金剛仙論

– Part 9: Venerable Subhuti! In brief, this sutra possesses boundless, inconceivable, and immeasurable merit: This is the ninth section within the major division, called the Section on the Explanation of Benefits.

+ The reason this section of the sutra is presented: In the preceding eighth section, it was made clear that although all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature in true suchness, equal and without distinction, those who practice can perceive it, whereas those who do not practice cannot. It was explained above that, by relying on this sutra and engaging in the three practices of receiving and upholding, reading and reciting, and cultivating in accordance with it, one can certainly perceive Buddha-nature.

Yet these are still not the ultimately supreme practices. It has not yet been clarified what further supreme practices are accomplished by directly relying on this sutra and engaging in these three practices so as to perceive Buddha-nature, or what benefits enable one to perceive Buddha-nature. What fruits of retribution are attained upon perceiving Buddha-nature?

Therefore, it is now explained that one not only can perceive Buddha-nature by relying on this sutra and engaging in the three practices, but can also rely on this sutra to give rise to the two wisdoms of reflection and cultivation. One further cultivates universally the myriad practices, thereby being able in the present to eradicate past offenses and, in the future, to sever the two obstructions and attain many kinds of benefits in the present and future.

Only then can one clearly perceive Buddha-nature and fully realize the eternal fruit. The first verse in the preceding section stated: “What kinds of karma are accomplished?” Here the many kinds constituting the essence of that karma are formally clarified; hence the following section was introduced.

Previously, it was extensively explained that receiving and upholding this sutra brings abundant merit, all of which constitutes benefits. Why, then, does that not prevent this section from bearing the name “Benefits”?

+ The reason this section alone is called the Explanation of Benefits: Although it was explained above that cultivating in reliance upon this sutra brings many benefits, it was not explained as it is in this section: that through the causes and conditions of receiving and upholding the sutra, the two wisdoms of reflection and cultivation arise; that one can transform the weighty karma of the past so that it is lightly experienced in the present life; and that, in the future, one will attain the two kinds of fruits of retribution, worldly and supramundane. Because there are many kinds of benefits such as these, this alone is called the Section on the Explanation of Benefits.

Because one practices in reliance upon this sutra, there are immeasurable benefits. Furthermore, based upon this single passage of the sutra, nine topical divisions—or, alternatively, ten—are established to distinguish and explain the meaning of its benefits. Therefore, at the beginning of this passage, the sutra states, “In brief”; that is, it concisely introduces nine topical divisions to clarify the benefits. What are the nine?

1. This sutra possesses immeasurable, inconceivable, and incalculable merit. The Treatise states: “It is not the sphere of others.” This makes clear that the wondrous principle of this sutra is profound and possesses boundless merit; therefore, the Dharma taught by the Tathagata is presented first.

+ Inconceivable: This explains that what is expounded in this sutra is the unconditioned Dharma-body, the sphere of the Buddhas, which ordinary beings and followers of the Two Vehicles cannot fathom.

+ Incalculable: This makes clear that the sutra possesses great merit and that the sphere of the Buddhas and Great Beings cannot be calculated or measured by numbers. Therefore, the following sentence says: “Immeasurable merit.”

2. This Dharma gateway was expounded by the Tathagata in order to promote the Dharma of the Great Vehicle. It was taught in order to promote the Supreme Vehicle. The Treatise calls this: “Taught solely for Great Beings.” This identifies the persons for whom it was composed and makes clear that, because the wondrous principle of the sutra is profound, those of lesser faculties and wisdom cannot receive it. It was expounded solely for bodhisattvas of great faculties and wisdom. It was taught in order to promote the Great Vehicle. This refers to bodhisattvas who have newly aroused the aspiration and have not yet reached the grounds.

+ For the Supreme Vehicle: This makes clear that it was expounded not only for those who have newly aroused the aspiration, but also for those who practice in accordance with reality.

3. This is explained according to the following verse in the Treatise. The third line of the first verse says: “And those of little learning who believe in the Dharma,” making clear that people who believe in this sutra are rare and difficult to find.

According to the verse, there should be a separate third passage of the sutra that speaks only of the persons who believe and the Dharma that is believed. However, because it does not differ from the preceding second passage of the sutra, its meaning is present even though no separate passage appears. Thus, those who do not believe are introduced to clarify those who are able to believe.

Yet because the consideration of such disbelief applies in meaning to both what precedes and what follows, it is not presented separately. It is instead indicated in the subsequent fifth passage of the sutra, which speaks of followers of the Two Vehicles and adherents of non-Buddhist paths who do not believe.

4. If anyone receives and upholds, reads and recites, and practices according to this sutra... up to: “He will attain an immeasurable accumulation of merit.” The Treatise calls this: “Perfectly fulfilling the unsurpassed realm.” This makes clear that, by receiving and upholding this sutra, one can give rise to the two wisdoms of reflection and cultivation, and can proceed as far as cultivating the two kinds of adornment and fully revealing the Dharma-body.

+ The Tathagata completely knows and completely sees such a person: This meaning was already explained in the sixth and eighth sections above. Why, then, is it explained once again here? Explanation: It is explained in many places in order gradually to guide sentient beings and cause them to give rise to faith.

+ A boundless, inconceivable, incalculable, and immeasurable accumulation of merit: This makes clear that, through the causes and conditions of receiving and upholding the sutra, one attains the unconditioned Dharma-body with its boundless accumulation of merit.

5. Such a person, and so forth... thereby shoulders the Tathagata’s unsurpassed path and fruit of bodhi: The Treatise calls this: “Receiving and upholding the true and wondrous Dharma.” This makes clear that one who receives and upholds this sutra is thereby able to shoulder and realize the great path and fruit of bodhi of the Tathagata’s Dharma-body.

+ Why is this? This raises an objection: Why does the Tathagata expound this Dharma gateway only for followers of the Great Vehicle, and not for followers of the Lesser Vehicle or adherents of non-Buddhist paths? Explanation: Venerable Subhuti! Those who delight in lesser teachings are incapable of this. This makes clear that followers of the Two Vehicles and those holding the views of non-Buddhist paths cling to what they have understood and therefore cannot give rise to faith in this sutra. Since they do not give rise to faith, it is not taught for them.

This entire passage of the sutra explains the benefits of receiving and upholding the sutra. Why, then, does it introduce here those who delight in lesser teachings and adherents of non-Buddhist paths who cling to a self? It is intended to make clear that these two classes of people cannot give rise to faith in this sutra. Since they do not give rise to faith, they also cannot receive and uphold it, read and recite it, or practice as taught. Since they cannot receive and uphold it, how could they possibly shoulder and realize it?

The third section above indicated the persons who do not believe. The fifth section is where that passage is explained as referring to followers of the Two Vehicles and adherents of non-Buddhist paths.

+ Those who delight in lesser teachings: This makes clear that followers of the Two Vehicles are small-minded and narrow in intent, and their aspirations do not seek anything far-reaching or vast. When they hear the Buddha say that one must pass through a long period of time and endure many hardships before accomplishment is possible, they become timid and retreat. They wish only to labor in cultivating the path for one lifetime, three lifetimes, or as many as sixty kalpas, quickly escape the three realms, permanently end the segmented birth and death, realize the fruit of arhatship, and choose the peace of “reducing the body to ashes and extinguishing consciousness.” Therefore, they cannot believe in this sutra.

+ If there are views that cling to a self or a person: This refers to adherents of non-Buddhist paths who take their existing view of a self to be correct and do not seek the truth; therefore, they cannot believe.

6. Venerable Subhuti! Wherever this sutra is present: This passage of the sutra is called in the Treatise: “Honoring the place and thereby gaining merit.” That is, one should revere the place where this sutra is present, exhorting devas, human beings, asuras, and others to make extensive offerings and generate merit.

However, erecting a stupa and exhorting people to make offerings there, and the earlier exhortation to make offerings at the place where the sutra is present, are identical in wording but different in meaning.

+ The earlier exhortation to erect a stupa and make offerings clarifies that the reason sentient beings obtain the pleasures of the five desires in the human and heavenly realms is that, relying upon this sutra, they cultivate the practice and observe the five precepts and ten wholesome actions. Therefore, they are exhorted to erect a stupa and make offerings at the place where that sutra is present, thereby repaying their former debt of gratitude.

+ Here, the further exhortation to make offerings at that place clarifies that, by relying upon this sutra in cultivation, one can ultimately attain the unconditioned Dharma-body in the fruition of unsurpassed bodhi. Therefore, one is exhorted to make offerings there, regarding the place as a stupa shrine.

7. Furthermore, Venerable Subhuti! If a good man or good woman receives, upholds, reads, and recites this sutra, yet is slighted and reviled by others…: This passage of the sutra is called in the Treatise: “Also removing all obstacles.” It reveals the power of the sutra and explains that the merit of receiving and upholding it brings two benefits: First, by receiving and upholding this sutra, one gives rise to the two kinds of wisdom—wisdom born of reflection and wisdom born of cultivation—which can transform the heavy karma from the past that would warrant falling into the three evil destinies, causing one instead to undergo a light retribution in the present life.

Second, through these two kinds of wisdom—reflection and cultivation—the practices of the ten bhumis are perfected; in a future life one will be freed from the two obstacles and will certainly attain unsurpassed bodhi. This clarifies that in a previous life such a person possessed not only offenses but also merit. Owing to the causes and conditions of past merit, the person now hears this sutra.

Having heard the sutra, the person can further receive and uphold it and explain it to others, thereby extinguishing the karma that produced those offenses. Not only can the person extinguish offense-producing karma from the past, but can also eliminate the two obstacles and realize great bodhi.

