金剛仙論

5. Subhuti! What do you think? Does the Tathagata possess the fleshly eye? And so forth: This is the fifth scriptural passage in the Tenth Section: The Section on Dispelling Doubts.

This section follows because a doubt arose. What was the doubt? The third scriptural passage above stated: A bodhisattva does not perceive that there are sentient beings and that “I am a bodhisattva.” The fourth scriptural passage earlier in this Section on Dispelling Doubts stated: A bodhisattva does not perceive sentient beings, nor does he perceive a pure land.

Furthermore, the Section on Comparison also stated: Because they do not perceive such dharmas as sentient beings and so forth, they are called Buddhas and Tathagatas. However, the four—bodhisattvas, sentient beings, Buddhas, and pure lands—were previously explained very clearly, demonstrating that although their names differ, they all exist in dependence upon true suchness. If, apart from the Dharma-realm of true suchness, one further supposes that these four dharmas can be perceived among false and conditioned dharmas, then one is not a bodhisattva.

If one understands them as not different from true suchness and thereby perceives these four, then one is called a true bodhisattva. Although the meaning of the conditioned has already been fully explained, sentient beings may, on account of non-arising, give rise to yet another doubt: If one who does not perceive dharmas is called a Buddha, perhaps the Dharma-body of the Buddhas possesses five kinds of eyes because it depends upon a body.

If there were no Dharma-body, there should be no five eyes. If there were no five eyes, then dharmas could not be perceived. It is not yet known whether the present statement that there is no perception means that one possesses the five eyes yet does not perceive, or that one does not possess the five eyes and therefore does not perceive.

If the five eyes are possessed, is there no perception because the dharmas before one do not exist, or do the objects before one truly exist, while it is nevertheless said that they are not perceived? To dispel this doubt, the scripture answers by means of these five kinds of eyes. The intent of the answer is to make clear that the Tathagata fully possesses the five kinds of eyes, illuminating both existence and nonexistence, and that his wisdom knows all dharmas as they truly are, according to whether they are false or real.

When it is now said that there is no perception, this means that because there are eyes, it is said that there is no perception; it does not mean that because there are no eyes, it is said that there is no perception. If there are eyes, why is it said that there is no perception? It is because the objects before one are false, and there is no dharma that can be perceived. Non-perception is of two kinds:

1. Within the principle of the equality of true suchness, one does not perceive the four—sentient beings and so forth—as clearly distinct; therefore, it is said that there is no perception.

2. The five skandhas of sentient beings are false, while the essential nature of dharmas has, from the very beginning, never arisen and has remained quiescent throughout past and present; therefore, there is no dharma that can be perceived.

These two make clear that, within the principle that is utterly free from characteristics, sages have no discriminating attachment to views and do not grasp characteristics; therefore, this is called non-perception. The reason it may be said that there is perception is that the Tathagata fully possesses wisdom concerning the two truths: he knows according to what is false and perceives according to what is real. Here, it is on the basis of the quiescence of all dharmas that it is said there is no perception.

It does not mean that both the eyes and their objects are nonexistent, thus preventing perception. Therefore, upon hearing that there is no perception, one should not immediately suppose that Buddhas and bodhisattvas are entirely without eyes and do not perceive any dharmas. For this reason, what follows makes this clear.

+ The Tathagata possesses the fleshly eye (the ordinary eye): What is the object known by the fleshly eye, on account of which it is said that the Tathagata possesses the fleshly eye? This makes clear that the fleshly eyes of ordinary beings perceive only the false objects produced by the conjunction of causes and conditions; they perceive what is above but do not perceive what is below. However, because the karma created by sentient beings differs, the fleshly eyes received as karmic recompense also vary and are not the same.

Some perceive only what is obstructed within and do not perceive what is obstructed without. Some perceive both within and without. Some see by day but not by night.

Some see by night but not by day. Some see both by night and by day. All such eyes are eyes produced by one’s parents.

For example, the eyes produced by the parents of the people of Purvavideha can perceive external forms through obstructions, seeing both before and behind. The Tathagata perceives those false forms just as ordinary beings do; therefore, it is said that the Tathagata possesses the fleshly eye.

+ The Tathagata possesses the divine eye: The divine eye is of two kinds:

1. That attained through cultivation.

2. That attained as karmic recompense.

What objects does the divine eye know? The divine eye likewise illuminates false objects produced by the conjunction of causes and conditions. It perceives forms through external obstructions. Some such eyes perceive what is below but not what is above; some perceive what lies before but not what lies behind. Or, through the power of another, some perceive above and below, before and behind; some perceive all four directions. This makes clear that what the Tathagata perceives is the same object that ordinary beings confusedly grasp; yet the Tathagata engages with the object in accordance with whether it is false or real, and therefore his perception differs. Thus, it is said that the Tathagata possesses the divine eye.

Among people in the world, some possess the fleshly eye as karmic recompense, some possess the divine eye as karmic recompense, and some attain the divine eye through cultivation. All these are dharmas within the three realms. Since the path of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas transcends every worldly manifestation, they have long been free from these two kinds of eyes. Why, then, is it said that the Tathagata possesses these two kinds of eyes? Because his perception is the same as that of these two kinds of eyes, it is said that the Tathagata possesses the divine eye.

+ The Tathagata possesses the wisdom eye: What are the objects engaged by the wisdom eye? This makes clear that the wisdom eye knows all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, defiled and undefiled dharmas, and wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate dharmas, yet does not give rise to the thought, “I know these dharmas.” This demonstrates that the Tathagata, like those of the Two Vehicles, knows the dharmas that are the objects of cognition; therefore, it is said that the Tathagata possesses the wisdom eye.

+ The Tathagata possesses the Dharma eye: What are the objects engaged by the Dharma eye? This makes clear that the Dharma eye can know which mental states sages of the Three Vehicles employ when realizing the fruits in order to attain the fruits of the path. Just as this Dharma eye engages the distinctions among the dharmas realized, the Tathagata also perceives them; therefore, it is said that the Tathagata possesses the Dharma eye.

