previously stated cannot be grasped or expressed, the meaning of “greater” admits many distinctions.

It may be called greater because it surpasses the other by an immeasurable amount. Or it may be called greater merely because it surpasses a lesser share of what is foremost. It is not yet clear whether it is greater because it exceeds the lesser share represented by two thousand or three thousand worlds, or whether it is greater because it exceeds immeasurably many world-systems, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, and is inexhaustible.

If it is called greater merely because it exceeds a lesser share—that is, if it can only exceed the merit pertaining to these three thousand worlds—then the merit of giving the seven treasures would be limited and would not be infinitely profound and supreme. To eliminate this doubt, the Buddha replied with the intention of making clear that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra does not merely surpass the merit of giving the seven treasures throughout the three-thousandfold world-system.

Even if one were to give enough of the seven treasures to fill immeasurably many world-systems, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, this would still not equal the merit of receiving, upholding, reading, and reciting a single four-line verse from this sutra. How much less could it fail to surpass the supposedly lesser merit of giving throughout the three-thousandfold world-system? Therefore, this analogy of the sands of the Ganges is presented to resolve that doubt.

How does it resolve the doubt? Here, “greater” means that it is greater because it is immeasurable, not merely because it exceeds a lesser share.

Furthermore, although receiving and upholding a single verse involves little text and does not require much effort, it serves as a supreme cause of unsurpassed Buddhahood. Although giving the seven treasures and so forth involves abundant objects and much effort, it entails attachment to characteristics and brings only the conditioned fruits of the mundane world; therefore, it cannot equal the former.

However, in the preceding passage concerning the giving of enough of the seven treasures to fill the three-thousandfold world-system, it merely said, “used for giving,” without stating to whom the gifts were given. Here, in the case of giving the seven treasures throughout immeasurably many world-systems, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, it is clearly stated that they are given to all Buddhas, the Tathagatas. Since the objects given are abundant, the resulting merit is also greater, yet it still does not equal the merit of receiving and upholding a single verse. How much less could the smaller gift of the seven treasures throughout the three-thousandfold world-system equal it?

Moreover, the preceding section did not distinguish how merit acquired through “grasping” could be regarded as great. Therefore, the comparison is expanded to clarify the surpassing excellence of the other merit.

+ The sands of the Ganges: The Ganges flows from the Cool Lake into the Eastern Sea. It is eighty-four thousand yojanas long and forty li wide, though in some places it is ten li wide. Because it flows through a region of sandy mountains, it has broad banks of white sand.

Its water is likewise white, resembling milk, but becomes clear when taken out of the river. This river is extremely deep. Elephants, horses, and carts entering it would all sink.

All ordinary beings and followers of the Two Vehicles are unable to calculate or know the number of grains of sand in this river. Only the Buddhas know it clearly. Bodhisattvas at the First Bhumi and above can also calculate and know whether their number is greater or lesser.

Although bodhisattvas at the stage of spiritual disposition cannot calculate and know it, because they have refrained from false speech from one great asamkhyeya kalpa onward, they can, at that time, state the correct number immediately without reflection. Since the sand in that river is such, it is cited as an analogy. Furthermore, all the people of India have seen this river, and thus it is frequently used as an analogy in the sutras.

Taking each grain of sand in that river to represent another river, even if one were to give to all Buddhas enough of the seven treasures to fill as many three-thousandfold great-thousand world-systems as there are grains of sand in all those Ganges Rivers, this still would not equal the merit of receiving and upholding a single verse.

– The Treatise states: Previously, an analogy was already given for the greatest amount of merit. Why is it spoken of again here? This explains: Previously, the giving of enough of the seven treasures to fill the three-thousandfold world-system was compared with receiving and upholding a single four-line verse from the sutra and found unequal to it. Why, then, is the analogy of the sands of the Ganges presented here? Because there is such an objection, the verse replies: “The statement of greatness has distinct meanings.”

+ “The statement of greatness has distinct meanings”: The author of the Treatise composed this verse to resolve the preceding doubt and clarify what is meant by “greatness.” It is said to be so because the finite and the infinite are different. Thus, this analogy is used again to make clear that this limitless giving differs from the merit pertaining to the three-thousandfold world-system. Therefore, it says: “The statement of greatness has distinct meanings.”

+ “Together they establish the surpassing comparison”: Although the analogy of the three-thousandfold world-system was previously used in comparison and was found unequal to the merit of receiving and upholding a single verse, it still did not fully reveal the established meaning of that surpassing comparison. Now the analogy of the sands of the Ganges is again used to compare the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra, making clear that although the merit from giving the seven treasures throughout immeasurably many world-systems, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, is vast, it is merit involving attachment to characteristics and yields mundane retribution, and therefore must ultimately come to an end.

The merit of receiving and upholding the sutra, however, brings the inexhaustible blessed reward of unsurpassed Buddhahood. This precisely reveals the superiority of the merit gained by receiving and upholding the sutra. Therefore, the merit of receiving and upholding a single four-line verse far surpasses the merit of the two kinds of giving described above.

Upon hearing this, another doubt arises: The doctrine of this sutra is clearly so profound and important, but it is not yet clear whether only the merit of receiving and upholding a single verse from this sutra surpasses the merit of the two kinds of giving described above, or whether it also surpasses other deeds. That is, is the meaning of the comparison complete or incomplete? Therefore, the reply makes clear that it is not only one who receives and upholds the sutra who gains immeasurable merit.

If someone merely reveres the place where this sutra is taught and respectfully makes offerings to the person able to expound it, that person also gains immeasurable and boundless merit, far surpassing the merit of giving throughout the two kinds of world-systems mentioned above—the three-thousandfold world-system and the world-systems as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. Hence, offerings are encouraged: the two objects connected with the teaching of this sutra are superior to the two objects to which material wealth may be given.

Because the person who receives and upholds the sutra and the place where the sutra is taught should be esteemed, this subject is explained next.

+ This passage of the sutra contains six sections:

1. Revering the place where the Dharma is taught.

2. Paying respect to the person able to expound it.

3. Asking about the title of the sutra and the method of receiving and upholding it.

4. Explaining that all Buddhas of the three times expound this sutra, and that it is not taught by only one particular Buddha.

5. Clarifying the two analogies of the dust motes and the world-system in order to resolve the doubt arising from the preceding analogy of the sands of the Ganges.

6. Explaining that the thirty-two marks, as the merit of the assisting cause and skillful means, also cannot equal the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra, which is the primary cause.

1. Revering the place where the Dharma is taught: From the words, “Furthermore, Venerable Subhuti…” through “like a shrine of the Buddha”:

+ Wherever this sutra is presently expounded: This means in whatever place it may be. Whether in a lecture hall, a village, a marshland, or an open and deserted plain—wherever the Diamond Prajnaparamita Sutra is expounded.

+ The reason that devas, human beings, and asuras are here exhorted to make offerings at the place where the Dharma is taught is to make clear that the devas, human beings, and asuras attain the karmic rewards of the five kinds of supreme sensual pleasure entirely because, relying upon the Prajnaparamita Sutra, they cultivate the five precepts and the ten wholesome deeds, and thereby acquire such merit. Therefore, they are exhorted to make offerings at the place where the Dharma is taught.

+ Like a Buddha stupa or shrine: This means that one is exhorted to make offerings at the place where this sutra is expounded, regarding this as making offerings at a stupa or shrine in which relics—the physical remains left by a Buddha's manifested transformation body—are enshrined. Thus, the exhortation means: Making offerings at the place where this sutra is expounded is also like making offerings to the sutra itself. The Nirvana Sutra states: “One should know that this place is itself vajra,” thereby making clear that this very ground is sacred ground.

Strictly speaking, it should not be said here: Like a Buddha stupa or shrine. The reason is that what this sutra expounds is the Dharma body, whereas the relics within a stupa are merely remains of a Buddha's manifested transformation body and therefore cannot be compared with the Dharma body. Hence, in the Larger Prajnaparamita Sutra, the Buddha said to Sakra: “Let relics sufficient to fill the entire three-thousand-great-thousand world constitute one portion, and let a single casket containing this Maha Prajnaparamita Sutra constitute another portion.

Of these two portions, which would you choose?” Sakra said to the Buddha: “I would choose this portion containing the Prajnaparamita Sutra. It is not that I do not revere the Tathagata's relics, but relics exist only because of the Prajnaparamita. Moreover, it is through the merit of cultivating the Prajnaparamita that the relics come to be venerated.