+ Slighted and reviled by others: This clarifies that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra can transform heavy karma destined for the three evil paths into something light, causing one merely to be slighted and reviled by others in the present life, or even only to suffer a headache, whereupon the karma is extinguished. It does not mean that receiving and upholding the sutra causes one to incur the retribution of being slighted and reviled by others. From this, another doubt arises: If this sutra possesses such great power that it can transform heavy karma into light karma and offenses are thereby extinguished, then, possessing such power, why can it not bring offense-producing karma to a permanent end, but only cause one to undergo a light retribution?

In reply, the meaning is that it is certainly not because this sutra lacks the power to eliminate that offense-producing karma completely. It is only because sentient beings commit evil and do not believe that the karmic retributions of good and evil are manifest, unmistakable, and never fail; therefore, they are merely caused to undergo a light retribution, rather than having it entirely and permanently eliminated.

8. The Treatise calls this: “Furthermore, being able swiftly to realize the Dharma.” From the words: Venerable Subhuti! The Tathagata recollects that in the past, immeasurable asamkhyeya kalpas ago… through: It is beyond all possibility of comparison: This passage of the sutra clarifies that the Tathagata Shakyamuni himself cited the distant past, before he first entered the stage of the lineage-seed, prior to his time at the dwelling place of Dipankara Buddha.

He had made offerings to eighty-four hundred million nayutas of Buddhas, always drawing near to all those Buddhas, making the four kinds of offerings, hearing and receiving the supreme Dharma, and benefiting the three karmic activities, without ever neglecting a single Buddha. Yet even this cannot equal the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra in the final age; not even one part in hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands can compare with it.

For that reason, those offerings could not bring about the swift realization of Buddhahood.

There are three reasons why they are therefore unequal: First, when the Tathagata practiced and made offerings in those lifetimes, he did not regard this as difficult. Second, the merit of making offerings arose from a mind that grasped at characteristics. Third, because this practice grasped at characteristics, it could not immediately bring about the fruit of bodhi but merely created a remote cause. Because of these three meanings, it could not lead swiftly to the attainment of unsurpassed bodhi and therefore did not equal the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra.

9. The Treatise calls this: Accomplishing immeasurable power and attaining a great and wondrous retribution.

If the explanation is arranged into ten chapter divisions, these two phrases are divided into two.

From the words: Venerable Subhuti! If, in the future and latter age, a good man or good woman receives, upholds, and practices this sutra, and if I were to describe fully the merit thereby attained, some who heard it might become mentally deranged, and so forth. From this point onward, there are two passages of the sutra, clarifying that the causes and conditions of receiving and upholding the sutra enable one to attain two kinds of retribution: worldly and supramundane.

The wording of the sutra clarifies that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra not only directly brings about Buddhahood but also includes the attainment of worldly retributions, such as becoming a king among humans or devas and possessing the five desires in abundance.

+ If the Tathagata were to describe this fully, some who heard it might become mentally deranged, doubtful, and unbelieving: That is, if the Tathagata were to explain fully how receiving and upholding the sutra brings the two kinds of retribution, worldly and supramundane, sentient beings who heard it would become doubtful and confused. Therefore, he speaks only of the inconceivable supramundane merit that is attained and does not speak of worldly retribution.

+ Earlier, it was clarified that practices performed while grasping at characteristics attain only the retributions of the three realms, whereas receiving and upholding this sutra directly attains the unconditioned Dharma-body, the ultimate fruit. Here, however, it is again said that one attains the two kinds of retribution, worldly and supramundane. Why are these earlier and later statements contradictory and inconclusive?

If one attains the unconditioned Dharma-body, one cannot also attain the worldly retribution of becoming a king among humans or devas. If one attains the retribution of becoming a king among devas or humans, one cannot also attain the unconditioned Dharma-body as the fruit. Seeing the glory of high rank in the present world, people place importance upon the retribution of kingship and become attached to it.

They therefore use the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra to seek worldly retribution rather than Buddhahood, and consequently their minds become deranged. Once their minds are confused, they hesitate and do not believe, not knowing whether receiving and upholding this sutra will certainly enable them to attain Buddhahood or whether it will not. Such hesitation is called doubt.

Because that doubtful mind is deluded concerning the principle and further gives rise to afflictions, it is called delusion. Earlier, however, it was said that, by relying upon this sutra and practicing signless dana-paramita and so forth, one can attain the unconditioned Dharma-body; it was not said that one attains worldly retribution. Why, then, is it now said that receiving and upholding this sutra brings the two kinds of retribution, worldly and supramundane…?

This explains that receiving and upholding this sutra truly leads, in the distant culmination, to the great and wondrous retribution of the unconditioned Dharma-body. The reason worldly retributions such as kingship are also attained is that, while practitioners have not yet perfected their cultivation and have not yet attained Buddhahood, they naturally receive incidental retributions among devas and humans during the intervening period.

It is like a person who plants rice seeking only the grain and not desiring the grasses that nevertheless grow naturally. Although bodhisattvas undergo the worldly retribution of kingship, they are not defiled by attachment to it. One should not regard this fruit as identical to the substantial fruit obtained in the world through grasping at characteristics.

– The Treatise states: What further karma is accomplished through cultivation? This reiterates the third line of the root verse at the beginning of the Treatise, concerning the three kinds of cultivation in the eighth section, revealing the karma of that cultivation and giving rise to this section on benefits. This passage of the sutra is presented here, whereas its chapter heading appeared above, because the preceding section explained the three kinds of wisdom derived from hearing, which arise from cultivation. Now it distinguishes the many benefits attained through the two kinds of wisdom derived from reflection and cultivation, which likewise arise from cultivation. Because the three kinds of wisdom are mutually related in the manner of their manifestation, and because “cultivation” is a general term encompassing them all, their meanings are interconnected. Therefore, the chapter heading appears above, while the sutra’s explanation is given here. Since this section of the sutra fully elucidates the meaning of cultivation, it is called: “Revealing the karma of that cultivation.”

To explain this passage of the sutra, the Treatise uses three verses to establish nine chapter headings, or alternatively ten chapter headings.

+ The first verse explains the first four chapter headings.

+ The second verse explains the middle four chapter headings.

+ In the third verse, the first two lines explain the final chapter heading, though they may also be divided into two chapter headings for explanation. The last two lines form a general conclusion to all three verses. This should be understood accordingly.

+ Not the sphere of others: This explains the first passage of the sutra, clarifying that the wondrous principle of this sutra is profound and is not within the capacity of ordinary beings or followers of the Two Vehicles to fathom through the mind, intellect, or consciousness associated with the three kinds of wisdom—hearing, reflection, and cultivation. Therefore, the verse says: “Not the sphere of others.”

+ Taught only for great beings: This explains the second passage of the sutra. Because the wondrous principle of the sutra is profound, those of lesser faculties and wisdom cannot comprehend it; therefore, it is expounded only for bodhisattvas, the great beings. Nevertheless, it is not that the Tathagata can teach only bodhisattvas and does not teach followers of the Lesser Vehicle.

Rather, bodhisattvas possess great faculties and capacities, and therefore it is expounded for them. Followers of the Lesser Vehicle have lesser faculties and wisdom and narrow minds; they cannot comprehend what is great, and therefore it is not expounded for them. This is not due to partiality or contempt for followers of the Two Vehicles.

It is like the newly risen sun, whose light first illuminates the high mountains and only afterward shines upon the lowlands; it has no intention of treating the high and low differently.

+ And those few who hear and believe the Dharma: This explains the third passage, clarifying that those who believe this sutra are few and difficult to find. The sutra contains no separate passage that can be explained here; therefore, the persons and Dharma described in the preceding two passages are indicated as the persons who believe and the Dharma that is believed.

Those who hear are few: This clarifies that ordinary beings and followers of the Two Vehicles do not hear this sutra, and even if they hear it, they cannot believe it. Only bodhisattvas are able to hear and believe it. Since those who believe are difficult to find, the verse says: “And those few who hear and believe the Dharma.”

+ Fully possessing the unsurpassed realm: This explains the fourth passage of the sutra. It clarifies that through the causes and conditions of receiving and upholding the sutra, the intrinsic nature of the unconditioned Dharma-body can be fully revealed. This complete intrinsic nature is of two kinds: first, the complete intrinsic nature possessed by bodhisattvas of the ten bhumis; second, the complete intrinsic nature manifested in the fruit of the Tathagata, together with all its existing wondrous functions.

+ Receiving and upholding the true and wondrous Dharma: This explains the fifth passage of the sutra. If one receives and upholds this sutra but cannot use its verbal explanations to comprehend its principle, attain the principle, and then relinquish those verbal explanations, this is not called receiving and upholding the true and wondrous Dharma. If, in receiving and upholding this sutra, one can relinquish the verbal explanations to comprehend its wondrous purport and penetrate the unconditioned Dharma-body, only then is it called: “Receiving and upholding the true and wondrous Dharma.” This clarifies that one who receives and upholds the sutra thereby bears and practices the Tathagata’s true and wondrous Dharma-body.

+ Honoring it, the body gains merit: This explains the sixth passage of the sutra. It clarifies that not only does receiving and upholding the sutra produce abundant merit, but honoring the place where this sutra is expounded and making extensive offerings there also produce abundant merit. Because the place where this Vajra Prajnaparamita Sutra is expounded reveals the unconditioned Dharma-body, making offerings at that place is itself making offerings to the Dharma-body. Therefore, the verse says: “Honoring it.”

The body gains merit: This means that the person who makes offerings personally attains the two kinds of fruition, mundane and supramundane.

+ And becoming free from all obstructions: This explains the seventh passage of the sutra. Through the power of the merit gained by receiving and upholding the sutra, the karma that would produce suffering in the three evil destinies is transformed, so that one undergoes only light retribution in the present life and that karma is thereby extinguished. One also becomes free from the obstruction to knowledge and the obstruction of afflictions.