+ The Tathagata possesses the Buddha eye: The four kinds of eyes above do not perceive objects universally, nor is their comprehensive knowledge inexhaustible; therefore, what they perceive and know cannot be perfectly clear. This demonstrates that the Buddha perceives the abiding reality and illuminates it completely, examining both the great and the small. He comprehends and penetrates all the myriad dharmas: there is no object he does not know universally and no dharma he does not understand completely. Therefore, it is called the Buddha eye.

With these eyes, the Tathagata possesses the five kinds of eyes and is therefore able to perceive objects. Since he possesses these eyes, one should know that the Buddha has a body and has eyes. When it is said that he does not perceive, it does not mean that, having no body and no eyes, he does not perceive. Therefore, the scriptural passage that follows explains these five kinds of eyes.

Because the scripture speaks of the five eyes, another doubt arises: The worlds throughout the ten directions are immeasurable and boundless. Even within a single trichiliocosm, the innumerable existing dharmas cannot all be known, much less the innumerable dharmas in boundlessly many worlds. Why, then, are only these five kinds of eyes specifically set forth?

If there are only these five kinds of eyes, then the Tathagata does not know all dharmas and does not see every realm. Therefore, the analogy of the sands of the Ganges is presented to resolve this doubt, clarifying that although the Tathagata has only five kinds of eyes, they completely illuminate all realms that are objects of cognition. Although all realms are known exhaustively, this could not be fully conveyed in the preceding passage.

Moreover, among all objects, nothing is subtler or more difficult to know than the dharmas of mind. Therefore, the text refers to the beings in worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. Within the body of a single being are various kinds of wholesome, unwholesome, indeterminate, defiled, and undefiled minds throughout the three periods of time, without limit or measure.

A single being has that many kinds of mind, and all the beings in worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges have as many minds, each differing from the others. The Tathagata knows them all simultaneously by means of the three penetrations, illuminating them clearly in a single thought-moment. Thus, one should not raise the objection: If the Tathagata has only five kinds of eyes, then he cannot know every object exhaustively.

This clarifies that although the eyes are five, their cognition exhausts every object.

– The Buddha said: “Subhuti! What do you think? Regarding all the grains of sand in the Ganges River, does the Buddha speak of them as sand?”: Previously, the five eyes were presented to clarify that the Buddha’s inner wisdom is capable of complete vision, but wisdom does not arise independently of an object to be known. Now, as the text is about to explain the objects cognized by the five eyes, the Buddha asks Venerable Subhuti whether, in his mind, after considering and assessing the matter, he thinks that the Tathagata knows whether the quantity of sand in the Ganges River is great or small. Hence, this question is asked. Why does it say, “Does the Tathagata speak of it as sand?” It clarifies that, according to principle, one must first know and only afterward expound. Now, to say that the Tathagata speaks means that the Tathagata first knows and only then speaks. Therefore, it is written: “Does the Buddha speak of it as sand?” Venerable Subhuti replied: “Yes, World-Honored One! The Tathagata speaks of it as sand.” This clarifies that Venerable Subhuti, secretly sustained by spiritual power, comprehended the Tathagata’s intent and respectfully awaited the Tathagata’s teaching. He said: “Yes, World-Honored One! The Tathagata truly knows whether the quantity of sand in that Ganges River is great or small.” Thus, it is stated that he is not unaware of it. The meaning of this analogy is explained as follows: Take one Ganges River to represent one sentient being. That single sentient being has as many wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate dharmas of mind as there are grains of sand in the Ganges. Further, take that number of Ganges sands to represent a single sentient being, who likewise possesses that many Ganges-sands’ worth of dharmas of mind. Further, take that number of Buddha-worlds; within each of those worlds there are again immeasurable Ganges Rivers. Take each river to represent one sentient being possessing that many dharmas of mind. The Tathagata knows them all clearly and exhaustively, how much more so all other things that are not mind or dharmas of mind.

Because of this, another doubtful thought arises: Bodhisattvas prior to the first bhumi, through the power of faith and understanding, can also know the number of dharmas of mind belonging to sentient beings within one trichiliocosm. It is not yet known whether the present statement that the Tathagata knows the number of dharmas of mind of beings as numerous as the sands of the Ganges means that, like a bodhisattva prior to the first bhumi, he knows only the number of dharmas of mind of beings as numerous as the Ganges sands within a single Buddha’s trichiliocosm, or whether he universally knows the number of dharmas of mind of sentient beings throughout immeasurable worlds in the ten directions, as numerous as the sands of the Ganges.

To explain this doubtful thought, the Buddha again asked Venerable Subhuti: “What do you think? If there were as many Buddha-worlds as there are grains of sand in one Ganges River, up to: Would those Buddha-worlds be numerous?” This is intended to clarify that the Tathagata does not merely know the number of dharmas of mind within the minds of beings as numerous as the Ganges sands in one trichiliocosm; he universally knows the number of dharmas of mind of immeasurable Ganges-sands’ worth of sentient beings throughout the worlds of the ten directions.

+ Venerable Subhuti said: “Those worlds would be exceedingly numerous, World-Honored One!”: This clarifies that Venerable Subhuti respectfully answered the Tathagata, saying that the Ganges-sands’ worth of worlds throughout the ten directions, as described above, are indeed immeasurably numerous.

+ The Buddha said to Venerable Subhuti: “Among the sentient beings in that number of worlds, however many kinds of mental abiding there are, the Tathagata knows them all”: Although the preceding questions and answers repeatedly mention quantities, the principal meaning of the answer lies in this passage. It clarifies that the Tathagata is truly the Omniscient One, who, merely by means of the five kinds of eyes, universally and clearly knows the mental and material dharmas of sentient beings in worlds throughout the ten directions as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, exhausting them all without exception. The knowledge of the dharmas of mind is again presented here to clarify that his knowledge of material form likewise leaves nothing out.