Therefore, I choose the sutra and do not choose the relics.” Since relics cannot equal the sutra, it should therefore not have been said: “Make offerings at the place where the sutra is expounded as though making offerings at a stupa or shrine.”

Nevertheless, the sutra states this because people in the world generally revere stupas and shrines as visible representations of the relics; it therefore exhorts them to make offerings at the open ground—the place where the Dharma is taught—as though making offerings at a stupa or shrine.

2. Reverence toward one capable of expounding the sutra: From the passage, “How much more so if there is someone...” through: “Revere that person as a Buddha.”

+ How much more so if there is someone fully capable of accepting, retaining, reading, and reciting this sutra: Whether an ordinary person or a noble being, if one is able to accept, retain, and expound this sutra, or to inspire others to make offerings, one should know that this person has accomplished the foremost, supreme, and rare merit. Previously, it was made clear that even the place where a four-line verse is expounded should be venerated, bringing abundant merit. How much more so, then, if there is a person fully capable of accepting, retaining, reading, and reciting this sutra, or of inspiring others to make offerings? One should know that the merit attained by that person is all the greater and immeasurable.

+ Supreme and rare merit: This makes clear that by making offerings to one who accepts and retains the sutra, one immediately gains the karmic reward associated with the first bodhisattva bhumi and above, and ultimately attains Buddhahood. Therefore, this is the foremost, supreme, and rare merit.

This foremost, supreme, and rare quality is of two kinds. The first is explained in terms of the world: the latter terms explain those preceding them. There is also another explanation. “Utmost” means that nothing can be greater. “Supreme” means that nothing can surpass it. “Foremost” means that it is not shared with the lower bhumis. “Rare” means that it does not exist in the ordinary world. This fully elucidates the person who accepts and retains the sutra. The sutra states: “Attains that supreme merit, and so forth”; therefore, one is exhorted to make offerings to the person who accepts and retains the sutra.

+ Wherever this scripture may be present: This makes clear that the person who accepts and retains the sutra is himself the abiding place of the sutra.

+ There is the Buddha: This explains the exhortation to make offerings to the person who accepts and retains the sutra. There is no need to ask whether that person is an ordinary person or a noble being; if the person is able to accept and retain this sutra, those making offerings are exhorted to regard that person as the Buddha.

+ The reason is this: While the Tathagata was in the world, he personally expounded this sutra to teach and transform sentient beings, enabling them to awaken. In the final age, if someone accords with the Buddha's intent and accepts and retains this sutra, that person is no different from the Buddha. Although that person is an ordinary being and is not called a Buddha, he causes the Mahayana Dharma to circulate, teaches the Dharma to transform others, enables them to give rise to understanding, eliminate delusion, and realize the noble fruit. In this respect, he is partly the same as the Buddha; therefore, one is exhorted to make offerings to him as to the Buddha. The sutra states: “The persons there are also vajra,” making clear that the person at that place is a venerable person.

It is further explained that what this sutra reveals is the ultimate and true Dharma body; therefore, it is also said: There is the Buddha.

+ Or revere that person as a Buddha: This refers to a bodhisattva. It makes clear that a great bodhisattva mahasattva has attained the wisdom that eliminates delusions, expounds the Dharma to liberate beings, and benefits both self and others. Such a bodhisattva has also partly attained omniscience, and that aspect of awakening is the same as the Buddha's; therefore, the bodhisattva is called “like a Buddha.” This elucidates that the merit of one who accepts and retains this sutra in teaching and liberating the myriad beings is equal to that of a bodhisattva. Therefore, one is exhorted to make offerings to the person who accepts and retains the sutra as one would make offerings to a bodhisattva. Hence it is written: Revere that person as a Buddha.

3. The question concerning the title of the sutra and the manner of accepting and retaining it: From the passage, “At that time, Venerable Subhuti said to the Buddha...” through: “Is not Prajnaparamita.”

+ The reason the title of the sutra is asked here: Venerable Subhuti reflected that, although the Tathagata had above praised the sutra's profound and wondrous principle, exhorted people to accept and retain it, make offerings at the place where the Dharma is taught, and revere those who accept and retain the sutra, he himself now wished to accept and retain it and ensure its circulation in the final age, so as to teach, transform, and benefit all beings. If he did not know the sutra's title and did not understand the method of accepting and retaining it, he would have no basis upon which to expound it, teach and transform beings, and benefit the myriad creatures. Therefore, he asked about the title of the sutra.

+ The Buddha told Venerable Subhuti: This Dharma gate is called the Vajra Prajnaparamita. You should honor and retain it according to this title: This answers the question concerning the title of the sutra.

+ Vajra: Means firm and real.

+ Prajna: Is the Tathagata's fruit of wisdom that clearly illuminates all characteristics of dharmas.

+ Paramita: Means reaching the other shore.

Here, the Tathagata's wisdom is the merit that has reached the other shore, and its essence is firm and real like vajra. Therefore, it is called the Vajra Prajnaparamita.

+ You should honor and retain it according to this title: The sutra is named on the basis of its wondrous principle. It is also called the Vajra Prajnaparamita; therefore, Venerable Subhuti was told to accept and retain it according to that title, so as to teach and transform the myriad beings and propagate it in the final age.

+ Why? The reason this question “Why?” is raised is that, upon hearing the title of the sutra, Venerable Subhuti should have asked the Blessed One: Why is this sutra called the Vajra Prajnaparamita? However, he only conceived the thought and had not yet voiced the question.

Therefore, the question was asked directly: Why? The answer is: The Buddha speaks of Prajnaparamita as not being Prajnaparamita, and so forth. Here the Tathagata explains the sutra's title by means of conventional distinctions.

This makes clear that this sutra expounds the wisdom of awakening to the Tathagata's unconditioned Dharma body. This wisdom is precisely the fruit attained by the Tathagata and is the merit of steadfast awakened wisdom; therefore, it is said: The Buddha speaks of Prajnaparamita. Yet this awakened wisdom is precisely the Buddha's domain and is not an object of cognition for ordinary beings or followers of the two vehicles.

Therefore, it is said: It is not Prajnaparamita. Because it is the Tathagata's domain and is not attained by others, it is called the Vajra Prajnaparamita.

4. The Buddhas of the ten directions and the three times all expound this sutra: From the passage, “Venerable Subhuti! What do you think?…” through the passage, “The Tathagata has not taught any Dharma”: This is the second occasion in this sutra on which the absence of any teaching of Dharma is discussed.

+ Above, in the sixth section, it was said: “There is no fixed Dharma that the Tathagata can teach.” This makes clear that the manifested Buddha does not truly attain anything or truly expound anything; hence it is called “not teaching the Dharma.” Here, Venerable Subhuti says: “World-Honored One! The Tathagata has not taught any Dharma.” The scriptural passages in these two places both explain the meaning pertaining to the great fruit.

Next, the preceding passage of the sutra says: “Why is this? Because the Buddha teaches that paramita is not paramita.” This explains that this Vajra Prajnaparamita is the realm of the Tathagata and is not attainable by others. This gives rise to a doubt: Is it only Tathagata Shakyamuni who alone realized and alone expounded it, while the other Buddhas did not?

Yet here it is stated that all Buddhas throughout the ten directions realize it together and expound it together. Since the phrase “others” could cause confusion, it must be explained and clarified. A question and answer should occur here, but they are not explicitly set forth; instead, the direct question is asked: “Subhuti!

What do you think? Has the Tathagata taught any Dharma?” Venerable Subhuti understood the Tathagata’s intent and therefore replied: “World-Honored One! The Tathagata has not taught any Dharma.” This makes clear that this sutra provides the supreme cause for attaining the Dharma of the manifest fruit of the Buddhas of the three times.

All Buddhas of the three times expound it together. All of us, through receiving and upholding the Vajra Prajnaparamita Sutra, are therefore able to arouse the aspiration for bodhi, rely upon this sutra to cultivate and practice the ten bhumis, attain complete and perfect enlightenment, realize it together, and expound it together—neither more nor less, neither increasing nor decreasing. It is not that Tathagata Shakyamuni alone, as an individual self, realized and expounded it.

Hence it is called “not having taught any Dharma.” In the Mahasamnipata Sutra, the Buddha himself said: “From the night when I attained the Way until the night when I entered nirvana, throughout that interval I did not teach a single word.” Yet throughout the Tathagata’s lifetime he expounded immeasurable sutras; why, then, is it said that he did not teach a single word? This makes clear that the twelve divisions of scripture expounded by the Tathagata today do not differ from what all Buddhas of the three times expound together.