+ Moreover, one can swiftly realize the Dharma: This explains the eighth passage of the sutra. It clarifies that the Buddha himself referred to an event in the past: although he made offerings to the Buddhas, at that time his mind still grasped at characteristics, and therefore he could not swiftly attain the fruition of bodhi. If a person can receive and uphold this sutra without delighting in conditioned rewards within the three realms, that person can swiftly realize the Dharma of unsurpassed bodhi.

+ Accomplishing immeasurable powers: This explains the ninth passage of the sutra. It clarifies that the merit of receiving and upholding the sutra can bring the fruition of becoming a king among devas or humans in the world, possessing immeasurable powers.

+ Attaining great and wondrous fruition: These two lines explain the sutra passage: “This Dharma gate is inconceivable, and its fruition is likewise inconceivable.” This clarifies that one does not merely directly attain mundane fruition with immeasurable powers, but also indirectly brings about the exceedingly great and wondrous supramundane fruit. The final two lines are: “Such supreme karma / Is known through cultivation of the Dharma.”

+ What meanings do these three verses reveal? As the author of the Treatise is about to explain in prose the nine chapter headings contained in the verses, he poses this question as a transition.

+ From “It is inconceivable…” through “Not shared with sravakas”: This explains the first line of the verse.

+ From “Those called established in the foremost Great Vehicle…” through “Their cultivation is superior”: This explains the second line of the verse.

+ From “Because they believe in the Lesser Vehicle, they are unable to hear this sutra” through “Those who hear are few, yet they are able to believe the Dharma”: This explains the third line of the verse and completes the explanation of the three chapter headings.

+ From the words “As the sutra states” onward: This generally introduces the subsequent passage of the sutra in order to summarize it.

+ “Those who hear are few” refers to the passage containing the words “inconceivable,” and so forth: The first two chapter headings have corresponding passages, namely, these two chapter headings in the sutra. Above, a third chapter heading was established, but the sutra has no separate passage for it. Lest the reader fail to understand, the text again indicates that the chapter heading above refers to the passage containing the words “inconceivable,” and so forth.

+ From “Attaining inconceivable merit…” through “An immeasurable accumulation of merit”: This explains the fourth line of the verse, citing the sutra to summarize it.

+ The following section explains the five chapter headings contained in the two verses. In each case it briefly cites the sutra to explain them and then cites the sutra again at greater length. This can be understood from the Treatise.

– Section 10: From “At that time, Venerable Subhuti addressed the Buddha: How does a bodhisattva give rise to the mind of bodhi? How should that mind be subdued?” onward: The large section contains sixteen passages of sutra text. This is the tenth passage, called the Section on Eliminating Doubts.

1. Why is this called the Section on Eliminating Doubts? Above, beginning with the third passage, the elimination of doubts was already extensively explained. Why were those passages not given the name “Eliminating Doubts,” while this passage alone bears that name?

Clearly, sentient beings are unstable and prone to attachment. Upon hearing the Tathagata expound the Dharma, they often raise all manner of doubts concerning a single teaching stated above. From the third section through the ninth, in one cycle of Dharma exposition, doubts are successively eliminated from beginning to end regarding the four matters mentioned above: bodhisattvas, sentient beings, the Buddhas, and pure lands.

Nevertheless, because each is connected with a distinct point being clarified, and because their matters and meanings differ and their designations are separately established, although they all eliminate doubts, they are not called the Section on the Elimination of Doubts. From this point onward, passages from the preceding sutra text are cited again. Although the wording is generally the same, the doubts are different and the intent of the replies is also different; therefore, this alone bears the name Section on the Elimination of Doubts.

+ In what sequence does it arise? This tenth section is intended to explain doubts not yet eliminated above. Therefore, in sequence, it again cites the preceding seven passages of the sutra to explain those doubts. Hence, next comes the clarification in the sutra of this Section on the Elimination of Doubts.

+ At that time, the Venerable Subhuti said to the Buddha… through: He is therefore not a bodhisattva: This repeats the third passage of the sutra, previously called the Section on Abiding. The meaning of abiding has already been extensively explained above.

+ The reason it is cited again: The text above left a doubt not yet completely resolved. In order to use the following passage, “Why is this? Venerable Subhuti! Because in truth there is no dharma that is called a bodhisattva,” to explain the preceding doubt, the entire passage is cited again.

+ Why is this said here? The objection is raised: The third passage of the sutra above already clarified those three kinds of cultivation; why are they explained again here? What further point is there?

Therefore, it explains: In truth there is no dharma that is called a bodhisattva who has generated the aspiration for samyaksambodhi. This clarifies that the preceding doubt concerning the three kinds of cultivation has not yet been eliminated, and so the statement, “In truth there is no dharma that is called a bodhisattva,” is used to explain that doubt. Therefore, the passage is cited again.

The doubt is as follows: Why did the third section above explain that a bodhisattva who has realized the First Bhumi attains the two kinds of non-arising and non-self, comprehends the path of seeing, possesses the four kinds of profound mind, forever eliminates the coarse category of habitual tendencies arising from the ignorance of the four abidings within the three realms, abandons the five kinds of fear, abides on the First Bhumi, and, within the principle of equality, does not perceive that one as a sentient being or oneself as a bodhisattva, but abides in that wondrous principle and subdues one’s own mind?

Furthermore, upon attaining the Second Bhumi and above, the bodhisattva comprehends the path of cultivation. Because I have attained this understanding, I am able to possess all four kinds of profound mind and abide on the First Bhumi. I am able to cultivate without attachment to the three things.

I am able to subdue my mind without perceiving the three things. I am able to eliminate afflictions and teach innumerable beings. Because there is such a discriminating mind, someone raises this doubt: If a bodhisattva realizes the path of seeing and, through cultivation, comprehends non-self, why is it still said, “I am able to realize the principle of equality and not perceive sentient beings as different from bodhisattvas,” and even, “I am able to cultivate,” and so forth?

Having personally attained the comprehension of non-self, if the bodhisattva now says that there is no longer any perception, who is it that is said not to perceive? If the bodhisattva says, “I am able not to perceive,” then the one in question is the bodhisattva; but who is the “I”? Yet the bodhisattva says, “I am able not to perceive,” and so forth.

Thus, the doubter in turn supposes that the sentient being constituted by the five skandhas is the bodhisattva, and that there is no separate bodhisattva. If the sentient being constituted by the five skandhas is not the bodhisattva, then why does the bodhisattva personally say, “I am able to…”? Examining the matter accordingly, one would conclude that the sentient being constituted by the five skandhas is the real bodhisattva.

In order to eliminate that doubt, it is said: In truth there is no dharma that is called a bodhisattva who has generated the aspiration to seek the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi.

+ Now it is clarified that in truth there is no dharma called a bodhisattva who has generated the aspiration for samyaksambodhi: This is because the name is a provisional designation, while the substance of a sentient being is illusory and unreal. The five skandhas arise and cease through causes and conditions, but the essential nature of dharmas has always been quiescent. Among the conditioned dharmas of the sentient being constituted by the five skandhas, there is not a single truly existent dharma that can be called a bodhisattva.

+ If, within the sentient being constituted by the five skandhas, there is not a single real dharma called a bodhisattva, why, then, is it said, “I am a bodhisattva”?

Yet it is now said: “I am a bodhisattva. I am able to see the path and cultivate the path. I am able to practice,” and so forth. This does not mean that, after attaining the First Bhumi, a bodhisattva still regards the sentient being constituted by the five skandhas as a self and has not yet completely eliminated coarse delusions such as the view of a substantial body.

+ The reason it is still said, “I am able to…,” and so forth: This clarifies that the two kinds of bodhisattvas—those on the path of seeing and those on the path of cultivation—although they directly perceive true nature and eliminate the afflictions and unwholesome qualities of the four abidings, together with one coarse category of delusion, still possess the abiding ground of ignorance among the fundamental afflictions, as well as subtle delusions.

With respect to wholesome dharmas, a slight discriminating mind has not yet been completely eliminated, and thus the activity of this kind of delusion remains. Up to and including the Seventh Bhumi, because they are no longer troubled by that obstruction, those on the Eighth Bhumi and above make no deliberate effort and comprehend the non-abiding path. By eliminating this doubt, the text thereby exhorts bodhisattvas to strive to remove their remaining discriminations concerning self; hence it says: In truth there is no dharma that is called a bodhisattva who has generated the aspiration for samyaksambodhi.

This is an implicit answer, not the direct answer. If one wished to answer directly, one would also have to reformulate the objection. If such discrimination arises, one is not a true bodhisattva.

What, then, is a true bodhisattva? The answer should be: There is a true bodhisattva, namely, one who has attained the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas and comprehended the two kinds of non-self. That is a true bodhisattva.

+ Yet it does not answer directly: This is because the passage is cited to explain the fourth section of the sutra below. Since the expression of its meaning has not yet been completed, the answer is given in conjunction with that explanation.

+ The Treatise explains this passage of the sutra with one verse.

+ The verse says: “In cultivating within the mind, the bodhisattva still has a self.” From the First Bhumi upward through the Seventh Bhumi, although bodhisattvas have attained resolute understanding of non-self, when cultivating within their minds they still think, “I am a bodhisattva. I am able not to perceive the three things.” Such discrimination is fundamental ignorance. With respect to wholesome dharmas, it is the delusion of discrimination.

Therefore, one asks: Are those three kinds of cultivation on the paths of seeing and cultivation, together with resolute understanding, real or unreal? The answer should be: They are real. Next comes the objection: If they are real, what fault is there in personally saying, “I am able to cultivate,” and so forth?