Yet among those dharmas that are known, there are innumerable distinctions, unequal in superiority and inferiority. For example, the karmic recompense of human beings, when compared with that of the devas, differs in superiority and inferiority, higher and lower, beyond the capacity of analogy to express. How much more incalculably distant, then, are the supreme supramundane merits and rewards of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas when compared with the fruits attained by devas and humans. The Tathagata comprehends them completely; therefore, it is said that he knows them all.

+ Why?: Because it was said that however many kinds of mental abiding there are, the Tathagata knows them all, another doubtful thought arises: It was stated above that the five skandhas, six sense objects, and six consciousnesses of sentient beings are false in essence. If one grasps the false dharmas of sentient beings, such as the five skandhas and so forth, then one is not a bodhisattva. It was also said: “Those who are free from all characteristics are called Buddhas.” If so, why is it now said: “However many kinds of mental abiding there are, the Tathagata knows them all”?

If the Tathagata sees and knows those dharmas, they should be real and not false. It is not yet known whether the “mental abiding” spoken of here is abiding in the four foundations of mindfulness within the realm of true suchness, or abiding in some other dharma. If it is real, then the preceding passage should not have called it false and said that the Tathagata does not see it.

If it is false, then it should not again say: “However many kinds of mental abiding there are, the Tathagata knows them all.” Therefore, it is written, “Why?” The answer is: “The Tathagata says that all mental abidings are not mental abidings.”

+ Here, “all mental abidings”: Refers to the six consciousnesses of ordinary beings, which abide in false and inverted dharmas.

+ “Are all not mental abidings”: Means that they are not a true, non-inverted abiding in the four foundations of mindfulness.

+ This clarifies that the statement above concerning freedom means that what is false should be relinquished. The reason knowledge is now spoken of is that the Tathagata, by means of the five kinds of eyes, illuminates all objects exhaustively and clearly discerns both the false and the real. Therefore, it is called knowledge; it does not mean that those objects are real.

+ “Therefore, they are called mental abidings”: This summarizes inverted abiding upon false conditions. It may also summarize the preceding statement: “They are all not mental abidings.”

Therefore, it is said that they are not true abidings within the sphere of the four foundations of mindfulness.

+ “Why? Because the past mind cannot be apprehended,” and so forth: This explains the preceding question, “Why?”

+ This speaks of the abiding of the mind: It abides in the illusory objects of the six inverted consciousnesses. The explanation states: The past mind and so forth cannot be apprehended. This clarifies that, because the minds of the three times do not abide yet are regarded as abiding, they are called illusory. The past mind is a dharma that has already ceased and passed away; it is empty and therefore cannot be apprehended. The future mind has not yet arrived; it is empty and therefore cannot be apprehended. The present mind arises and ceases from thought-moment to thought-moment and does not abide; its very essence is empty, and therefore it cannot be apprehended.

Because the minds of the three times are illusory and inverted, another doubt arises. If the abiding of the mind is illusory and inverted, then the minds of both ordinary beings and noble ones are illusory and inverted. If so, the minds of bodhisattvas from the First Ground upward would also be illusory and inverted. Because their minds would be illusory and inverted, the various merits and wisdom they possess through generosity and so forth—the practices serving as revealing causes—would also have to be inverted and therefore would not be causes of bodhi; thus, the uncontaminated merit of the “shore of awakening” could not be accomplished.

To eliminate this doubt, the reply states: If one gives in generosity the seven kinds of precious things filling the trichiliocosm, the merit obtained is exceedingly great. This explains that bodhisattvas from the First Ground upward have attained true, uncontaminated resolute understanding; their minds neither grasp characteristics nor abide when practicing generosity, and therefore the merit obtained is not inverted.

Because it is not inverted, the practice of the paramitas is accomplished. This is unlike ordinary beings below the grounds, whose six consciousnesses and minds are illusory and inverted in their grasping of characteristics, and whose merit is therefore also inverted. Yet although this merit is not inverted, because beings below the grounds take inverted grasping of the characteristics of merit as its cause, they do not clearly distinguish it.

+ Obtaining exceedingly great merit: This clarifies that, because this is generosity free from characteristics, it brings about the inexhaustible merit of the eternally abiding fruit of Buddhahood; hence it is said that exceedingly great merit is obtained.

Then another doubt arises: If giving the seven kinds of precious things filling the trichiliocosm truly produces merit that is uncontaminated and not inverted, why was the above-mentioned act of giving the seven kinds of precious things filling the trichiliocosm said to be not an accumulation of merit?

To eliminate this doubt, the reply states: Subhuti! If the characteristic of an accumulation of merit truly existed, the Tathagata would not speak of an accumulation of merit as an “accumulation of merit.” Clearly, two kinds of merit have been explained above:

1. The contaminated accumulation of merit that grasps characteristics.

2. The uncontaminated accumulation of merit that does not grasp characteristics.

+ I say that it is not an accumulation of merit: This clarifies that the contaminated accumulation of merit does not tend toward bodhi as does the uncontaminated accumulation of merit. It does not say that uncontaminated merit is also not an accumulation of merit. How could one take that act of giving the seven kinds of precious things filling the trichiliocosm—which is generosity that grasps characteristics and thus yields inverted merit—and use it to challenge the point here, claiming that when bodhisattvas from the First Ground upward give without grasping characteristics, the uncontaminated merit they obtain is likewise inverted?

– The Treatise states: Another doubt arises: This first reiterates the matter doubted above. From the words “If this is so” onward, it presents the reason the doubt arises and points to the sutra for explanation. The Treatise explains this passage of the sutra with three verses: The first verse directly explains the scriptural passage concerning the five kinds of eyes, setting forth a question and answer intended to eliminate the doubt. The second verse explains the scriptural passage containing the analogy of worlds as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The third verse explains the scriptural passage stating that giving the seven kinds of precious things filling the trichiliocosm produces exceedingly great merit.