Of what the Buddhas throughout the ten directions expound, I now do not separately expound even a single word.

There is also another explanation: “From the night when the Tathagata attained the Way until nirvana, he did not teach even a single word.” This clarifies that the Dharma realized is devoid of name and characteristic; the path of language is cut off, and the domain of mental activity is utterly stilled. It cannot be expressed by names (Name) or forms and characteristics (Characteristic). Hence it is called “not teaching a single word.”

5. Venerable Subhuti! What do you think? Are the particles of dust present in a trichiliocosm numerous? This is the third analogy in the section on counteraction, explaining the second analogy stated earlier concerning the sands of the Ganges. It also explains collectively the first preceding analogy concerning the trichiliocosm.

The doubt raised is this: In the two preceding analogies, acts of giving of an exceedingly great magnitude were used. Why, then, is the resulting merit so small that it does not equal the merit of receiving and upholding a single verse? Receiving and upholding one verse of the sutra requires very little effort; how can it produce merit greater than that of giving, which was immeasurable and boundless?

Because of this doubt, this analogy is presented to explain that receiving and upholding the sutra produces abundant merit. It thus makes clear that, although the merit of giving is great, its cause is contaminated, still defiled by the afflictions, and its fruit is a dharma belonging to the three realms, incapable of leading beyond them; therefore, it is inferior. It also makes clear that, although receiving and upholding a single verse is a small act, it enables one to transcend the three realms and will ultimately lead to the attainment of Buddhahood.

Its cause is uncontaminated and no longer defiled by the afflictions, while its fruit is liberation; therefore, it surpasses the merit of giving. Hence the analogy of particles of dust is presented to explain this doubt, counteracting the view that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra and that of giving are not different in superiority and inferiority.

Why are external, morally indeterminate particles of dust employed as an analogy? It is an explanation based on worldly convention, making clear that the term “particles of dust” applies both to what is morally determinate and to what is morally indeterminate.

+ When “particles of dust” is stated directly: They may be called afflictions. They may be called defilement. They may be called bondage. They may be called objects of cognition. They are also called nature. They are also called impurity. They are also called dust. They are also called pollution. There are innumerable names such as these.

+ When “particles of dust” is discussed extensively: There are also the dust particles—the dust particles—of the afflictions. There are also the particles of earth. Because these two names resemble one another, and because their names and meanings are likewise the same, the particles of earth are therefore used as an analogy.

This clarifies that although the two preceding acts of giving the seven precious substances produced abundant merit, because the mind performing the giving was a mind that grasped characteristics and was conjoined with afflictions such as greed, it constituted the dust and impurities of the afflictions. Its nature did not lead to transcendence; therefore, it was inferior. The merit of receiving and upholding a single verse of the sutra has as its cause the non-grasping of characteristics and as its fruit liberation; therefore, it is superior.

+ “Are they numerous?” Here the Tathagata asks Venerable Subhuti: “Are the particles of dust present in the trichiliocosm numerous?” Venerable Subhuti replied: “World-Honored One! Those particles of dust are exceedingly numerous!”

Here Venerable Subhuti respectfully replies to the Tathagata, making clear that such particles of dust are exceedingly numerous.

+ “Those particles of dust, the Tathagata teaches, are not particles of dust”: This makes clear that particles of earth are morally indeterminate and are not the particles of the defilements and afflictions. “Not” is stated because their nature is empty; hence they are said to be “not.” Yet they are not entirely nonexistent. They are merely not the particles of the defilements and afflictions; hence “not” is stated.

+ “They are called particles of dust”: That is, they are called the morally indeterminate particles of earth in the trichiliocosm. They may also be called “not particles” of the defilements and afflictions.

+ The reason a fourth analogy, concerning the world, is also introduced: The preceding passage spoke from the standpoint of the subtle, whereas here the explanation is given on the basis of the coarse. Although the coarse and the subtle differ, their names and meanings are the same. The term also applies equally to what is morally determinate and what is morally indeterminate, no differently from the analogy of dust. Moreover, because the explanation follows worldly convention, the names are not the same.

6. Venerable Subhuti! What do you think?

Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the thirty-two marks?: Why is this passage presented here? Previously it was made clear that the merit of the two kinds of giving that grasp characteristics produces only the conditioned rewards of devas and humans within the three realms and does not equal the merit of one who receives and upholds the sutra. Yet it is still unknown whether the meritorious expedient causes of the thirty-two marks of a Great Man possessed by the Buddha’s reward body—the myriad practices of the ten bhumis—are likewise uncontaminated, supramundane merit.

Why, then, would they be like the merit of one who receives and upholds the sutra? This question arises because, as the Tathagata himself says in the sutras: “In the past, because I bowed my head in reverence to my parents, teachers, and elders, I have now obtained the mark of the ‘invisible crown of the head.’ Because, when I saw others obtain merit, I rejoiced in and supported their deeds, I obtained the mark of webbing between the fingers of my hands.

Because, from three great asamkhyeya kalpas ago onward, I never spoke falsely, I obtained the mark of a long, broad tongue.” Clearly, all such marks were also produced by supreme, uncontaminated causes. Is that cause the same as the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra, or is it different?

Because there was such a doubt, the Buddha asked Venerable Subhuti: Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the thirty-two marks of a Great Man? The intent of the answer is to clarify: Not only is giving the seven treasures throughout worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, when performed with the practice of grasping at characteristics, inferior to the merit of receiving and retaining a single verse from this sutra, but even the supreme cause—the meritorious expedient means leading to the thirty-two marks of a Great Man possessed by the Buddha’s Reward Body—is inferior to the merit of receiving and retaining a single verse from this sutra.

There is a further objection: The cause of the thirty-two marks of a Great Man is a revealing cause. Receiving and retaining this sutra is also a revealing cause. Since both are revealing causes, why is the merit of receiving and retaining it superior to the merit of the marks of a Great Man?

+ The answer should therefore be: The reason is that this scriptural teaching arose from within the Dharma-body, is a part of the Dharma-body, and in turn expounds the Dharma-body. By means of that which expounds it, one realizes the Dharma-body. Although it is said that one receives and retains the scriptural teaching, the intent lies in the wondrous principle expounded, which is the object of realization. Therefore, one who receives and retains this sutra receives the Dharma-body itself and is thus superior to the merit of the marks of a Great Man. It is not that the revealing cause is the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra; that meaning is merely secondary.

+ What do you think, Venerable One? Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the thirty-two marks of a Great Man?: The Buddha was asking Venerable Subhuti, according to the understanding within the Venerable One’s mind, whether the Tathagata of the Dharma-body—which has always been definitively like empty space—could be seen by means of the thirty-two marks of a Great Man possessed by the Buddha’s Reward Body. Thus it is written: Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the thirty-two marks of a Great Man?

+ Venerable Subhuti replied: No, Bhagavan. This clarifies that the meanings of the Dharma-body and the Reward Body differ, and that what is attained through cultivation also differs from what is not attained through cultivation. Therefore, the Tathagata of the Dharma-body cannot be seen by means of the excellent marks of the Buddha’s Reward Body. Here, because the designation “Tathagata” is the same, it is explained in this way.

+ Why is that? Some, because of this, might give rise to doubt: If the Tathagata of the Dharma-body cannot be seen by means of the thirty-two marks of a Great Man possessed by the Buddha’s Reward Body, why did the Tathagata himself say: “Having cultivated fully throughout three great asamkhyeya kalpas, after the vajra-like mind I revealed the originally existent Dharma-body and took it as the Buddha’s Reward Body”? At that time, the two Buddhas—the Dharma-body Buddha and the Reward-body Buddha—were one in essence, without difference.

Why, then, is it said that the Dharma-body Buddha cannot be seen by means of the marks of a Great Man possessed by the Buddha’s Reward Body? Therefore it is written: Why is that? Venerable Subhuti replied: The thirty-two marks of a Great Man spoken of by the Tathagata…

+ The thirty-two marks of a Great Man: These are the marks attained through cultivation by the Buddha’s Reward Body. Therefore, the Tathagata spoke of them as the thirty-two marks of a Great Man possessed by the Buddha’s Reward Body.

+ Are precisely non-marks: This clarifies that the thirty-two marks of a Great Man attained by the Buddha’s Reward Body are not the marks of the Dharma-body, which has always been definitively so. Why? Although the two Buddhas—the Dharma-body Buddha and the Reward-body Buddha—are one in essence and without difference, one cannot use the marks of the Buddha’s Reward Body to see the Dharma-body, which has always been definitively like empty space.