The answer is: This itself is an obstruction in the mind. This clarifies that such discrimination as “I am able to cultivate,” and so forth, is ignorance concerning wholesome dharmas and the delusion of deliberate effort, which obstructs the minds of those on the Eighth Bhumi and above. One then asks: Which minds of those on the Eighth Bhumi and above does it obstruct?

Therefore, the next line of the verse says: “It is contrary to the non-abiding path.” This clarifies that, up to and including the Seventh Bhumi, discrimination concerning wholesome dharmas is the delusion of deliberate effort, obstructing those on the Eighth Bhumi and above from attaining the mind free from deliberate effort that comprehends the non-abiding path.

+ What is here called non-abiding: It means neither abiding in the mind of deliberate effort nor abiding in the mind free from deliberate effort; therefore, it is called the non-abiding path.

+ What is the meaning of this?… through: Subdues his own mind: This explains the first line of the verse.

+ The bodhisattva gives rise to that discrimination: This explains the second line of the verse.

+ It obstructs the practice of bodhi: This explains the third line of the verse.

In the following portion, the three lines of the verse are used together, and the sutra is cited to summarize and conclude.

+ Which minds does it obstruct? This cites the third line as a question.

Answer: The verse says: “It is contrary to the non-abiding path.” This uses the fourth line as the answer.

+ As in the sutra passage below: This cites the section of the sutra that explains the doubt in order to summarize and conclude.

2. Venerable Subhuti! At the abode of Dipankara Buddha, did the Tathagata have any dharma called bodhi?…: This is the second scriptural passage in the Section on Dispelling Doubts.

Why is it cited again? It is because of the preceding doubt concerning the statement: “There truly is no dharma called a bodhisattva.” The doubter supposes that there are absolutely no bodhisattvas, and asks: Why then did the Tathagata say, “Formerly, in the presence of Dipankara Buddha, I practiced the bodhisattva conduct and received the prediction of the fruition of the path of bodhi”? Judging from this, there should be bodhisattvas; why, then, is it said that there are none?

+ The Buddha asked Venerable Subhuti: At the abode of Dipankara Buddha, did the Tathagata have any dharma called bodhi? Venerable Subhuti understood clearly and therefore replied: At the abode of Dipankara Buddha, the Tathagata had no dharma called the reception of the prediction of the fruition of the path of bodhi. This clarifies that when the bodhisattva was still within the lineage of cultivation, at the abode of Dipankara Buddha he received a prediction only through words and had not yet attained anything.

Therefore it is said: “There was no dharma called bodhi.” This explains that he had not yet attained the true patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas within the samyaksaṃbodhi of the First Bhumi. It does not mean that before entering the bhumis there was no nominal, conventionally designated bodhi for which a prediction of the fruition of the path of bodhi could be conferred through words.

The preceding doubt concerned the point that bodhi should exist; why, then, is it now answered that bodhi was not attained?

Here, the dharma that is the object of realization in true suchness is called bodhi. This clarifies that sentient beings who cultivate and realize bodhi are called bodhisattvas. Since at that time he had not yet reached bodhi, it is made clear that this designation was not real.

+ The Buddha said: “So it is! Venerable Subhuti! At the abode of Dipankara Buddha, the Tathagata truly had no dharma called the fruition of the path of unsurpassed bodhi”: Here the Tathagata confirms and praises Venerable Subhuti’s exposition as not false, thereby dispelling all doubts.

+ “Subhuti! If there had been any dharma called the Tathagata’s attainment of bodhi, Dipankara Buddha would not have conferred upon the Tathagata the prediction: ‘In a future age, you will become a Buddha named Shakyamuni’”: That is, the Tathagata himself said: If, while I was within the lineage of cultivation in the time of Dipankara Buddha, I had already realized the First Bhumi and, through the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas, received the prediction of the fruition of the path of bodhi, then later the innumerable Buddhas, and even bodhisattvas of the First Bhumi, would all have clearly perceived what had occurred in the presence of Dipankara Buddha and so forth;

Dipankara Buddha would therefore not subsequently have conferred upon me another prediction concerning the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas.

Because I had not in fact received the prediction of the fruition of the path of bodhi through the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas, Dipankara Buddha later again conferred the prediction upon me: “Good man! In a future age, you will become a Buddha named Shakyamuni.” This explains that at that time the Tathagata truly had not yet attained the First Bhumi and the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas by which he would receive the prediction of the fruition of the path of bodhi.

It clarifies that later Dipankara Buddha again conferred the prediction upon the Tathagata: “You will become a Buddha.” Furthermore, only on the third occasion, at the abode of Dipankara Buddha, did he actually realize the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas and receive the prediction.

+ “Why is this?” Here a doubt arises: As stated above, bodhi should exist. Why, then, is it now said: “There truly is no dharma called the Tathagata’s attainment of bodhi”? If there truly is no dharma called the Tathagata’s attainment of bodhi, this would amount to the slanderous claim that bodhi is entirely nonexistent and that no Buddhas attain bodhi. If there were thus no bodhi that could be attained, why would a bodhisattva cultivate and practice bodhi throughout three great asaṃkhyeya kalpas?

The answer is: “Tathagata” means true suchness itself. The reason it was said above that there was no dharma called the attainment of bodhi was to clarify that at that time the prediction had been conferred only through words and that there was not yet any actually realized dharma that could be called bodhi. It does not mean that, in principle, bodhi is utterly nonexistent.

+ It is now said: “It is true suchness itself”: This clarifies that the bodhi of the unconditioned Dharma-body truly exists; it has always been fixed and certain, its essence neither changing nor differing, and it has none of the characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Therefore it is called “true suchness itself.” This indicates that such true suchness is the unconditioned Dharma-body and the essence of bodhi.

Because bodhi truly exists, it should be clearly understood that bodhisattvas also exist and that there is also cultivation through which Buddhahood is attained. How, then, could one slanderously claim that bodhi is entirely nonexistent and that there are no bodhisattvas who cultivate, realize the fruition, and become Buddhas?

Although the existence of the essence of bodhi has now been affirmed, this is still not the principal answer. The principal answer will be given separately in the subsequent analogy of the great body. Because it is said, “The Tathagata is true suchness itself,” another doubt arises: If the bodhi of true suchness is said truly to exist, then this existence would also be the same as the existence of the myriad conditioned characteristics, such as form and so forth, in the world.

Because the mind gives rise to such a doubt, the answer is: “If anyone says that the Tathagata attains samyaksaṃbodhi, that person speaks untruthfully.” This clarifies that the essence of the bodhi of the Dharma-body has forever transcended the myriad characteristics. It exists as wondrous existence, not as the existence of false conditioned things. How could one hear that it exists and immediately suppose that it is the same as the existence of the myriad false characteristics, such as form and so forth?

Since it is wondrous existence, to claim that it is the same as false existence is erroneous speech. Therefore it is written: “He speaks untruthfully.”

+ The subsequent scriptural passage then confirms why regarding that bodhi as the same as conditioned things is untruthful speech and from where that error arises: “There truly is no dharma called the Tathagata’s attainment of samyaksaṃbodhi.”

Here the foregoing explanation of the bodhisattva’s realization should be cited to confirm this meaning.

+ It was said above: “There truly is no dharma called a bodhisattva”: This explains that a sentient being constituted by the five skandhas is not a real bodhisattva.

+ But to say: “Within the dharmas of the five skandhas constituting that sentient being, there truly is no dharma called a bodhisattva,” is not false speech. It is now said: “There truly is no dharma called the Tathagata’s attainment of samyaksaṃbodhi”: This clarifies that within the essence of bodhi there are none of the myriad characteristics, such as form and so forth, that could be apprehended. Thus, to speak of an attainment of bodhi is also false.

This explains the bodhisattva. The Buddha is likewise. Because the bodhisattva is not real, bodhi also is not real.

Or, upon hearing that bodhi exists, one may immediately suppose that bodhi is the same as the myriad conditioned characteristics, such as form and so forth, that can be apprehended. The response is: “Because bodhi is not attained.” This clarifies “not attained”: Because the essence of bodhi has none of the myriad conditioned characteristics, there is not a single dharma that can be apprehended. Therefore it is said: “Bodhi is not attained.” It does not mean that, in principle, there is no realization.

How could one take the fact that bodhi lacks the myriad apprehensible characteristics of conditioned things and use it to object that, in principle, there can also be no realization?

Because of the statement, “There truly is not a single dharma called the Buddha’s attainment of samyaksaṃbodhi,” another doubt and refutation arise: If it is said that there truly is no dharma called the Buddha’s attainment of samyaksaṃbodhi, then absolutely no one attains bodhi. Since no one attains bodhi, it should be understood that there is also no bodhi that can be attained.

The answer is: “Venerable Subhuti! The Tathagata attained the fruition of the path of unsurpassed bodhi…”: Here the Buddha cites his own attainment of bodhi to elucidate the meaning that there is realization.

+ To say that the Tathagata realized it explains: I personally cultivated through three great asaṃkhyeya kalpas, fully perfected the practices of the ten Bhumis, and realized bodhi. How could one slanderously claim that absolutely no one attains bodhi?

+ “Therein it is not real”: This summarizes and confirms the foregoing statement: “There truly is no dharma called the Buddha’s attainment of samyaksaṃbodhi.” It clarifies that the essence of bodhi has none of the myriad characteristics, such as form and so forth; yet to suppose that it is the same as the myriad conditioned characteristics that can be apprehended is unreal.