– The first verse reads: Although the Buddhas do not see. The preceding doubt stated that they do not see dharmas, but it was not yet known whether they possess eyes yet do not see, or whether they do not see because they have no eyes. Therefore, the verse explains that although the vision of Buddhas and bodhisattvas is unlike that of ordinary beings, who grasp the characteristics of conditioned dharmas such as form and the other constituents of sentient beings’ five skandhas, this does not mean that they lack the five kinds of eyes that see the true and illusory aspects of dharmas in accordance with their characteristics; it is not because they have no eyes that they do not see. Therefore, the second line of the verse reads: It is not that they do not discern faculties and objects.

+ This clarifies: Although the Buddhas do not see dharmas, it is not that they lack the illuminating function of the five kinds of eyes with regard to their objects. How is this known? The next line of the verse states: The Buddhas truly possess the five kinds. This clarifies that the Buddhas are fully endowed with the five kinds of eyes.

+ If so, another doubt arises: These five kinds of eyes would then be the same as the inverted vision of ordinary beings. The reply is: Because they see that inversion. This clarifies that Buddhas and bodhisattvas truly possess the five kinds of eyes and see in accordance with inverted objects, yet their seeing is not inverted; therefore, they are unlike ordinary beings.

– Although this half-verse explains the meaning of the sutra, it has not yet explained the scriptural text. Therefore, a connection was made in order to introduce the second verse. The prose of the Treatise states: Why is their seeing said not to be inverted? The author of the Treatise is about to explain this verse in reply and therefore poses the question: If the Buddhas truly possess the five kinds of eyes and see the objects before them, those objects are illusory; consequently, wisdom that takes those objects as its conditions should be inverted. Why, then, are those five kinds of eyes said not to be inverted? The reply is: Because an analogy is presented to eliminate the doubt. Therefore, it is said: I know the innumerable abidings of mind and so forth. This explains the doubt: If there were only the five kinds of eyes, they could not know an inexhaustible multiplicity of objects. Therefore, the analogy of the sands of the Ganges is introduced, and it is said: The Tathagata knows all those various abidings of mind. This knowledge is unlike the inverted knowledge of ordinary beings. The subsequent question, “What meaning is revealed here?” is answered: Their seeing is not inverted because they clearly see inversion. What is inversion? This asks: If the five kinds of eyes of the Buddhas are not inverted, then what are inverted eyes? The answer is given in the verse: Innumerable inverted consciousnesses, Because they are apart from true mindfulness. This clarifies that the six consciousnesses are not a single consciousness and are therefore called innumerable. They falsely apprehend the six sense objects, taking the unreal to be real. Because this is a mind whose objects are distorted, it is called inverted consciousness. How is it known that the six consciousnesses are inverted? The next line of the verse states: Because they are apart from true mindfulness. True mindfulness is the contemplation of the four foundations of mindfulness: contemplating whether this body of mine is permanent or this body is impermanent, and likewise with regard to dharmas. Because the six consciousnesses do not abide in the four foundations of mindfulness, they grasp the illusory six sense objects; therefore, they are called inverted.

+ The verse states: They do not abide in that true wisdom; Therefore, they are said to be inverted. These two lines confirm the preceding two lines, clarifying that the six consciousnesses do not abide in the objects of the true wisdom of the four foundations of mindfulness; therefore, they are said to be inverted.

+ From the words “What is the meaning of this?” through “There are distinctions among inversions”: This explains the first line of the verse.

+ Why are those abidings of mind called inverted?: This asks: Why are those six kinds of abiding mind called inverted? The following three lines of the verse answer by clarifying that those six consciousnesses take only the illusory objects of the six sense objects as their conditions and cannot abide in the objects of the four foundations of mindfulness; therefore, they are said to be inverted.

+ The Tathagata says that all abidings of mind are not abidings of mind: This introduces that verse to explain the subsequent passage of the sutra.

+ This statement reveals separation from the four foundations of mindfulness: This explains the statement just cited. Because the abidings of mind of the six consciousnesses are separated from the objects of the four foundations of mindfulness, they are said to be not abidings of mind.

+ What is the meaning of this?: It is precisely because of that meaning that the six consciousnesses, being apart from the four foundations of mindfulness, are said not to abide in mind.

+ The answer is: Abiding in mind means abiding in those foundations of mindfulness. This clarifies that if the mind abides within the objects of the four kinds of mindfulness, it can be called abiding. Yet because these six consciousnesses are apart from those four foundations of mindfulness and grasp at delusive objects, they are said not to abide.

+ Moreover, “abiding,” “unmoving,” and “fundamental” are different terms, but their meaning is one: This explains the preceding statement that the mind abides in those foundations of mindfulness and possesses the meaning of abiding. It relies on the worldly miscellaneous treatises for its explanation, using what follows to explain what precedes. Why is it called abiding? Because it is unmoving. Why is it unmoving? Because it is fundamental.

Another explanation: Why is it called abiding? This clarifies that because the bodhisattva understands the principle of the four foundations of mindfulness, the mind abides in the principle of true suchness; therefore, it is called abiding. Since the mind abides in true suchness and is not destroyed by the five desires, it is called unmoving. It may also be said that because it is not impaired by the Two Vehicles, it is called unmoving. Having fully understood that true suchness and being unmoved by the five desires, it can serve as the foundation of bodhi; therefore, it is called fundamental.

+ If it does not abide in this way, it is therefore called abiding in mind: If it cannot abide in the objects of the four foundations of mindfulness in this way, it should therefore be said to abide in delusive objects.

+ This clarifies that non-abiding continues without severing causal practice: This jointly explains the meanings of abiding and non-abiding.

+ That non-abiding: This explains the preceding statement.

+ If such non-abiding continues without severing causal practice: This explains the statement: Therefore, it is said to abide in mind.

+ Therefore, it does not abide: This is the summary conclusion.

+ Abiding in delusion: This is not true abiding. It indicates the continuation of that inversion in order to explain that continuous abiding in delusive objects is inverted consciousness, and it summarizes the answer to the foregoing question: Why is that abiding in mind called inverted?

+ From the statement, “As the sutra says: The past mind,” onward: This cites the sutra to explain that abiding in delusion is not abiding in mind, thereby summarizing and confirming the meaning of inversion.