Even if one cultivates the practices of the ten bhumis, it cannot be seen by means of material form and characteristics. If one does not cultivate the practices of the ten bhumis, it likewise cannot be seen by means of material form and characteristics. Because those thirty-two marks of a Great Man are not the marks of the Dharma-body, it is said: They are precisely non-marks.

Because of this distinct meaning of the marks, one cannot use the marks attained through cultivation by the Buddha’s Reward Body to see the unconditioned Dharma-body Buddha.

The foregoing compares the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra as superior, equal, or dissimilar. Yet the two Buddhas—the Dharma-body and the Reward Body—do not differ in essence, and there is no distinction of superior and inferior between them.

+ The reason it is stated, “The Dharma-body Buddha cannot be seen by means of the marks of a Great Man possessed by the Buddha’s Reward Body,” is that some, because of this, might give rise to doubt: If those thirty-two marks of a Great Man do not belong to the Dharma-body Buddha, are all thirty-two marks of a Great Man therefore not marks? The answer is: They are called the thirty-two marks of a Great Man—that is, the thirty-two marks of a Great Man possessed by the Buddha’s Reward Body.

Those marks may also be called “not the marks of the Dharma-body.” This discussion considers one aspect according to the distinct meaning of the marks of the two Buddhas—the Dharma-body and the Reward Body—and does not speak in terms of a one-sided meaning. Thus they are called the marks of a Great Man possessed by the Buddha’s Reward Body.

– The Treatise states: How is it established that the merit in question is superior? The author of the Treatise is about to use a verse to explain this passage of the sutra. First, he poses a question that gives rise to doubt. The question is: Regarding this passage of the sutra, how is it established that the aforementioned merit of receiving and retaining the sutra is superior to the merit of giving the seven treasures? He then answers by means of a verse. This entire passage of the sutra is explained by only one verse in the Treatise.

+ Reverence in two respects: This line of verse explains two matters: the person and the place associated with the sutra. First, it explains reverence for the place where the Dharma is taught. Second, it explains respect for the person capable of teaching it.

Here it should properly say: “Reverence in two respects, because the cause cultivated realizes the great essence.” It should also say: “No reverence in two respects, because that cause cultivates the afflictions”: first, no reverence for the place where gifts are relinquished; second, no respect for the person who relinquishes gifts. However, because the verse is limited in its number of lines and words, these points are omitted and not discussed.

+ Because the cause cultivated realizes the great essence: This explains the aforementioned reverence in two respects.

+ The reason only the person and place where the Dharma is taught are said to be worthy of reverence, while the person and place associated with relinquishing gifts are not, is that, by receiving, retaining, and practicing the four-line verse of this sutra, one can realize the great essence of the Dharma-body. Therefore, only the person and place where the Dharma is taught are said to be worthy of reverence, while the person and place associated with relinquishing material possessions are not mentioned.

Furthermore, the second line of this verse, based on the prose passage that follows in the Treatise, is elaborated in sequence and therefore explains two passages of the sutra: the inquiry concerning the name of the sutra, and the Tathagata’s not having taught any Dharma.

+ That cause cultivates the afflictions: This clarifies that although the giving of the seven treasures may be vast, its merit belongs to the category of grasping at characteristics; it is a cause for existence among gods and humans and is a defiled, binding dharma. Therefore, it is said: “That cause cultivates the afflictions,” and it does not say that the place and person associated with relinquishing wealth are worthy of reverence.

+ This merit subdues defilement: This clarifies that the cause of the thirty-two marks is superior to the previously mentioned merit of giving while grasping at characteristics. Yet although the merit of the thirty-two marks is superior to that earlier merit of giving, it is still inferior to the merit of receiving and retaining a single verse from the sutra. This makes clear that the merit of receiving and retaining this sutra is not only superior to a contaminated cause but also vastly superior to the expedient cause of the marks of a Great Man. Therefore, it is said: “This merit subdues defilement.”

+ From the words, “What is the meaning of this?” onward: This explains that single verse and also explains the sutra in sequence.

+ Reverence in two respects: This is the preceding line in the presentation of the verse, explaining the first and second statements related to the sutra: first, the place where the teaching is expounded; second, the person capable of expounding it. The preceding line speaks of reverence for the place. It is now repeatedly brought forth because, out of reverence for the Sutra and the Treatise, the person and place are mentioned and people are encouraged to make offerings to them.

+ Not the seven treasures, and so forth: Because the merit of giving the seven treasures is a cause of the afflictions, people are not encouraged to make offerings to the person and place associated with relinquishing wealth.

+ This Dharma gate, together with all realized dharmas, produces a superior cause: This uses the explanation of the second line of the verse to explain the third and fourth subsidiary passages of the sutra, clarifying that the Buddhas of the ten directions say: “Because we all receive and uphold this Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra, we understand the unconditioned Dharma-body and realize great bodhi”; therefore, they all teach it alike.

+ As the sutra continues below… up to: “The Tathagata has not taught any Dharma”: This cites the sutra in summary, after which it is further explained.

+ What does this mean?: This section of the sutra states that the Tathagata has not taught any Dharma. The author of the treatise then explains this by presenting the Dharma realized by the Buddhas of the ten directions as the superior cause of their teaching it alike.

What does this mean? It explains: There is no Dharma taught exclusively by this Tathagata that the other Buddhas do not teach. Thus, the statement that the Tathagata has not taught any Dharma can be explained. The sutra presents the Buddhas of the ten directions as the superior cause of their teaching it alike.

“The jewels,” and so forth, in the sutra are a cause of the defilements of affliction: This explains the third line of the verse and also the fifth subsidiary passage of the sutra.

+ The merit from giving those jewels is a cause of the defilements of affliction: This sets forth the meaning that the merit from giving the seven precious substances creates a conditioned cause.

+ Because it can bring about matters of affliction: This clarifies that the result attained from the preceding cause is the result consisting of the five skandhas of devas and humans within the three realms.

+ This cause is far removed from the cause of affliction: This explains that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra is not a cause of affliction.

+ Therefore: The merit from giving the seven precious substances is a cause of affliction. The merit from receiving and upholding the sutra is not a cause of affliction. Thus, the analogy of the motes of dust of the earth is presented to clarify that those motes of earthly dust are minute particles, not causes of defilement. This demonstrates that the merit from giving the seven precious substances spoken of in the sutra is also called “dust,” but it is a cause of defilement and is therefore inferior to the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra.

“As the sutra states,” and so forth, cites the passage concerning the motes of dust and the world in the sutra as a summary conclusion.

+ Why is it spoken of in this way?: This asks why the passage of the sutra just cited calls them motes of dust and then says, “The Tathagata says they are not motes of dust.” Why are such contradictory statements presented?

The explanation is: Those motes of dust are not the substance of afflictions such as greed. This clarifies that the motes of earthly dust within the three-thousandfold world are not the defiling dust of afflictions such as greed and anger; hence it is said: “They are not motes of dust.”

+ Because of this meaning, they are called motes of earthly dust: Because the motes of earthly dust are morally indeterminate and are not “dust” in the sense of greed and the like, they can only be called motes of earthly dust.

+ The meaning of the world is also the same as that of the motes of dust. What meaning does this clarify?: It was just said that motes of earthly dust are not defiling afflictions. What meanings, then, does this clarify? It explains: That merit is a cause of the defilements of affliction. This is precisely the presentation of an analogy for comparison, clarifying that giving the seven precious substances is the dust of defiling afflictions and also elucidating the two analogies of the world and its motes of dust.

+ Therefore, in relation to external, morally indeterminate dust, the wholesome root of that merit is close: The giving of the seven precious substances is a cause of the defilements of affliction and can bring about the karmic recompense of devas and humans within the three realms; it is therefore regarded as close. External, morally indeterminate dust, however, is not a cause of defiling afflictions and cannot bring about a result; therefore, it is not called close.

+ How much more so can that merit accomplish the Buddha’s fruition of bodhi?: The aforementioned giving of the seven precious substances attains only worldly recompense. Because it has the meaning of a cause, manifested in external dust, it is still regarded as close. How much more so does the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra reveal the bodhi fruition of the Dharma-body Buddha?

This is the closest of all that is close. It also accomplishes what is superior to the merit producing the marks of a great person. This therefore clarifies that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra has the meaning of a superior cause in relation to the bodhi of the Dharma-body.