+ Not speaking falsely: This summarizes and confirms what was stated above: The Tathagata realized the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi. This clarifies that although the essence of bodhi has none of the myriad forms and characteristics, such as form and so forth, that can be apprehended, it is not that the true-suchness bodhi, fully endowed with the myriad virtues and realized by the Tathagata, does not truly exist. Therefore it says: “Not speaking falsely.” This jointly summarizes the two passages of scripture above concerning realization and non-realization.

+ Therefore, the Tathagata says that all dharmas are Buddha-dharmas: This separately confirms what was stated above: Thus, within the principle of realizing the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi, there is no implication of falsely claiming realization. The Tathagata teaches that all the dharmas of the foremost fruit, endowed with the myriad virtues, are the wondrously existent dharmas of the Dharma-body of all Buddhas. It should also be said: Therefore, the Tathagata says that all dharmas are not Buddha-dharmas. This explains that all conditioned dharmas with their myriad forms and characteristics, such as form and so forth, are not all the dharmas of the foremost fruit, fully endowed with the myriad virtues.

Because this was not stated in that manner, when the Tathagata said, “All dharmas are Buddha-dharmas,” the assembly again gave rise to doubt: If all dharmas are said to be Buddha-dharmas, then the term “all” becomes confused: There is the “all” of the conditioned and the “all” of the unconditioned. Are both kinds of “all” Buddha-dharmas? If both are Buddha-dharmas, how could it have been said above that the bodhi of the Dharma-body has none of the myriad forms and characteristics that can be apprehended, while true bodhi really exists within the unconditioned Dharma of true suchness?

Therefore, the scripture replies: “What are called all dharmas, those all dharmas are precisely not all dharmas.” Thus, the former “all dharmas” refers to all conditioned dharmas. The latter “all dharmas” refers to all unconditioned dharmas.

+ Precisely not all dharmas: This clarifies that the former all conditioned dharmas are not all unconditioned dharmas. It may also be said that all unconditioned dharmas are precisely not all conditioned dharmas.

+ Therefore they are called all dharmas: This sentence jointly summarizes the two kinds of all dharmas: Therefore they are called all conditioned dharmas; therefore they are called all unconditioned dharmas. Although the designation “all” is the same, the essence of all conditioned dharmas is false and illusory, and therefore they are not bodhi. The essence of all unconditioned dharmas is true and real, and therefore they are bodhi. One cannot, merely because the designation “all” is the same, regard all conditioned dharmas as also being all the Buddha-dharmas of the fruit fully endowed with the myriad virtues.

– The Treatise states: “Here there is a doubt,” and so forth below: The author of the Treatise first raises the purport of the doubt, cites the ensuing scripture, and summarizes it in two verses to explain this passage of scripture.

– The first verse explains the section of scripture from: “Venerable Subhuti! What do you think?…” through: “Neither untrue nor false speech.”

+ Because the prediction was received at a later time: This returns to explain the preceding scriptural passage concerning the elimination of doubt. The doubt raised is no different from the one above. If answered directly, it should say: “There truly was no dharma called the realization of bodhi.” This clarifies that when the Tathagata was in the presence of Dipankara Buddha, he had not yet attained realization; therefore it says: “There was no dharma called the realization of bodhi.” Since there was no bodhi that was realized, it thereby confirms: “Nor was there a true bodhisattva who attained realization.”

To say that there is a bodhisattva means that one who presently realizes the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas and comprehends the supramundane path is called a true bodhisattva. Here, the verse merely replies, “Because the prediction was received at a later time,” and within its meaning it is already understood that a true bodhisattva exists.

If there were no bodhisattva, how could it be said: “The prediction was received at a later time”?

+ The reason this is not answered directly here: It is because the expression of that meaning is not yet complete and remains connected with the section that follows; therefore, it is directly explained in the later scriptural passage. Here, the existence of such a bodhisattva is clarified through the prediction received at a later time.

+ Before Dipankara, the practice was not supreme: This means that, in the period before Dipankara Buddha, the Tathagata was at the level of the lineage developed through cultivation and had not yet attained the patience regarding the non-arising of dharmas of the first bhumi, which is the foremost and supreme practice. Therefore it says: “Before Dipankara, the practice was not supreme.” The preceding line says: “Because the prediction was received at a later time.” This means that, later, at the level of the lineage-nature, the second Dipankara Buddha first bestowed a prediction concerning the patience regarding non-arising from the first through the eighth bhumi.

After the thirty minds had been completely fulfilled, a third Dipankara Buddha again bestowed upon the Tathagata a prediction concerning the patience regarding non-arising. This is “the prediction received at a later time.” This means that before the first bhumi, when he had not yet attained the lineage of the path, that Dipankara Buddha had already bestowed a prediction upon the Tathagata. Examining it in this manner, one should know that in the presence of the earlier Dipankara Buddha, he had not yet realized non-arising within samyaksaṃbodhi; it merely states that the prediction was manifested.

The above two lines of verse explain the preceding scriptural passage: “Good man! In a future life, you will become a Buddha named Shakyamuni.”

+ That practice together with bodhi: The scripture first states that the sentient being, with respect to that meaning, is not bodhi. It later states that conditioned dharmas, such as form and so forth, are not bodhi. The verse was composed on this basis, and therefore says: “That practice together with bodhi.”

+ As for saying, “That practice together with bodhi”: This clarifies that one who realizes bodhi is a true bodhisattva. Since bodhi had not yet been realized, one should know that there was also no bodhisattva who could realize it. The shared meaning of unreality supports and completes both points together.

There is also another explanation: It should say, “That practice together with bodhi.” However, following the method of verse composition discussed in the Chanda Treatise, connective words are used to unite the meanings above and below. This clarifies the bodhisattva. The Buddha is likewise.

+ Therefore, the following line of the verse says: “Conditioned characteristics are not real.” This explains that the bodhisattva who realizes bodhi through the sentient being of the five skandhas—a conditioned dharma possessing myriad characteristics—is false and illusory, and is therefore called unreal. Why is it unreal? Because the conditioned is regarded as the true characteristic.

Those latter two lines explain the scriptural passage beginning with: “Why is this so?” The explanation here directly clarifies that a bodhisattva’s bodhi cannot be attained through conditioned characteristics. Yet it has not clarified that within the unconditioned Dharma there is the true practice of a bodhisattva and bodhi that can be realized. With respect to this meaning, the second general proposition should therefore be formulated: “That practice together with bodhi is the true unconditioned characteristic.” Because the canonical verse is limited in length, a second verse is composed.

Although a second verse is composed, because the scripture that was formulated has not yet clarified the existence of a true bodhisattva, it clarifies only that true bodhi exists.

+ “What is the meaning of this?”… through: “There was not a single dharma by which bodhi could be realized”: This explains the second line of the verse.

+ If the Tathagata had realized bodhi in the presence of that Buddha, then at a later time the Buddhas would not have bestowed a prediction upon the Tathagata: This explains the first line of the verse.

+ Therefore, at that time, the Tathagata was practicing and had not yet become a Buddha: This returns to the preceding sentence to summarize the second line that follows. Here it should explain the preceding line. Why, then, does it explain the second line first? It is because the scriptural text explained by the latter line occurs earlier. The prose section of that Treatise follows the sequence of the scripture, and therefore explains the second line first.

+ “The verse says,” and so forth below: Having completed the explanation, it also cites the first half of the verse to summarize it.

+ If there were no bodhi, there would consequently be no Buddhas or Tathagatas: This first presents the intent of the objection based on doubt.

+ “As in the scripture,” and so forth: This presents the scripture’s explanation resolving the doubt as a summary, after which the Treatise is used to explain the scripture.

+ “If someone says,” and so forth below: This first cites the scripture to formulate a question, and then presents the third line of the verse in reply.

+ What is the meaning of this? Since this verse says, “That practice together with bodhi,” what, then, is its meaning?

+ That practice together with bodhi: This clarifies that, in the preceding scripture passage, the bodhisattva gives rise to the aspiration for bodhi and undertakes practice, explaining the phrase “that practice” in the verse.

+ Thus, the Tathagata, up to: That too is false: This clarifies that, in this scripture passage, if someone says that the Tathagata attained bodhi, that statement is untrue, thereby explaining the word bodhi in the verse.

+ Therefore it is said that bodhi and that practice are together: This is the concluding statement.

+ If someone maintains that the conditioned dharmas of the five skandhas in sentient beings, such as form and so forth, are the bodhi of the bodhisattva, this is untrue; hence the word “together” is used.

+ If someone were thus to slanderously say: The Tathagata did not attain bodhi: This sets forth the intent of the slanderous doubt.

In order to eliminate that doubt, the scripture passage that follows is cited and explained to conclude the discussion of the doubt.

+ What is the meaning of this? This poses a question. Previously it was said: There is truly no dharma called the bodhi attained by the Tathagata.

Yet here it is again said: The Tathagata attained the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi. Since these statements contradict each other, what is their meaning? The explanation is: Because the Tathagata attained that bodhi.

This sentence explains the subsequent scripture passage, “The Tathagata attained samyak-sambodhi,” clarifying the matter according to principle. The Tathagata truly cultivated the practice and attained bodhi. If the Tathagata truly attained bodhi, why was it previously said that he did not attain it?

Therefore, the verse is cited to explain: The characteristics of conditioned things are not real. This sentence explains the preceding scripture passage: The Tathagata did not attain samyak-sambodhi.

+ The characteristics of conditioned things: These are the characteristics of the five skandhas. This identifies the meaning of “the characteristics of conditioned things” in the verse.

+ That dharma of bodhi has no characteristics such as form and so forth: This clarifies that within the essence of bodhi, no characteristics of the five skandhas, such as form and so forth, can be apprehended; hence it is written: The characteristics of conditioned things are not real.

+ How, moreover, is this so? The latter two lines of the preceding verse together explain the scripture passage: Bodhi has none of the myriad characteristics such as form and so forth and therefore cannot be apprehended.