+ From the statement, “Because the past and future,” onward: This explains the mind abiding in the three periods of time in the sutra and can be understood accordingly.

+ Why is the analogy stated once more on the basis of merit?: This question is posed to introduce the third verse.

– The third verse states: The Buddha’s wisdom is the foundation: Above, the objection was raised: Because the mind is inverted, that merit must also be inverted. Now, to say that the Buddha’s wisdom is the foundation clarifies that because this bodhisattva, from the First Bhumi onward, practices giving without grasping at characteristics, the resulting merit is undefiled and serves as the supreme cause of the Buddha-fruit’s knowledge of all modes. Therefore, the verse states: The Buddha’s wisdom is the foundation.

+ Moreover, the second line of the verse states: Merit is not inverted: This makes it clear that the merit resulting from this bodhisattva’s giving does not arise from an inverted mind that grasps at characteristics.

+ Because that merit is the root: This means that the foundation of the Buddha’s wisdom is the root of merit.

+ Therefore, the analogy is stated again: The analogy of the merit gained by giving the seven precious substances filling the trichiliocosm is stated once more. This explains that although both acts are giving, when a person gives with a mind that grasps at characteristics, the resulting merit is inverted. If one gives with a mind that does not grasp at characteristics, although the designation is the same, the resulting merit is not inverted.

Although giving with a mind that grasps at characteristics in this manner is inverted, it is not devoid of producing a cause. That is, those below the First Bhumi give with a mind that grasps at characteristics, and the resulting merit is contaminated. Using this as a cause, they subsequently enter the undefiled merit of one on the First Bhumi.

Because it accords with principle, the merit involving grasping at characteristics of those below the First Bhumi may also be said to “accompany accordingly” the merit that is not inverted.

+ From the statement, “What is the meaning of this?” through “What is called a wholesome dharma?”: This sets forth the doubt arising in the sutra. The passage from “In order to eliminate that doubt” through “Merit is not inverted” explains and answers that doubt.

+ Why?: This explains why the merit resulting from giving the seven precious substances is regarded as not inverted. The first line of the verse is cited to continue the answer: Because the Buddha’s wisdom is its foundation, it is not inverted.

+ How is the foundation revealed? This asks: How is the merit resulting from giving those seven precious substances the foundation of the Buddha’s wisdom? “As the sutra says: Venerable Subhuti, etc.”: This cites the sutra’s selection of the second accumulation of merit to explain the meaning of “the foundation of the Buddha’s wisdom.”

+ From the statement, “What is the meaning of this?” onward: This explains that the second accumulation of merit in the sutra is undefiled merit and therefore is not inverted. Because it is undefiled, it is regarded as a constituent part of the foundation of the Buddha’s wisdom.

6. Subhuti! What do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by means of the physical body? etc.: This is the sixth scriptural passage in the Section on Eliminating Doubts.

It follows here because a doubt has arisen.

Above, it has already been explained in three places: “Can the Tathagata be seen by means of the perfection of characteristics?” This is the fourth occasion. Why is it again said: “Can the Buddha be seen by means of a body fully endowed with the perfection of physical characteristics?”

The first occasion clarifies that the Dharma-body is not the Responsive Buddha possessing the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing.

The second occasion clarifies that the Dharma-body is not the Reward Buddha’s characteristics of a great person.

The third occasion clarifies that the Dharma-body does not possess such dharmas as form and the myriad conditioned characteristics.

These three passages explain, on the basis of their distinct characteristics, that the Buddha’s Dharma-body has always been quiescent, like the body of empty space, and is not attained through cultivation; therefore, it cannot be seen by means of physical characteristics. The analogy of Mount Sumeru, king of mountains, explains the Buddha’s Reward-body: Through the causes and conditions of the practitioner’s cultivation, its myriad virtues are perfected, and its essence is adorned with physical characteristics.

It is not conditioned or contaminated and therefore is quiescent and eternally abiding. This explains the Reward Buddha on the basis of its distinct characteristics. The sixth passage states that there is no fixed dharma by which bodhi is attained: This clarifies that the Responsive Buddha exists in accordance with beings’ responsiveness and is not something attained through cultivation; ultimately, it is without form and without mind.

This explains the Responsive Buddha on the basis of its distinct characteristics. These three Buddhas are clearly not the same. The Dharma-body Buddha is not the two Buddhas of Reward and Response.

The Reward-body Buddha is neither the Dharma-body Buddha nor the Responsive-body Buddha. The Responsive-body Buddha is not the two Buddhas of Dharma and Reward. According to the meaning of the distinct characteristics of the three kinds of Buddha, they cannot be said to be one.

Some people give rise to doubt: If these three kinds of Buddha are distinct and not the same, then all are unreal. Why? Because the Responsive-body Buddha is not attained through cultivation.

Being without form and without mind, it is therefore delusive. Since the Reward Buddha exists apart from the Dharma-body, the Reward Buddha formerly did not exist but now exists; having come into existence, it will again cease to exist, and thus it too is unreal. If the Buddha’s Dharma-body is like empty space and cannot be seen, then its essence is also unreal.

This is one kind of doubt.

Furthermore, in the sixth passage above, it is said: Sages receive their designation by virtue of unconditioned dharmas. It is also said: Through the causes and conditions of the practitioner’s cultivation, the excellent characteristics are perfected, and this is called a Buddha. If this is correct, then the two Buddhas of Reward and Response upon the Dharma-body, profoundly united with the body of physical characteristics, are one; consequently, there should not be three Buddhas with distinct functions. If they are clearly distinguished as different, then all are delusive and there is no single meaning that unifies them.

Because there are such doubts, the Buddha asked Venerable Subhuti: Can the Buddha be seen by means of the complete form-body? and so forth. The intent of these words is this: The Venerable should not raise such an objection. The reason is that these three kinds of Buddha are in one sense the same and in another sense different.