It not only surpasses the merit from giving the seven precious substances, which is a cause of rebirth among devas and humans, but also surpasses the cause of the marks of a great person belonging to the Buddha’s Reward-body.

The merit of receiving and upholding the sutra surpasses the cause of the marks of a great person and is unconditioned merit; how much more, then, must it surpass the merit from giving the seven precious substances, which is conditioned merit? Therefore, it is said: “It surpasses that merit.”

+ Why?: It is reasonable that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra surpasses the giving of the seven precious substances, which is conditioned merit. Yet the cause of these marks of a great person is unconditioned merit; why, then, is it said to be inferior to the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra?

It is explained: Those marks, in relation to the Buddha’s fruition of bodhi, are not marks.

+ The reason the cause of the marks of a great person is nevertheless inferior to the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra: This clarifies that the marks of a great person are only the marks of the Buddha’s Reward-body, not marks of the Buddha’s Dharma-body. Because that unconditioned merit can serve only as the cause of the marks of a great person belonging to the Buddha’s Reward-body and cannot serve as the cause of the bodhi fruition of the Dharma-body Buddha, one who receives and upholds the sutra thereby receives and upholds the bodhi fruition of the Dharma-body Buddha. Thus, the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra surpasses the cause of the marks of a great person. Therefore, it concludes: “Because they are not marks of the Dharma-body.”

From this, another doubt arises here: If those marks of a great person are not the marks of the bodhi of the Dharma-body Buddha, why does the Tathagata say: “The originally inherent nature is revealed and taken as the Buddha’s Reward-body”? If the revelation of the originally inherent nature is the Buddha’s Reward-body, then the two Buddhas are one in substance. Why, then, is it said that the marks of a great person are not the marks of the Dharma-body Buddha?

It is explained: Therefore, the marks of a great person are spoken of to clarify that, although the Dharma-body Buddha and Reward-body Buddha are one in substance, their marks nevertheless have distinct meanings. Thus, it is said that the marks of a great person are marks attained through cultivation and are only the marks of the Buddha’s Reward-body, not marks of the Dharma-body. Therefore, it concludes: “Those marks are used to clarify that those marks of a great person are the marks of the Buddha’s Reward-body.”

It was stated above: “In relation to the Buddha’s fruition of bodhi, they are not marks.” The negation “not” does not mean that they are not marks in relation to the bodhi of the Buddha’s Reward-body as well. Here, both receiving and upholding and expounding can accomplish the Buddha’s bodhi.

+ Therefore, that merit is not superior: This is precisely the conclusion that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra surpasses the marks of a great person, which are unconditioned merit.

Furthermore, that merit is exceedingly great and exceedingly close. This first explains the fourth line of the verse through the meaning of subduing, establishing that the cause of the marks of a great person is unconditioned merit and can “subdue” the merit from giving the seven precious substances, yet it is still inferior to the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra. How much more, then, must the giving of jewels, which is conditioned merit, fail to surpass it?

This one statement jointly concludes the superiority over both kinds of merit. Thus, it confirms the exceedingly great superiority of that giving. This is the general conclusion to the comparison involving the two analogies of relinquishing external possessions, and it also confirms the meaning that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra far surpasses the merit producing the marks of a great person.

(The sixth passage in the Section of Comparison is absent from the Chinese text.)

7. The Buddha said to the Venerable Subhuti: If good men and good women were to give away lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges: This is the seventh passage of scripture in the Section on Comparison.

The reason for its continuation is this: Above, in explaining the two kinds of giving involving the sands of the Ganges and the three-thousandfold world-system, only the relinquishment of external wealth was discussed and compared as not equaling the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra. This was not yet sufficient to reveal that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra is supreme among all that is supreme.

Yet the relinquishment practiced by bodhisattvas and great beings is of two kinds: first, the relinquishment of what is internal, namely, the body and life; second, the relinquishment of what is external, namely, wealth and precious possessions. It has now been made clear that merely relinquishing external wealth as a gift does not equal the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra. What is difficult to relinquish is precisely the body and life.

Even if one were to relinquish lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, undergoing physical and mental suffering, this still would not equal the merit of receiving and upholding a single verse of the sutra. Therefore, the following section elucidates this.

Although this sutra states that the merit of relinquishing one's body and life does not equal the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra, it has not yet made clear why this is so. Therefore, this is elucidated on the basis of that scripture.

This passage of scripture comprises eight sections whose meanings are elucidated:

1. It elucidates that if good men and good women relinquished lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges as an act of giving, this would not equal receiving and upholding four lines of verse from this sutra and expounding them to others. The Treatise explains: The suffering of the body is greater than in the former case.

This clarifies that bodhisattvas prior to the grounds retain attachment to characteristics in their minds. Even if they relinquish their bodies and lives for the sake of bodhi, although this surpasses the giving of external wealth, it still does not equal the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra. What is meant by a mind that retains attachment to characteristics?

There are two meanings. Throughout immeasurable lifetimes, sentient beings have greedily clung to their own bodies and grasped at a self. They seek only the excellent rewards of gods and humans within the three realms and do not know the wondrous fruit of bodhi, which forever transcends worldly characteristics.

Although they hear that bodhi is supremely wondrous, they regard it as being the same as the worldly rewards of gods and humans, having a conditioned essence and being unable to escape arising and cessation. Thus, even if they relinquish their bodies for the sake of that fruit of bodhi, they will in turn attract conditioned rewards within the three realms. Therefore, this is attachment to characteristics.

Because it is attachment to characteristics, its merit does not equal that merit.

Furthermore, even if bodhisattvas of the First Ground and above were to relinquish their bodies, the merit of their nonattachment to characteristics would still not equal the merit of receiving and upholding a single verse, for the essential point lies in receiving and upholding the Dharma-body that is the subject expounded—the wondrous meaning of the sutra.

Although the verbal teaching consists of names and characteristics, what it expounds is a portion of the meaning of the unconditioned and characteristicless Dharma-body; therefore, it is not attachment to characteristics. Since, by cultivating in reliance upon the sutra, one realizes that the Dharma-body is not the same as the three realms, this merit far surpasses the merit of bodies with characteristics as numerous as the sands of the Ganges.

2. From the words, “At that time, the Venerable Subhuti, having heard this sutra expounded…” through “I have never before heard such a Dharma-gate.” Here, the Treatise explains this as “rare.”

+ The Venerable Subhuti, having heard this sutra expounded, profoundly comprehended its meaning and principle: This explains that because the Venerable Subhuti heard the Tathagata expound this sutra, he then clearly understood the unconditioned Dharma-body. This is called profoundly comprehending its meaning and principle.

+ If the Venerable Subhuti was a bodhisattva who expediently assumed the role of a sravaka: Then, according to this expedient manifestation, he is said to have profoundly comprehended it. If he was truly a sravaka, then he had genuinely neither heard nor understood it before; only today, upon first hearing it, did he understand its profound meaning and principle.

+ He was moved to tears: The Venerable Subhuti was deeply moved and wept for two reasons. First, the Venerable Subhuti reflected upon the profound and vast wondrous principle of this sutra, which he had never heard before, and therefore was moved to tears. Second, he lamented that the fruit of the Lesser Vehicle he himself had realized was not equal to this Dharma-gate of the Great Vehicle, and therefore he sorrowed and wept.

If he expediently assumed the role of a sravaka, he therefore shed tears, then wiped them away and addressed the Buddha: “Truly rare!”

+ In this passage, however, the Treatise calls it “rare”: It singles out these two words as the title of the second section. “Rare” has two meanings. First, it elucidates that this Vajra Prajnaparamita is the fruit of the profound and wondrous Dharma-realm of the unconditioned Dharma-body.

It is realized only by the Tathagata and is not possessed by those on the lower grounds; hence it is called rare. Second, it elucidates that the Venerable Subhuti himself said: “Although I have attained the fruit of arhatship and am fully endowed with the ten Knowledges, the three samadhis, and the eight Liberations, I have never before heard this exceedingly profound Dharma-gate.” Because one who believes in it is difficult to find, it is called rare.

For the five years following the Tathagata's attainment of the Way, he continually expounded prajna without ever ceasing.

Furthermore, it was stated above that all Buddhas of the ten directions throughout the three times also constantly expound this Dharma. Why, then, did the Venerable Subhuti say that he had never heard it before, and that it was therefore rare?

Although the Tathagata constantly expounded this sutra, it is the Dharma-wheel of the Great Vehicle. The Venerable Subhuti was a follower of the Lesser Vehicle and had never heard it before; even if he had heard it, he would not have understood it. Therefore, for the Venerable Subhuti, it was rare.