+ If bodhi were held to be identical with characteristics such as form and so forth: That would be untrue. Yet this still has not explained that the bodhi of true suchness truly exists, nor has it explained the scriptural statement that someone attains bodhi. A second verse will now be composed to explain this meaning; therefore, a doubt is first raised as a transition: If it is said that bodhi has no characteristics such as form and so forth, the scripture states: “The Tathagata is true suchness itself.” It also says: “The Tathagata attained the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi.” What does this mean? The verse therefore answers: That itself is the characteristic of non-characteristic.

– This second verse explains the scripture passage: Therefore, the Tathagata says that all dharmas are Buddha-dharmas.

+ That itself is the characteristic of non-characteristic: “That” refers to the bodhi of that Dharma-body, which is not characterized by the myriad conditioned dharmas such as form and so forth.

Thus it has no characteristics: It is the unconditioned Dharma-body, the definitive characteristic that encompasses the myriad virtues.

+ Because he does not speak falsely: This clarifies that although the bodhi of the Dharma-body described above has none of the myriad characteristics of conditioned things, it is not devoid of the characteristics of the myriad unconditioned virtues of true suchness.

The scripture states: “The Tathagata attained the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi.” This is not a false statement; hence the verse says: Because he does not speak falsely. It is further asked: Why does he not speak falsely? Therefore, the third line of the verse that follows says: That Dharma is the Dharma of all Buddhas.

That Dharma: This means all unconditioned dharmas.

The Dharma of all Buddhas: This is the fruit attained by the Buddhas, namely all the dharma-characteristics of the unconditioned Dharma-body, complete with the myriad virtues.

+ Therefore, the fourth line of the verse says: All characteristics are its own essence. This clarifies that those myriad virtues are the intrinsic characteristics of the Dharma-body of genuine true suchness and are not constituted by the myriad characteristics of conditioned things.

+ What is the meaning of this? From here through “because he does not speak falsely,” the first line of the verse is explained, after which the first half of the verse is cited as a whole to conclude.

+ Therefore, the Tathagata says that all dharmas are Buddha-dharmas, and so forth: This sets forth the concluding statement as a question: What does it mean that the Tathagata says all dharmas are Buddha-dharmas?

The answer is: Because the Tathagata attained such a Dharma. This explains that the Tathagata truly cultivated it himself and attained such a fruit, complete with the myriad virtues of all dharmas. Therefore, the latter half of the verse is again cited to conclude the explanation. The fourth line is then explained first, followed by the third line.

The characteristics such as form and so forth belonging to that domain do not abide: This clarifies that bodhi is complete with the myriad virtues of all dharmas.

+ The reason only true suchness is taken as its essence, rather than form and so forth: Because the essence of bodhi is the unconditioned true suchness, it retains only the myriad virtues of all dharmas and does not grasp all dharmas such as form and so forth; therefore, true suchness is taken as its essence.

3. Venerable Subhuti! Suppose there were a person whose bodily form was tall and great, and so forth: This is the third scripture passage in the Section on Eliminating Doubts. The preceding analogy clarified the Buddha’s reward body; this one now explains the Buddha’s Dharma-body. Above, it has already been extensively explained that the Dharma-body is devoid of the myriad forms and characteristics, yet is wondrous existence.

Furthermore, the two sentences in the preceding scripture passage explained that the bodhi of the Dharma-body is perfectly complete with the myriad virtues, and thus that there is bodhi that can be attained. Yet the doubter still believes that the Dharma-body is entirely nonexistent. Why is this so? If the Dharma-body is perfectly complete with the myriad virtues, then it must possess myriad characteristics that can be seen. If it has no myriad characteristics that can be seen, one should conclude that the Dharma-body is entirely nonexistent; therefore, it can be known that the Dharma-body does not exist. In the preceding scripture passage, the Tathagata sometimes says that bodhi can be attained and sometimes says that no bodhi can be attained.

+ If it is certain that the Dharma-body exists: Then the answer should be that the Tathagata did attain it.

+ If it is certain that the Dharma-body does not exist, then the answer should be that there was no attainment. Yet the present answer is indeterminate, and the Dharma-body also cannot be seen; therefore, it should be known that the Dharma-body does not exist.

Because there are such doubts, the scripture answers: “Suppose there were a person whose bodily form was tall and great,” and so forth. The intent of the answer is to clarify the matter according to principle. Although the essence of bodhi has none of the myriad forms and characteristics that can be apprehended, the bodhi of the Dharma-body of true suchness truly exists and can be attained; nevertheless, no categorical answer can be given.

+ The reason is as follows: This clarifies that this Dharma-body is neither existent nor nonexistent; it is wondrous existence and wondrous nonexistence, the principle of the Middle Way. If the Tathagata were to give a categorical answer, you would again give rise to wrong views. Hearing that bodhi exists, you would immediately regard its existence as identical with that of conditioned things such as form and so forth, thus falling into the view of permanence. Hearing that it does not exist, you would regard it as entirely identical with empty space, as a nonexistence devoid of inherent nature like the horns of a hare, thus falling into the view of annihilation. Therefore, no categorical answer can be given.

Furthermore, this Dharma-body is complete with the two adornments of merit and wisdom, and its essence is wondrous existence; therefore, there is a Dharma-body that can be attained. It is far removed from the two hindrances, and its essence is not conditioned; therefore, there is no Dharma-body that can be attained. Since these two meanings apply, no categorical answer was given above. How, then, could one raise an objection asking why such an indeterminate answer was given?

In order to eliminate that doubt, the analogy of the tall and great body is cited, clarifying that the essence of the Dharma-body exists and that one should not say there is no Dharma-body.

This analogy explains and confirms the preceding statement: The Tathagata is genuine true suchness.

+ Suppose there were a person: Here the Tathagata introduces the analogy of a tall and great body, representing the person of the Dharma-body.

+ The great and wondrous bodily form: Here the Tathagata personally connects this with the analogy. That is, it states that the essential form of the Dharma body is perfect and complete, originally and ever quiescent, entirely free from the two obstructions, and fully endowed with the two kinds of adornment.

+ Wondrous: This is the adornment of wisdom.

+ Great: This is the adornment of merit.

That great and wondrous body confirms what was not stated in the preceding section concerning the Tathagata’s realization of the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi, making clear that the bodhi of the unconditioned Dharma body truly exists and can be realized.

The two preceding passages of scripture explain that a sentient being within the five skandhas is not a true bodhisattva; therefore, conditioned dharmas with their myriad characteristics are likewise not true bodhi.

Those two scriptural passages make clear that the bodhi of the Dharma body is wondrous existence; therefore, the bodhisattva’s practice of patience with regard to the non-arising of dharmas also truly exists.

+ In the fifth passage above, it was said: The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of perfected characteristics. This makes clear that the essence of the unconditioned Dharma body is without the three characteristics.

+ In the sixth passage, it was said: The Tathagata neither realizes bodhi nor teaches the Dharma. This means that the Buddha’s responsive transformation body neither realizes nor teaches the Dharma. In the seventh section, the analogy of the king of mountains and the great bodily form refers to the essence of the Buddha’s reward body as not apprehending discriminative characteristics. Here, the analogy of the great body also explains the Buddha’s Dharma body. In the Treatise, each of these three Buddhas has its own distinct characteristics.

+ Venerable Subhuti said: “World-Honored One! The great and wondrous body of a person spoken of by the Tathagata is precisely not a great body.” If Venerable Subhuti had not said these words, there would have been two faults: first, he would not have understood the Tathagata’s intent; second, he would not have understood the unconditioned Dharma body. Therefore, he had to speak in this manner.

Someone hearing that the Dharma body exists might suspect that it is the same as conditioned existence with its myriad forms and characteristics. Therefore, it is explained: “It is precisely not a great body.” This makes clear that the essence of the Dharma body is originally and ever fixed, entirely free from the two obstructions, and unlike the great conditioned, defiled body with its myriad forms and characteristics. These two sentences confirm the statement above: “There truly is no dharma called the Tathagata’s realization of the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi,” making clear that conditioned dharmas such as form are not the essence of a true bodhisattva.

+ Therefore, the Tathagata calls it a great body: This is the great body of the Buddha’s Dharma body—ultimately true, quiescent wondrous existence, whose essential nature is originally and ever fixed and is without myriad forms and characteristics. It may also be said: “Therefore, the Tathagata says that it is not a great body.” This single sentence jointly summarizes the two scriptural statements: “That body is wondrous and great” and “It is precisely not wondrous and great.”

+ The Treatise explains this scriptural passage with two verses.

– The first verse formulates a question and answer to resolve the doubt.

+ The verse says:

Based upon that Buddha’s Dharma body,

The analogy of the great body is therefore given.

This states the intent of the analogy, making clear that what the analogy reveals is the Dharma body.

+ The body is free from all obstructions: This explains that the self-nature of the Dharma body is originally and ever quiescent and entirely without the two obstructions; it is not that it has only newly become free through their severance.

+ It manifests throughout all realms: This makes clear that the essence of the Dharma body is wondrous existence and has also forever extinguished the two obstructions, so that no impediment remains; therefore, it can enter throughout all realms of sentient beings possessing mind.

In the prose section of the Treatise that follows, merit and the greatness of the essence are explained first, and only afterward is entry throughout all realms explained. This is because the essence of the Dharma body must first exist before its entry throughout all places can be clarified. It explains that, because it possesses essential nature, it manifests everywhere; therefore, this is explained afterward.

– Merit and greatness of essence: This second verse formally explains the scriptural statement: “That body is wondrous and great.”

+ Merit: This formally explains the word “great” in the scripture.