As to their sameness, from beginning to end they are the single Dharma-nature, without two characteristics. As to their difference, the essence and functions of the three kinds of Buddha differ and are clearly not identical. Considered according to principle, these three kinds of Buddha are always one and always three; always three and always one.

Speaking of three does not impair their single essence; speaking of one does not discard their three functions. Therefore, one should not object that these three kinds of Buddha are profoundly united as one yet clearly distinguished as different.

In order to explain this doubt, the following passage clarifies the matter.

+ What do you think, Venerable? Can the Buddha be seen by means of the complete form-body?: Here the Buddha questions Venerable Subhuti. This clarifies that the Dharmakaya, like empty space, has always been tranquil and that its essence has no physical characteristics.

Can it be seen by means of the complete form-bodies of the two Buddhas, the Reward-body Buddha and the Manifestation-body Buddha? Venerable Subhuti replied: No, World-Honored One! The Tathagata should not be seen by means of the form-body.

This elucidates one aspect of the meaning of difference in the distinct characteristics of the three kinds of Buddha. It clarifies that the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata has always been tranquil, like empty space, and cannot be seen by means of the complete form-bodies of the two Buddhas, the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas. Therefore, it cannot be said that the two Buddhas, the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas, with their complete form-bodies, exist directly upon the Dharmakaya.

This sentence accords with the preceding passage of the sutra concerning the distinct characteristics of the three kinds of Buddha, clarifying the aspect according to which the Dharmakaya cannot be seen by means of the complete form-bodies of the two Buddhas.

+ Why?: Someone may consequently give rise to a doubt: If the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata has always been without characteristics, like empty space, and cannot be seen by means of the complete form-bodies of the two Buddhas, the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas, then the Dharmakaya must be entirely formless. Thus, apart from the Dharmakaya, there would separately exist the two Buddhas, the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas, complete with physical characteristics, and this would revert to the previous doubt.

Since the distinct characteristics of the three kinds of Buddha have already been clearly distinguished, why is it stated in this way? Therefore, the answer is: The Tathagata speaks of the complete form-body. This clarifies the aspect of the meaning of oneness among the three kinds of Buddha.

That is, upon the Dharmakaya are the two kinds of adornment, merit and wisdom; the form of true suchness; liberation; and the perfect fulfillment of the myriad virtues, without the slightest deficiency or diminution. Through the causes and conditions of cultivation, the originally inherent Dharmakaya is revealed and serves as the Reward-body Buddha. Thus, upon the Dharmakaya there is this complete form-body.

+ If the Dharmakaya did not contain complete form: Then there should not be the two Buddhas, the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas, with their complete form-bodies. For this reason, it may be said that the form-bodies of the two Buddhas, the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas, exist upon the Dharmakaya itself. This clarifies the meaning that the three kinds of Buddha are not different. Therefore, it was said above that all dharmas are the Buddha-Dharma.

Again, a doubt arises: If the two form-bodies of the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas exist upon the Dharmakaya itself, then there is form within the Dharmakaya, and it should not be said that the thirty-two marks of a Great Being possessed by the Reward-body Buddha, together with the characteristics of the Manifestation-body Buddha, are not characteristics of the Dharmakaya. Nor should it be said that the Dharmakaya has always been definitively like empty space.

Therefore, the answer is: It is precisely not the complete form-body. This clarifies that, because the preceding statement was made from the aspect of the oneness of the three kinds of Buddha, it could be said that the complete form-body exists upon the Dharmakaya itself. If considered from the aspect of difference, however, it clarifies that the Dharmakaya has always definitively lacked the functions of the form-bodies of the two Buddhas.

The first sentence above states: The Buddha should not be seen by means of the complete form-body; therefore, it is said that it is precisely not the complete form-body. This confirms the previously cited scriptural statement: The thirty-two marks of a Great Being are precisely non-marks. If the Dharmakaya did not contain the forms of the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas, this would revert to the previous doubt.

If, with respect to its essence, the Buddha’s Dharmakaya has no visible form-body, then that form-body would clearly be different from the Dharmakaya. How, then, could it be said that the complete form-body exists upon the Buddha’s Dharmakaya itself? Therefore, the answer is: For this reason, the Tathagata speaks of the complete form-body.

This explains that within the Dharmakaya itself there is no visible form belonging to the Reward-body or Manifestation-body Buddha; nevertheless, it is precisely the revealed Dharmakaya that produces the wondrous functions of the Reward-body Buddha’s form-body. Because the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas exist, yet their forms do not exist apart from the Dharmakaya, it is said: The Tathagata speaks of the complete form-body.

This confirms the aspect of oneness in the second statement above: All dharmas are the Buddha-Dharma.

Furthermore, considered according to principle, it may also be said: Therefore, the Tathagata says that it is not the complete form-body.

The reason it may be said that it is not the complete form-body is that, when discussed from the aspect of difference, it clarifies that upon the Buddha’s Dharmakaya itself there are no functions of the form-bodies of the two Buddhas. It may also be said that it is not the complete form-body: This sentence jointly summarizes the meaning of the sameness and difference of form among the three kinds of Buddha. Yet because it answers an objection, it states directly: Therefore, the Tathagata speaks of the complete form-body. This confirms the meaning of difference stated above.

Again, it is asked: Here, it should be sufficient merely to clarify the meaning of completeness with reference to the form-body. Why, then, are the complete characteristics also explained? Someone may consequently give rise to a doubt: If the Buddha’s Dharmakaya does not possess a complete form-body, does that Buddha’s Dharmakaya possess the thirty-two marks or not?

Is it the same or different? Because there is such a doubt, the sutra cites the characteristics in reply, clarifying that the thirty-two marks exist on account of the form-body. It was explained clearly above that upon the Buddha’s Dharmakaya itself there is a complete form-body, and that upon the Dharmakaya itself there is no complete form-body.

How, then, could one object by asking whether the formless Dharmakaya possesses the characteristics or does not possess them? The four scriptural statements concerning the characteristics do not differ in meaning from the preceding statements concerning the complete form-body, and therefore they are not explained separately.