+ From earlier times until now, I have attained the wisdom-eye, yet I have never heard such a Dharma-gate: This elucidates that the Venerable Subhuti himself said: “Although I previously attained the wisdom-eye that realizes the emptiness and selflessness of persons, I have never heard this exceedingly profound Dharma-gate of the unconditioned Dharma-body.”

+ Why did he say only, “I have attained the wisdom-eye,” and not say that he had attained the Dharma-eye? This elucidates that although followers of the Lesser Vehicle contemplate conditioned and unconditioned dharmas and comprehend that persons are empty and without self, they have not yet realized the nature of dependently originated dharmas or the suchness of the emptiness of dharmas. Therefore, he spoke only of attaining the wisdom-eye and did not state that he had attained the Dharma-eye.

3. “Why is this? Subhuti, the Buddha speaks of Prajnaparamita as not Prajnaparamita”: The gateway of this third section is explained by the Treatise as “The further shore of that wisdom is difficult to fathom.”

+ Why is this?: This raises the question: Since the Venerable Subhuti had attained the wisdom-eye, why had he not heard such a Dharma-gate? Therefore, it says: “Why is this?” The intended reply is that this Dharma is the fruit of the Tathagata, the foremost and supreme meaning of the merit that reaches the further shore, and is not something the practitioners of the Two Vehicles can fathom. Therefore, he had not heard it. This meaning confirms the rarity described above.

+ The Buddha speaks of Prajnaparamita: This distinguishes and explains the name according to worldly convention. It elucidates that what is realized through this Dharma-gate is precisely the foremost fruit of all Buddhas and the realm of wisdom that has reached the further shore; therefore, it is called “Paramita.”

+ It is not Prajnaparamita: This elucidates that the wisdom which reaches the further shore is precisely the Dharma realized by the Tathagata and is not within the cognitive sphere of practitioners of the Two Vehicles. Therefore, it is said: “It is not Prajnaparamita.”

Furthermore, because of this second meaning—that it is therefore not Prajnaparamita—the third section is given the title: “The further shore of that wisdom is difficult to fathom.”

4. From the words, “World-Honored One! If, furthermore, someone hears this sutra and gives rise to a mind of pure faith, he thereby produces the true characteristic…” through “It is called the true characteristic”: This fourth passage is explained by the Treatise as “It is also unlike other dharmas.”

+ If, furthermore, there is someone: This refers to bodhisattvas of faith prior to the First Ground.

+ Upon hearing this sutra, the mind becomes faithful and pure, and thus gives rise to the true characteristic: Having heard this sutra, one is resolutely able to believe in the unconditioned Dharma-body and gives rise to an understanding of the true characteristic. Since no doubt sullies the mind, it is pure.

+ One should know that this person has accomplished the foremost, supremely rare merit: If a bodhisattva believes in what this sutra reveals concerning the unconditioned Dharma-body and gives rise to faithful understanding of the true characteristic, that bodhisattva can therefore rely upon this sutra in cultivation and attain the fruit of the unconditioned Dharma-body. This merit is rare, and hence it is called an accomplishment.

This explains that the fruit of the unconditioned Dharma-body is attained only after cultivation throughout three great asamkhyeya kalpas. Because it far surpasses the Lesser Vehicle, it is called foremost. Like a vajra, it returns to what had not yet been attained, and hence is called rare.

+ World-Honored One! That true characteristic: This means that this sutra explains that the unconditioned Dharma-body attained by the Tathagata is the Dharma of the true characteristic.

+ Is precisely no characteristic: This clarifies that the true characteristic attained by the Tathagata is not the true characteristic attained within the Dharma of the Two Vehicles.

+ Therefore, the Tathagata says that the true characteristic is the true characteristic: There are two explanations. The first clarifies that the unconditioned Dharma-body is the principle of the true characteristic and is solely the true characteristic realized by the Tathagata. Hence the expression is repeated: “the true characteristic, the true characteristic.”

According to the second explanation, someone raises a question: If, in the Buddha’s Mahayana Dharma, there is a true characteristic, while in the Dharma of the Two Vehicles there is no true characteristic, why does the Dharma of the Two Vehicles also itself state that there is a true characteristic? The answer is therefore given: What is now said is that the Tathagata possesses the true characteristic, whereas others do not. This refers to the unconditioned Dharma-body, eternally and immutably established, which is the principle of the true characteristic. Thus, to say that there is no true characteristic does not mean that the true nature of the emptiness of intrinsic nature explained in the Dharma of the Two Vehicles does not exist.

+ Therefore, the Tathagata speaks of the true characteristic of true characteristics: First, the Tathagata attains the true characteristic of the unconditioned Dharma-body. Second, the Two Vehicles attain the true characteristic of the emptiness of intrinsic nature. Hence it is called “the true characteristic of true characteristics.”

5. World-Honored One! That I am now able to hear such a Dharma gate is not yet sufficient to be called difficult: This is the fifth chapter heading. The Treatise explains it as: “Firmly comprehending the profound meaning.”

+ Here it is said: To hear this Dharma gate and faithfully understand it is not yet sufficient to be called difficult. This has four implications:

a. Venerable Subhuti speaks of himself: I have now been born in an age when I can encounter the Buddha; moreover, I am one who has gone forth, one who possesses faith, and one who has attained the fruition of arhatship. Having heard what the Buddha has taught, how could I fail to believe?

b. Although Venerable Subhuti is a practitioner of the Lesser Vehicle, he had previously given rise to the bodhicitta; therefore, upon hearing this teaching, he was able to believe it.

c. Venerable Subhuti is in fact a Dharma-body bodhisattva appearing as a shravaka. Having heard this Dharma gate, how could he fail to believe it?

d. Venerable Subhuti received the unseen empowerment of the Tathagata’s wondrous power; therefore, upon hearing the teaching, he was certainly able to comprehend it.

Because these four meanings are present, it is said: “It is not yet sufficient to be regarded as difficult.”

+ If, in a future age, there are sentient beings who hear this Dharma, faithfully understand, accept, and uphold it, those persons will be foremost and rare: Venerable Subhuti speaks of himself: At present, I have encountered the Buddha and possess all four of the foregoing conditions; therefore, my arising of faithful understanding is not called difficult. After the Tathagata’s nirvana, when people no longer encounter the Buddha in the world, if anyone can give rise to faith in this sutra, that person has entered the First Bhumi or above and is foremost and rare. What is realized at the First Bhumi surpasses ordinary beings and practitioners of the Two Vehicles who have not yet entered the bhumis; hence it is called foremost.

+ Rare: It can be attained only after practices have been perfected throughout one great asamkhyeya kalpa. Since those who have not yet entered the bhumis have not attained it, it is called rare.

+ Why? Because that person no longer has the characteristic of a self… through to: One should know that this person is exceedingly rare: This likewise clarifies that, in a future age, one who gives rise to faith is rare.

However, according to this fifth section, there are three questions beginning with “Why?” The first clarifies the emptiness of dharmas. The second clarifies the emptiness of self. The third resolves a doubt. The first two questions both explain why that person is foremost and rare. If both explain the person who is foremost and rare, how do they differ?

+ The meaning of the first “Why?” is this: Why is a person who faithfully understands, accepts, and upholds this sutra regarded as foremost and rare? The answer is: Because that person no longer has the characteristic of a self, and so forth. This makes clear that, by realizing emptiness, that person has attained the First Bhumi’s comprehension of the emptiness of dharmas and is therefore able to believe this sutra. Ordinary beings and practitioners of the Two Vehicles who have not yet entered the bhumis have not comprehended the emptiness of dharmas and therefore cannot believe it. Because one is able to believe through realizing and knowing it, one is foremost and rare.

+ The second “Why?” asks: Is it solely because that person has now attained comprehension of the emptiness of dharmas that the person can believe this sutra, or has that person attained something else that enables such belief? The answer is: The characteristic of a self, and so forth, is precisely no characteristic. The meaning of this answer is that one can faithfully understand this sutra not solely through attaining comprehension of the emptiness of dharmas. After comprehending the emptiness of self, one can also believe and understand it. Therefore, the second question of “Why?” is raised.