+ And greatness of essence: This explains the word “wondrous” in the scripture.

Greatness is the adornment of merit. Wondrousness is the adornment of wisdom. In the scriptural passage cited above, wondrousness is presented first and greatness explained afterward. In this verse, greatness is explained first and wondrousness afterward. The verse is arranged in this manner for the convenience of its diction and phrasing.

+ Therefore it is called a great body: Because the Dharma body is fully endowed with the two kinds of adornment, this concludes the meaning of the great body.

+ The non-body is precisely the body: This explains the scriptural passage: “The person’s great and wondrous body is precisely not a great body.”

Non-body: This makes clear that the essence of the Dharma body is without myriad characteristics and is not the same as the conditioned, defiled body; therefore, it is written, “non-body.”

Precisely the body: This explains that what “is not a conditioned body” is precisely suchness, fully endowed with the two kinds of adornment—the Dharma body of wondrous existence. In the prose section of the Treatise that follows, the statement “The non-body is precisely the body” is cited to summarize and confirm manifestation throughout all realms. It makes clear that a body possessing characteristics cannot manifest everywhere, whereas the unconditioned Dharma body, whose essence is not form or appearance, can be present everywhere. Thus, “The non-body is precisely the body” is used to confirm its presence throughout all places.

+ Therefore, it is called a non-body: This explains the scriptural passage: “Therefore, the Tathagata calls it a great body.” Because the unconditioned Dharma body is not a conditioned body, it is written, “non-body.” This does not mean that the unconditioned Dharma body does not exist; therefore, it is written: “Therefore, it is called a non-body.”

+ What meaning do these two verses express? The author of the Treatise wishes to compose the prose commentary explaining the verses, so he first poses a question as a transition and then provides the explanation.

+ Because it is entirely free from the obstruction of afflictions and the obstruction to knowledge, the Dharma body is ultimately complete: This explains the third line of the verse: “The body is free from all obstructions.” How is this so? Being entirely free from these two obstructions constitutes the completeness of the Dharma body. How else is this so?

It is explained in two respects. First, it manifests throughout all places: Since the Dharma body is free from the two kinds of obstruction, it can be present throughout all realms of the minds of sentient beings. This is the fourth line of the first verse.

Second, it possesses great merit: This explains that the Dharma body does not manifest everywhere merely because its essence is free from the two obstructions. It is also because it is fully endowed with the two kinds of adornment and its myriad virtues are perfect and complete that it can be present throughout all realms of the minds of sentient beings.

+ Therefore it is called a great body: This concludes the meaning that establishes the great body. That is, it cites the preceding line of the second verse, “Merit and greatness of essence,” to confirm manifestation throughout all places.

+ The suchness within all dharmas is without differentiation: This explains the meaning of “all places.” It makes clear that, when spoken of in relation to practitioners, there are Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and sentient beings, as well as differences among the three times; but when discussing the Dharma body of suchness, its essence is perfect and complete, originally and ever equal, without differentiation.

Everything up to this point explains the first half of the verse and the scriptural passage: “That body is wondrous and great.”

+ The verse says:

The non-body is precisely the body;

Therefore, it is called a non-body.

This makes clear that the meaning of this half-verse is connected with and explains the meaning above. Furthermore, in order to explain the scripture and the verse, this half-verse is cited to confirm the scriptural explanation and summarize the foregoing section.

+ What meaning does this express? This introduces the explanation in sequence.

4. The Buddha said: “Venerable Subhuti! A bodhisattva is likewise thus,” and so forth: This scriptural passage is the fourth passage in the Section on Eliminating Doubts.

+ The reason this passage is introduced: Here a doubt arises. Above it was said: There is truly no dharma called a bodhisattva. If there is no bodhisattva, then there is also no practitioner who realizes and attains bodhi. Furthermore, if there is no practitioner who realizes and attains bodhi, then there is also no one who teaches and transforms sentient beings, nor are there sentient beings who enter nirvana.

If it is said, “I adorn the Buddha-land,” then one is not a bodhisattva; consequently, there would also be no pure land as a dependent recompense. If all four of these dharmas are empty, why do bodhisattvas arouse the resolve to teach and liberate sentient beings, cultivate the practice of the pure land, and seek the fruition of unsurpassed bodhi?

Because there is such a doubt, the explanation is given in accordance with what was stated above. This doubt should already have been eliminated, yet perhaps it arises from a one-sided attachment that gives rise to this challenge. Therefore, the sutra replies: “A bodhisattva is likewise,” and so forth.

The intent of the reply is this: The statement above that there is no bodhisattva, and so forth, is made with reference to sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas within conditioned dharmas and therefore regarded as nonexistent; it does not mean that there is also nothing within principle. Clearly, it does not deny the true existence of bodhisattvas who comprehend the principle of non-arising, cultivate the path, and realize and attain the Buddha’s fruition of bodhi.

Since there are Buddhas who have attained the fruition, and since Buddhas and bodhisattvas fundamentally do not practice goodness for themselves alone, they therefore teach and transform the myriad beings so that they too may attain realization. Thus they arouse the resolve to cultivate the path, liberate sentient beings and cause them to enter nirvana, and cultivate the practice of the pure land. Yet they also understand that, apart from suchness and outside the Dharma-realm, there is not, within conditioned dharmas, a separately existing real bodhisattva who is the agent of transformation, real sentient beings who are the objects of transformation, or a real pure land that can be cultivated and attained.

Therefore, a later passage of the sutra states: “One who comprehends the absence of self and the absence of self in dharmas is called a true bodhisattva.”

The statement above that they are nonexistent means that, among sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas within conditioned dharmas, there is no real bodhisattva. It does not mean that there are absolutely no bodhisattvas. How could one hear the statement that there is truly no dharma called a bodhisattva and immediately conclude that bodhisattvas are entirely nonexistent? To eliminate that doubt, the following passage explains the matter.

+ The Buddha said, “A bodhisattva is likewise”: Above, it was explained that just as this is true of a bodhisattva, it is likewise true of a Buddha. Here it is made clear that, just as with a Buddha, so too is it with a bodhisattva. In what sense is it likewise?

In the first passage of the Section on Eliminating Doubts, it is explained: “There is truly no dharma called a bodhisattva.” Next, in the second passage, it is made clear: “There is truly no dharma by which the Tathagata attained bodhi.” Of these two passages from the sutra, the first clarifies that sentient beings constituted by the five conditioned skandhas are illusory dharmas and are not true bodhisattvas. The next explains that if one supposes bodhi to be like conditioned dharmas, possessing myriad characteristics and capable of being apprehended, that is an unreal assertion.

The verse in the Treatise above says: “That practice and bodhi.” This means that just as it is with a bodhisattva, so too is it with a Buddha. Furthermore, the preceding passage of the sutra made clear that conditioned dharmas with their myriad forms and characteristics are not bodhi, whereas the unconditioned dharma of suchness, complete with myriad virtues, alone is true bodhi.

This passage explains that sentient beings constituted by the five conditioned skandhas are illusory and are not true bodhisattvas. Yet it does not deny that those who comprehend the non-arising principle of suchness are true bodhisattvas.

These two passages of the sutra make clear that, within principle, bodhi truly exists and can be realized and attained; therefore, there are also bodhisattvas who truly attain it. This explains that just as it is with a Buddha, so too is it with a bodhisattva.

+ The present statement “is likewise” makes clear that illusory conditioned dharmas are not bodhisattvas. Only one who realizes the Patience of Non-arising is a true bodhisattva. The meaning is that conditioned dharmas with their myriad characteristics are not true bodhisattvas, while the unconditioned suchness is the true characteristic of bodhi; therefore, it is said: “A bodhisattva is likewise.”

The two preceding passages of the sutra speak only with reference to bodhisattvas and bodhi. Because their meanings are not truly identical, it is said that they are likewise. These two passages together explain bodhisattva and bodhi: in their aspect of true meaning, they are likewise; and in their aspect of unreal meaning, they are likewise as well.

+ “If one says, ‘I shall bring immeasurable sentient beings to cessation,’ then one is not a bodhisattva”: This makes clear that if one gives rise to the thought that, apart from the Dharma-realm of suchness, there separately exists a practitioner who arouses the resolve for bodhi, cultivates the paramitas, and employs such dharmas as loving-kindness and compassion among the four immeasurable minds, the four means of attraction, and so forth, to teach and transform sentient beings and bring them to nirvana, and that such a person is a true bodhisattva, then one has not yet comprehended the principle of equality and is not a bodhisattva of the First Bhumi or above who has penetrated the principle of the equality of suchness.

+ The Buddha said, “Venerable Subhuti! Is there any real dharma called a bodhisattva?” Because of the preceding passage of the sutra, another doubt consequently arises: If one who arouses the resolve, cultivates the path, and teaches and transforms sentient beings is not a true bodhisattva, does this not return to the previous doubt that sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas are themselves true bodhisattvas?

Because such a doubt arises, the Buddha said to Venerable Subhuti: Among sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas within conditioned dharmas, is there any single real dharma that can be called a bodhisattva? Venerable Subhuti replied, “No, World-Honored One. There is truly no dharma called a bodhisattva.” The intent of this reply is to make clear that sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas are conditioned dharmas that have always been quiescent; there is not a single real dharma that can be called a bodhisattva.

One should not regard sentient beings constituted by the five skandhas as true bodhisattvas. “All dharmas are without sentient being, person, living being, and so forth”: This cites the Buddha’s words to elucidate the point. It is by relying upon the emptiness of dharmas arising through causes and conditions that one comprehends the meaning that there is no bodhisattva.