– The treatise states: Again, there is a doubt: If the Buddhas are so named on account of the unconditioned dharma: This reiterates the scriptural passage that follows in the sixth section above. The author of the treatise briefly cites the reason for the arising of the doubt.

Why are the Buddhas, having perfected the thirty-two excellent marks and the eighty minor characteristics, called Buddhas?: This presents the objection, saying: If the Buddha’s Dharmakaya is called an unconditioned dharma, like empty space, then is it the same as or different from the bodies with physical characteristics belonging to the two Buddhas, the Reward-body and Manifestation-body Buddhas? and so forth. The extensive formulation of the doubt does not differ from the scriptural passage concerning the characteristics.

In order to eliminate this doubt, it is therefore said: It is not the perfection of the form-body, nor is it the perfection of the characteristics. This briefly cites the scriptural passages that explain the meaning of difference among the three kinds of Buddha in the two places where the sutra clarifies physical characteristics, thereby answering the objection concerning their nondifference. Furthermore, because the form-body encompasses the thirty-two marks and the eighty minor characteristics, it again cites the intent of the scriptural passages in the two places above concerning the meaning of the oneness of the three kinds of Buddha, thereby answering the doubt concerning their difference.

From the words “as the sutra continues” onward: This cites the subsequent scriptural passages concerning the oneness and difference explained in the two places, in order to summarize the matter.

The treatise explains this scriptural passage by means of two verses:

+ The first verse: Explains the scriptural statement: The Buddha’s Dharmakaya cannot be seen by means of the complete form-body and cannot be seen by means of the complete characteristics.

+ The second verse: Its first three lines explain the scriptural statement: The Tathagata speaks of the complete form-body and the complete bodily characteristics. Its final line explains the scriptural statement: It is not the complete form-body, nor is it the complete bodily characteristics.

– Why is it stated in this way?: Since a verse is about to be used to explain this, the question is first asked: Why is the answer not definitive, and why is it therefore presented in such an indeterminate manner? At times it is said that the Dharma-body possesses form and characteristics. At other times it is said that the Dharma-body possesses neither form nor characteristics. Therefore, the verse answers:

The Dharma-body, in its ultimate essence,

Is not that body adorned with excellent marks.

These two lines of verse clarify that, when considered from the standpoint of the distinct meanings of the three kinds of Buddha, it cannot be said to possess form and characteristics. When considered from the standpoint of their single meaning, it may be said to possess form and characteristics.

+ The Dharma-body, in its ultimate essence: The first two lines of the verse are used to explain two passages in the sutra: the Buddha’s question and Venerable Subhuti’s answer, through to: The Tathagata should not be seen by means of the form-body, nor can he be seen by means of the bodily marks. This explains that the ultimate, space-like Dharma-body does not possess the manifest function of the form and characteristics of the Reward and Response bodies by which it could be seen. Therefore it is said: The Dharma-body, in its ultimate essence.

Why is this so? Because the body of form and characteristics belonging to the Reward and Response bodies is attained only through cultivation. The body of form and characteristics manifests the function of the Reward and Response bodies.

Although the Dharma-body of true suchness is perfectly replete with the myriad virtues, when discussed according to its essence, it does not possess the manifest function of form and characteristics. It is like a tree in winter, which bears no fruit because the season has not yet arrived, not because fruit is utterly nonexistent. If it were utterly nonexistent, there would still be none when the season arrived.

From this analogy it may be ascertained that the Dharma-body is not devoid of form and characteristics; rather, because the time has not yet arrived, they cannot be seen.

+ Is not that body adorned with excellent marks: This clarifies that the Dharma-body is not the body adorned with the excellent marks of the Reward and Response bodies.

+ Because it is accomplished through non-marks: The reason it is said that the Dharma-body is not the body adorned with excellent marks is that the Dharma-body is not constituted by excellent marks presently manifesting their function. Why is the Dharma-body not constituted by marks? Therefore, the fourth line of the verse states: They are not that Dharma-body. This explains that the body adorned with excellent marks is not the eternally and immutably established essence of the Dharma-body. Thus it is said: They are not that Dharma-body. This clarifies the distinct meaning of the Buddha’s Dharma-body.

– The second verse: Its first line explains the two passages in two places in the sutra: Why does the Tathagata speak of the perfection of the form-body and the perfection of bodily marks? This clarifies that although the Dharma-body does not possess a manifest function of form and characteristics by which it can be seen, it is without departing from the Dharma-body, and through the causes and conditions of cultivation, that the form and characteristics of the Reward and Response bodies come to function. They do not come from somewhere else at all. Therefore the verse states:

Not apart from the Dharma-body,

Those two are not non-Buddha.

+ Those two: Those form and marks are not other than the Buddha’s Dharma-body. Therefore, the third line of the verse states: Thus, accomplishment is again spoken of.

+ The fourth line of the verse (Nor are the two both present): This explains together that within the Dharma-body it may be said that form and characteristics are present, yet the two are also not present. This clarifies that within the ultimate, space-like Dharma-body, the form and characteristics of the Reward and Response bodies are entirely absent. Therefore it says, “Nor are the two.” This explains the statement in the sutra: It is precisely not the perfection of the form-body or the perfection of bodily marks.

Although they are absent from the Dharma-body, it may also be said: They are present precisely within the Dharma-body. Therefore it says: Both of the two are present. This clarifies that the body of form and characteristics of the Reward and Response bodies exists without being separate from the Dharma-body. This explains the statement in the sutra. Hence it speaks of the perfection of the form-body and the perfection of bodily marks.

+ What meaning do these two verses express?, through to: Because they are not the marks of that Dharma-body: The treatise explains the first verse, clarifying the distinct aspect of meaning according to which the Dharma-body has neither form nor characteristics.

+ “Those two are not absent from that,” through to the verse states: “Those two are not non-Buddha”: This explains the first two lines of the second verse, citing the passage that explains the sutra as evidence. Thus the second line of the verse summarizes and clarifies the single aspect of meaning according to which the Dharma-body possesses form and characteristics.