+ The third question of “Why?” arises as follows: One previously heard that “there is no characteristic of a self, and so forth,” which clarifies the emptiness of dharmas. One then heard that “the characteristic of what belongs to a self is precisely no characteristic,” which clarifies the emptiness of self and explains that both the apprehending subject and the apprehended object are empty. Doubt therefore arises: We now directly perceive the six inner ayatanas as the apprehending subject and the six outer sense objects as the apprehended object. How can it be said that they are empty? If both are empty, one should not say that there is an apprehending subject and an apprehended object. Therefore, it is written: “Why?”

The answer is: Because separation from all characteristics is called the Buddhas, one should understand emptiness. This clarifies that the Buddhas perceive the self and the dharmas comprising the apprehending subject and apprehended object to be false and unreal. Because they are all empty, they are therefore relinquished.

+ This clarifies the emptiness of dharmas: It discusses only the emptiness of dependently arisen dharmas and does not discuss the emptiness of dharmas with regard to Buddha-nature.

+ The Buddha told Venerable Subhuti: “So it is! So it is!”… Above, Venerable Subhuti stated that those in a future age who can give rise to faith are persons of the First Bhumi or above and are foremost and rare. Fearing that some might doubt whether these words could be believed, the Buddha confirmed: “So it is!” What Venerable Subhuti has stated is correct; do not give rise to doubt. Therefore, it is repeated: “So it is! So it is!”

+ If, moreover, there is a person who, upon hearing this sutra, is neither startled, alarmed, nor afraid, one should know that this person is exceedingly rare: This likewise confirms the preceding fifth passage, making clear that Venerable Subhuti’s words are indeed not false and can be believed.

+ Precisely so: This clarifies that such a person has attained the First Bhumi’s comprehension of selflessness, is free from the five kinds of fear, and is unsullied by doubt. Therefore, upon hearing the sutra, that person is neither startled nor frightened. If the meaning is explained according to worldly usage, using what follows to explain what precedes, why is that person not startled? Because that person is not alarmed. Why is that person not alarmed? Because that person is not afraid. Such is their sequence.

+ Furthermore, “not startled” means that, with respect to the characteristics of the body, that person has attained the First Bhumi’s comprehension of selflessness and is free from the five kinds of fear. Upon hearing that all dharmas are without self, no characteristic of fear arises concerning the body; hence it is called “not startled.”

+ Not alarmed: This means that, upon hearing within one's mind that all dharmas are without self, one inwardly resolves the matter without doubt; therefore it is called not being alarmed.

+ Not frightened: Body and mind are entirely free from slander. Moreover, it is understood that, because that person has attained clear understanding through the wisdom born of hearing, when first hearing the Mahayana teaching of no-self, the mind abides securely in the principle; therefore this is called not being startled. Having attained clear understanding through the wisdom born of reflection, one gives rise to profound faith without doubt; this is called not being alarmed. Having already given rise to faith and attained clear understanding through the wisdom born of cultivation, one practices without slander; therefore this is called not being frightened.

+ One should know that such a person is exceedingly rare: Here the Tathagata raises the point once again, reiterating and confirming the passage above, without differing from the preceding explanation.

6. Why does the Tathagata say that the foremost paramita is not the foremost paramita?: This clarifies the sixth section, which the Treatise explains as: Surpassing other sutras.

+ But why is this so?: This applies generally to the following three sections, the sixth, seventh, and eighth. It provides a common explanation confirming the meaning of the preceding five chapter headings. How is it explained? Above it was asked: Why is giving away bodies and lives as numerous as the sands of the Ganges not equal to the merit of receiving and retaining a four-line verse from this sutra?

Furthermore, since Venerable Subhuti had attained the wisdom-eye, why had he never before heard this sutra, so that it is called rare?

Furthermore, why is this sutra not an object that ordinary beings or practitioners of the Two Vehicles can fathom?

Furthermore, why can receiving and retaining this sutra give rise to understanding of the true characteristic, while the Dharma of the Two Vehicles cannot?

Furthermore, why is a person who has realized the twofold emptiness of self and dharmas able to believe in, receive, retain, and cultivate this sutra, and be regarded as supremely rare?

The meaning of the preceding five chapter headings is called into question by asking why this is so.

The answer should therefore be: The Tathagata says that the foremost paramita, and so forth. Because this sutra concerns the fruit of the Tathagata—the foremost merit of reaching the other shore—it surpasses other sutras. Moreover, this sutra can serve as a great cause for the fruit of Buddhahood. It is not merely a supreme cause for the Buddha's present fruit; it also establishes a supreme cause in relation to the Buddhas of the ten directions. Thus it is explained and confirmed.

There is also another explanation: The meaning of the sixth heading itself is used to explain the preceding five chapter headings.

+ The Tathagata speaks of the foremost paramita: This clarifies the supreme merit of the fruit of Buddhahood that has reached the other shore; therefore it is said: He speaks of the foremost paramita. Broadly distinguishing the paramitas, there are three levels:

First: The semblance paramita of those below the bhumis.

Second: The true paramita of those on the First Bhumi and above.

These two levels are both practices within the causal stage.

+ What is now called the foremost paramita: This is precisely the merit of reaching the other shore possessed by the eternally abiding Dharma-body at the stage of fruition; therefore it is called foremost.

+ According to the Treatise's explanation, it is called: Surpassing other sutras: This clarifies that the foundation of principle surpasses the foundation of teaching. Because verbal teachings are not the unconditioned Dharma-body, it is said: It is not the foremost paramita.

+ Moreover, “not”: This means it is not either of the two preceding paramitas.

+ Furthermore, “not”: Because it is not an object of realization for practitioners of the Two Vehicles, it is also called “not.”

7. The Tathagata speaks of the foremost paramita: This seventh section is called the Great Cause in the Treatise.

+ Great Cause: This is the primary cause. The primary cause is the vast principle of the pure Dharma-body. It clarifies that the Tathagata Shakyamuni himself said: Because I received and retained this sutra, I understood the unconditioned Dharma-body and realized the merit of reaching the other shore at the fruit of Buddhahood; therefore it is written: The Tathagata speaks of the foremost paramita.

8. Immeasurable Buddhas also expound the paramita: This eighth section is explained in the Treatise as purity.

Previously it was stated that the foremost paramita can serve as a great cause for the Tathagata's present fruit. Does this mean that only the Tathagata Shakyamuni received and retained this sutra, personally realized and expounded it, and made it a great cause? Or do all the Buddhas of the ten directions also say: Because I received and retained this sutra, I realized the fruit of Buddhahood; they all practice and expound it, making it a great cause?

The answer should therefore be: Those immeasurable Buddhas also expound the paramita. This means that all the Buddhas of the ten directions say: Because I received and retained this sutra, I understood the unconditioned Dharma-body and thereby realized the fruit of Buddhahood. It is not practiced and expounded by Me alone; therefore it is called a great cause.

+ This is called the foremost paramita: This is a general conclusion that the preceding three statements concern the merit of the foremost fruit that has reached the other shore.

Because this sutra possesses the eight kinds of merit set forth above, its merit far surpasses that of relinquishing one's body and life.

– The Treatise states:

+ From this point onward, the sutra once again clarifies that this merit progressively surpasses that merit: The author of the Treatise is about to compose verses explaining this passage of the sutra, and therefore does not briefly explain the sutra's teaching that the merit of receiving and retaining it is progressively superior. Above, examples were cited of giving away immeasurable jewels, worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, and three-thousandfold worlds; by comparison, none equaled the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra.

This clarified that relinquishing external possessions is easy, but it had not yet revealed the utmost degree of superiority. Now it explains that relinquishing one's internal possession by giving away one's body and life is difficult. Yet although difficult and still possible to relinquish, it is nevertheless unequal to the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra.

Does this not reveal the meaning of progressive superiority?

Here, two verses establish eight chapter headings to explain this passage of the sutra.

+ Suffering of the body, surpassing the other: This explains the portion of the sutra from: “The Buddha said to Venerable Subhuti…” through: “Overcome with emotion, he wept.” It clarifies that giving away external possessions is easy, whereas relinquishing one's internal possessions is more difficult, because most beings are deeply attached to their own bodies, and relinquishing them entails great suffering. Yet for the sake of the Dharma, although they suffer, they are able to relinquish them. Therefore, relinquishing the body surpasses giving away external possessions. Nevertheless, although it surpasses the relinquishment of external possessions, it still does not equal the merit of receiving and retaining a single verse from the sutra; therefore it is written: Surpassing the other.