It explains that conditioned dharmas have always been quiescent, without a single real dharma that can be called a bodhisattva, the agent of transformation; thus one also understands that there are no truly existing sentient beings as objects of transformation. The reason the sutra mentions only three—“without sentient being,” and so forth—and does not mention “without self” is that this passage of the sutra is now explaining the true self of suchness.

If it spoke of the absence of self, there would be concern that sentient beings might think that the true self of Buddha-nature is also nonexistent. Therefore, it does not speak of the absence of self, lest the names and characteristics be confused.

+ “Venerable Subhuti! If a bodhisattva says, ‘I adorn the Buddha-land’”… through “…that is called adorning the Buddha-land”: This explains that if one gives rise to a discriminating thought and supposes that, apart from the true Dharma-realm, there separately exists a supramundane adorned pure land produced by supreme, uncontaminated causes and that this land is real, then one is not called a bodhisattva who has penetrated the principle of the equality of suchness.

+ The reason “adorn” is stated twice is to elucidate the causes and conditions of cultivation and to reveal that the Dharma-nature of suchness possesses the wondrous functioning of a truly adorned pure land. It does not mean that, apart from Dharma-nature, there separately exists an adorned pure land created through the practice of the paramitas. Therefore, the word “adorn” is repeated.

+ “That is called adornment”: This is the adornment of the ultimate truth.

This passage of scripture makes clear that there are real bodhisattvas; therefore, it says: If one thinks, “I liberate sentient beings, and I adorn and purify the Buddha-land,” then one is not a true bodhisattva. Because it makes clear that this is not determined by outward form, the statement is repeated. There is also another meaning: Sentient beings, bodhisattvas, Buddhas, and Pure Lands—although these four differ in name and wondrous function—are alike names within the one Dharma-realm.

If one does not comprehend the true Dharma-realm, one supposes that these four dharmas are apart from the true Dharma-realm, each having a distinct essence and different characteristics; therefore, one is not called a true bodhisattva. If one comprehends and thoroughly understands the equality of true suchness, one knows that although these dharmas differ in time and have distinct functions, when their ultimate destination is considered, they have no different characteristics and do not manifestly exist apart from the true Dharma-realm.

Thus, the Śrīmālā Sūtra states: “Relying upon the Tathagata-garbha, all dharmas are established.” Again, as the Sūtra of Neither Increase nor Decrease makes clear: “According to the essence of Buddha-nature within the Dharma-body, there are initially sentient beings, bodhisattvas, and Buddhas.” One should therefore know that although ordinary beings and sages differ, they alike depend upon Buddha-nature. Although there is one Dharma-realm, these four distinct dharmas exist because those who have not yet cultivated and have not eliminated delusions are called sentient beings; those who, in the course of cultivation, discern and eliminate delusions are called bodhisattvas;

and those whose cultivation is comprehensive and complete and who have permanently eliminated the two kinds of delusion are called Buddhas.

Having attained the Dharma-body as the perfect fulfillment of the primary recompense, there must necessarily be a land as the dependent recompense. That very dharma of the perfectly fulfilled primary recompense has, within the world, the superior dependent recompense and a distinct function; therefore, there is a Pure Land. This explains that the Buddha and the Pure Land are two in function, although the essence of their dharma is one.

Someone may give rise to doubt: If giving rise to such a thought means that one is not a bodhisattva, then what thoughts must one give rise to in order to be called a true bodhisattva? Therefore, the answer is: Subhūti! If a bodhisattva thoroughly understands no-self and the selflessness of dharmas, that one is called a true bodhisattva.

The foregoing makes clear that one is not called a true bodhisattva because one has not yet attained thorough understanding of no-self. This was indicated indirectly above, while the actual answer is given here. The present statement, “thoroughly understands no-self and the selflessness of dharmas,” formally sets forth that one who thoroughly understands the two kinds of selflessness is called a true bodhisattva.

+ No-self and the selflessness of dharmas: There are two kinds of selflessness: First, the selflessness of persons. Second, the selflessness of dharmas. The selflessness of persons means clearly understanding that, from beginningless time until now, within the five skandhas of sentient beings there has definitely never truly been a spiritual self attached to the sentient being; therefore, it is called the selflessness of persons.

The selflessness of dharmas is of two kinds: First, in contemplating dependent origination, their essence has always been quiescent. Second, in contemplating Buddha-nature, its essence is empty of the myriad forms and characteristics. If one can thoroughly understand the three kinds of emptiness and the two kinds of selflessness, one is a true bodhisattva. Therefore, it says: “Thoroughly understands no-self and the selflessness of dharmas.”

+ The reason “bodhisattva, bodhisattva” is repeated is to make clear that there are two kinds of bodhisattvas: First, bodhisattvas prior to the grounds, who hear of and believe in the two kinds of selflessness. Second, bodhisattvas upon the grounds, who directly perceive the two kinds of selflessness. If it merely spoke of true bodhisattvas, it might exclude bodhisattvas prior to the grounds, who have begun to contemplate the principle and profoundly subdue the various afflictions. For this reason, “bodhisattva, bodhisattva” is repeated.

– The Treatise states: “Here there is a question,” and so forth: The author of the Treatise wishes to use verses to explain the preceding scriptural passage, and therefore creates this transition.

+ “If there were no bodhisattvas…” through “purifying the Buddha-land”: This restates the matter giving rise to doubt.

+ “If so,” and what follows: This introduces the thought that gives rise to the question and indicates the explanation given by the scripture, as in the transitional passage of the scripture.

The Treatise uses two verses to explain this passage of scripture.

The first verse formulates a question and answer, explaining the scriptural passage from “Bodhisattvas are likewise so” through “are not called bodhisattvas.” The second verse explains the scriptural passage from “Why is that? Because they thoroughly understand no-self and the selflessness of dharmas” through the end of the scripture.

+ The verse says:

This makes clear that the reason bodhisattvas give rise to the thought of liberating sentient beings and adorning the Buddha-land is precisely that they have not penetrated the principle of equality in the Dharma-realm of true suchness. They do not know that ordinary beings and sages are one in suchness, or that the dependent and primary recompenses are of the same essence. That is, they suppose that apart from this true Dharma-realm, elsewhere within the three realms among conditioned dharmas, there is separately a bodhisattva who is the one capable of liberating, real sentient beings who are the objects of liberation, and a true Pure Land that can be cultivated.

Such a one is called a bodhisattva who does not thoroughly understand the principle of true equality. Therefore, the final line of the verse says: “To give rise to such a thought is delusion.” Accordingly, the scripture states that Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī confessed before the Buddha: “From beginningless time until now, because I did not penetrate the principle of the true Dharma-realm, I have taught sentient beings with a mind that grasps at characteristics, cultivated the ten grounds, and purified the Buddha-land.” Having committed such an offense, he now confesses it before the Buddha.

Because he gave rise to a mind that grasped what was unreal, it is called delusion.

+ “What is the meaning of this? If one gives rise to such a thought,” and so forth: In this prose passage of the Treatise, the verse first poses the question, and the scripture is then used to answer it. What meaning does this indicate? Since a verse is about to be composed to explain the scripture, the question is asked: What meanings are indicated by the words of this scriptural passage, “thoroughly understands no-self and the selflessness of dharmas”? Therefore, the verse answers: “Sentient beings and bodhisattvas,” and so forth. This second verse says:

+ Sentient beings: This refers to ordinary bodhisattvas.

+ And bodhisattvas: This refers to bodhisattvas from the first ground upward.

+ Know that all dharmas are selfless: This makes clear that these two kinds thoroughly understand the three kinds of emptiness and the two kinds of selflessness. This explains that bodhisattvas prior to the grounds have begun to understand the two kinds of selflessness, while those from the first ground upward directly perceive the two kinds of selflessness. Therefore, the latter half of the verse says:

Non-sages believe through their own knowledge,
While sages do so by virtue of wisdom.

+ Non-sages: This clarifies the bodhisattvas prior to the grounds. Because they have not yet directly attained resolute understanding of the no-self of true suchness, they are called “non-sages.” This does not mean that they have not attained an approximate understanding. Through hearing, they give rise to resolute faith; therefore, the verse says: “believe through their own knowledge.”

+ While sages do so by virtue of wisdom: This explains that bodhisattvas from the first ground upward directly comprehend the wondrous principle of the three kinds of emptiness and the two kinds of selflessness; therefore, they are called sages. Why are they called sages? Because they possess the undefiled wisdom of true suchness; therefore, the verse says: “While sages do so by virtue of wisdom.”

The prose of the Treatise states: “What meanings are indicated here, so that no-self and the selflessness of dharmas may be known?” This first explains the second line of the verse, setting forth the two kinds of selflessness as the objects contemplated by bodhisattvas.

+ “Namely, sentient beings and bodhisattvas”: This explains the first line of the verse, setting forth two kinds of bodhisattvas as the persons who perform the contemplation.

+ “Which are sentient beings, and which are bodhisattvas?” Since the latter half of the verse is about to be explained, this question is posed as a transition. It asks: Although these two kinds of bodhisattvas both contemplate the principle of the two kinds of selflessness, what difference in superiority and inferiority causes them to have the two dissimilar names “sentient beings” and “bodhisattvas”?

The explanation is: “With regard to those dharmas, if they can believe through their own knowledge.” This speaks generally of the two kinds of bodhisattvas, who use knowledge to believe in the wondrous principle of the three kinds of emptiness.

+ Worldly knowledge: This formally explains the latter two lines of the verse, making clear that although these two kinds of bodhisattvas both believe in the three kinds of emptiness, they differ in superiority and inferiority.

+ “These are ordinary beings and sages,” and what follows: These are two paired conclusions summarizing the dissimilar designations of the two kinds of bodhisattvas.

+ “As the scripture states,” and what follows: This cites the scripture in conclusion.

END OF FASCICLE 7