+ Rare: This explains the portion of the sutra from: “Wiping away his tears, he addressed the Buddha…” through: “I have heard such a Dharma-gate.” It clarifies that this Vajra Prajnaparamita is the profound and wondrous dharma-dhatu of the ultimate fruit, realized only by the Tathagata. Although Venerable Subhuti had attained the fruit of arhatship and fully possessed the merit of the ten knowledges, he had never before heard this exceedingly profound Dharma-gate; therefore it is called: Rare.

+ Together with the meaning above: This refers to the immeasurability of the wisdom of the other shore. It both explains a passage of the sutra and leads into the third section, while also confirming the second section: Rare. Although it was said above that Venerable Subhuti had never heard it before, the reason he had not heard it was not yet clear. Because this Dharma is the fruit of the Tathagata, the supreme and foremost meaning of the merit of reaching the other shore, it is not an object of realization for practitioners of the Two Vehicles; therefore he had not heard it. Because he had not heard it, it is called rare. Thus the verse says: Together with the meaning above.

+ The wisdom of the other shore is difficult to fathom: This formally explains the third portion of the sutra: “The Buddha speaks of Prajnaparamita as not Prajnaparamita.” This has the same wording as the meaning above, but its intent differs; therefore it is separately established as the third section.

The wisdom of the other shore: The Sanskrit is Prajnaparamita, translated into Chinese as “the wisdom of the other shore” (wisdom that crosses to the other shore).

Difficult to fathom: This clarifies that the wisdom which has crossed beyond is the foremost fruit whereby the Tathagata reaches the other shore. Here, it utterly transcends the realms attainable by those of the Two Vehicles and the lower grounds. Therefore, the verse says: “The wisdom of the other shore is difficult to fathom.”

+ Nor is it shared by other teachings: This explains the passage in the sutra from: “If, moreover, there is a person whose mind is faithful and pure…” through: “the true characteristic of the true characteristic.” This passage of the sutra clarifies the principle of the true characteristic eternally abiding in the Tathagata’s Dharma-body. It is neither elucidated in the teachings of the Two Vehicles and non-Buddhist paths, nor do their followers give rise to faith in it. Therefore, it says: “Nor is it shared by other teachings.”

+ Firmly understanding the profound true meaning: This explains the passage in the sutra from: “World-Honored One! Now that I have heard…” through: “exceedingly rare.” It clarifies the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas in the sutra text.

The reason it is called firm and true is that this bodhisattva has realized the First Ground, directly attained the wondrous principle of the two kinds of emptiness, and comprehended it in accordance with reality, such that this understanding cannot be destroyed. Therefore, it is called firm and true.

The reason this understanding cannot be destroyed is that it comprehends the profound meaning of the two kinds of selflessness.

+ Superior to other sutras: This explains the passage in the sutra: “Why does the Tathagata speak of the foremost paramita…?”

Sutra: This is a Sanskrit term, translated into Chinese as “root.” It clarifies that, because the principle realized and taught in this sutra is superior, the teaching that expounds it is also superior. Because it surpasses the principles and teachings of the Two Vehicles, it says: “Superior to other sutras.”

There is also another explanation: It extensively discerns the meaning of “root,” which applies to both principle and teaching. Because the wondrous principle of the Dharma-body that is expounded has neither name nor characteristic, it can serve as the root of the verbal teachings of the twelve divisions of scripture. It also has the meaning of being able to give rise to wholesome qualities and is therefore called a root. The verbal teaching that expounds the sutra likewise serves as the root of the Dharma being explained. Since the exposition of the Dharma-body can give rise to myriad wholesome qualities, it is called a root. Because the root that is principle is superior to the root that is teaching, it says: “Superior to other sutras.”

+ The great cause and purity: This single line of verse collectively explains the scriptural passages in the preceding seventh and eighth sections.

The great cause: This directly explains: “The Tathagata speaks of the foremost paramita.” It clarifies that what this sutra expounds is the wondrous principle of Buddha-nature in the unconditioned Dharma-body, which can serve as the direct cause of the wondrous fruition of the path attained by all Buddhas. Because it far surpasses the revealing cause, it is called the great cause.

And purity: This explains: “Those immeasurable Buddhas also speak of the paramita.” It clarifies that all Buddhas likewise expound the phrases, meanings, names, and words of this Dharma, neither adding to nor diminishing them. Because they teach it in common, their exposition invariably accords with principle and is free from the fault of erroneous doctrine. Therefore, it is called purity.

There is also another explanation: Those immeasurable Buddhas all say: “Through the wondrous principle of purity inherent in the equal Buddha-nature, I realized the fruit of Buddhahood.” Therefore, it is called purity.

+ Merit surpassing all merit: Because this sutra discerns the various qualities described above, the merit of receiving and retaining a single verse far surpasses the merit of relinquishing one’s body and life. What meaning do these two verses express? They indicate that a passage of prose expounds each chapter and category in the verses, explaining them in sequence. After the explanation is complete, the sutra is cited to summarize and conclude it; this can be understood accordingly. Thus, if part of the text is missing, it means that the explanation has passed over it.

+ Why? This raises a question: If relinquishing as many bodies and lives as there are sands in the Ganges produces extremely abundant merit, why is it not equal to the merit of receiving and retaining a single verse from the sutra?

The explanation is that relinquishing one’s body and life causes physical and mental suffering. This clarifies that, at the very moment such a person relinquishes the body, the mind grasps at characteristics, and therefore body and mind are afflicted; the subsequent fruit attained is also painful. Since both cause and effect are impure, it is therefore not equal. This also makes clear that the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra is superior to relinquishing one’s body and life, because its cause does not grasp at characteristics and its resulting fruit is pure.

+ How much more when it is relinquished for the Dharma: This clarifies that the worldly karmic reward gained by relinquishing one’s body and life is not equal to the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra. Since even that is lesser, how much more so when, for the Dharma of unsurpassed bodhi, one relinquishes the mind that grasps at characteristics; this too is not equal to the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra.

Furthermore, even supposing that bodhisattvas from the First Ground upward relinquish their bodies and lives for the Dharma of bodhi, although they do not grasp at characteristics, this still is not equal. Therefore, it says: “How much more when it is relinquished for the Dharma.”

The sutra merely cites the fact that the merit of relinquishing one’s body and life is not equal to the merit of receiving and retaining a single verse from the sutra; it does not state that this is because one grasps at characteristics while making that relinquishment. Since this meaning is concealed and difficult to comprehend, the author of the Treatise explains: Because, when relinquishing one’s body and life, distress of body and mind constitutes grasping at characteristics, even relinquishing many bodies and lives is not equal to receiving and retaining the sutra without grasping at characteristics.

Because body and mind undergo suffering in relinquishing one’s body and life, the example presented in the sutra gives rise to a doubt. The following passage in the sutra concerning the Perfection of Patience gives rise to a doubt about the function of the Dharma. This is no different from the doubt that arises in the later section of the sutra.

The explanation under the fourth chapter and category says: “It is because of this meaning.” That is, apart from the Buddha-Dharma, all other teachings are unreal and have never possessed or given rise to the meaning of faith. Only in the Buddha’s Mahayana teaching is the wondrous principle of the true characteristic of the unconditioned Dharma-body elucidated. The teachings of the Lesser Vehicle do not discern the existence of this wondrous principle of the true characteristic.

Therefore, it says: “It is not shared by other teachings.”

+ The Tathagata expounded such a meaning for the Venerable Subhuti: This explains the passage of the sutra in which the Tathagata restates and confirms it, beginning with the Buddha telling the Venerable Subhuti: “So it is! So it is!” and continuing through the end of that passage of the sutra.

From the line: “That giving of precious jewels, and so forth…” onward: This collectively summarizes the preceding sections that discussed the relinquishment and giving of external and internal possessions, comparing them and showing that they are not equal to the merit of receiving and retaining the sutra.

+ That giving of precious jewels does not possess merit such as this: This clarifies that the two kinds of relinquishment and giving, external and internal, are not equal to the eight kinds of merit discerned thus far in the sutra.

+ Therefore, among those merits, this merit is far superior: This means that all those acts of internal and external relinquishment and giving do not possess those eight kinds of merit. Because reliance upon this sutra produces eight kinds of merit, the merit attained by receiving and retaining the sutra far surpasses all the merit gained by relinquishing one’s body and life and giving away one’s possessions.

– The Treatise states: “From this point onward, the sutra text again constitutes a section that eliminates doubt.” Here, the author of the Treatise presents the purport of the doubt that arises in the subsequent portion of the sutra. Since it merely raises a doubt concerning the function of the Dharma and does not differ from what is stated in the sutra, it is not explained further.

END OF FASCICLE FIVE