+ Therefore, those two, through to: Because they are not separate from the Dharma-body: This explains the latter line of the second verse, clarifying that within the Dharma-body it may be said that the two—form and characteristics of the Reward and Response bodies—are absent, and it may also be said that those two are present.

The reason these two aspects are presented here is to explain those single and distinct meanings. Because the sutra explains the objection in two layers, the author of the treatise likewise explains it twice.

+ Therefore, those two may also be said to be absent; hence it is said that there is no perfection of the body and no perfection of marks. This explains the meaning that the Dharma-body has neither form nor characteristics, with the sutra and treatise corresponding to one another.

+ They may also be said to be present; hence it is said that the form-body is perfected and the various marks are perfected: This explains the meaning that the Dharma-body possesses form and characteristics, with the sutra and treatise corresponding to one another.

+ The verse states: Nor are the two; both are present: Having completed the explanation, it uses the verse to summarize the conclusion.

+ Why is it stated in this way?: This raises the question.

+ Because they are absent within that Dharma-body, it is spoken of according to this meaning: This answers why form and characteristics are absent within the Dharma-body.

+ It is said that the Tathagata possesses the perfection of the form-body and the perfection of the various marks because they are not separate from that body: This answers why the Dharma-body possesses form and characteristics.

+ Yet the Dharma-body is not spoken of in this way: This clarifies that although the body of form and characteristics exists without being separate from the Dharma-body, from the standpoint of the eternally and immutably established meaning of the Dharma-body, it ultimately does not possess those form and characteristics. Because this gives rise to the subsequent doubt, this statement is presented so that an objection may arise from it; through the ensuing extended discussion of the principle, the following section is made clear.

7. The Buddha said: “Subhuti! What do you think? Do you maintain that the Tathagata teaches the Dharma?”: This is the seventh scriptural passage in the Section on Dispelling Doubts.

This has already been raised three times. Here, it follows once again because a doubt remains.

Above, the essence of the Dharma-body has been extensively explained as ultimately devoid of the myriad conditioned characteristics. Moreover, the preceding scriptural passage clarified the distinct aspect of meaning of the space-like Dharma-body: in its essence, it lacks the form and characteristics of the Reward and Response bodies. If the Dharma-body has neither form nor characteristics, it likewise has no faculties such as the eyes and so forth.

Since it has no faculties, it also has no verbal karma. Why, then, is it said that the Tathagata teaches this Dharma? Thus the question is asked: Does the Buddha’s Dharma-body teach the Dharma, or does it not teach the Dharma?

If the Buddha’s Dharma-body does not teach the Dharma, then the two Buddhas—the Reward Buddha and the Response Buddha—must also never teach the Dharma. A further doubt arises: If it is held that the Tathagata teaches the Dharma, is it because the wisdom that realizes it means that the Dharma-body possesses verbal teachings that can be expounded, or is it that, apart from the wisdom that realizes it, the Dharma-body separately possesses verbal teachings that can be expounded?

To dispel such doubts, the Buddha asks: “What do you think? Do you maintain that the Tathagata teaches the Dharma?” The intent of this reply is to clarify that the essence of the Dharma-body is nameless and formless. It possesses absolutely no form or characteristics by which it could be seen, and absolutely no verbal teachings that could be spoken.

Furthermore, although it has no form, characteristics, or faculties, the Dharma-body must be manifested and is the cause of the Reward Buddha. Therefore, when the Dharma-body appears as the Reward body, it may be said that because of the Dharma-body there are form, characteristics, and faculties, as well as verbal karma and verbal teachings through which the Dharma is taught. Therefore the treatise states above: The noble one realizes the unconditioned Dharma and then teaches the unconditioned Dharma. If this passage is used as evidence, then although the realized Dharma possesses no verbal teaching that can be expounded, neither can there be, apart from the Dharma-body that is the object of realization, some separate teaching of the Dharma that can be expounded.

+ What does the Venerable One think? Here there should be a question and an answer, yet no question and answer are formulated. Therefore, the Tathagata directly asks the Venerable Subhuti, “What does the Venerable One think?” thereby enabling him to comprehend implicitly and respond.

+ Does the Venerable One think that the Tathagata has entertained this thought: “The Tathagata has taught the Dharma”? This is to ask Subhuti: Does the Venerable One think that the Tathagata has entertained the thought that, within the Dharma he has realized—which is without name or characteristic—there are names and characteristics that can be expounded? Does the Venerable One think that, apart from the Dharma realized by the Tathagata, there is another teaching that can be expounded?

+ Do not think in this way: This prevents the Venerable Subhuti from entertaining the following thought: If the Venerable One thinks that, with regard to the principle of the realized Dharma that is without name or characteristic, the Tathagata has nevertheless apprehended common names and characteristics that can be expounded, this is an incorrect thought. Or if one thinks that, apart from the wisdom realized by the Tathagata, there is another teaching that can be expounded, this too is an incorrect thought. Therefore it is said: Do not entertain such a thought.

+ Why is this so? Subhuti, if anyone says that the Tathagata teaches the Dharma, that person slanders the Buddha and cannot understand what the Tathagata has taught: This explains the preceding statement—why what you have just said is incorrect. If anyone says that the Tathagata teaches the Dharma, that person slanders the Buddha.

This makes clear that in truth there is no such speaking, yet one nevertheless claims that the Tathagata speaks and teaches; this is to falsely attribute words to the Sage and is therefore called slandering the Buddha. The reason this person gives rise to slander is that he does not understand the meaning of identity and difference in the principle and teaching expounded by the Tathagata; therefore he is said not to understand.

Upon hearing that the realized Dharma is without name or characteristic, he immediately thinks that, apart from that realized Dharma, there clearly exists a verbal teaching that can be expounded. He does not understand that realized wisdom is without name or characteristic and that there is no Dharma that can be spoken; therefore he is said not to understand the meaning. He does not know that one seeks the principle through the teaching, and that because there is realization, there is teaching; therefore he is said not to understand the meaning.

+ Why is this so? Because this distinguishes and explains conventional designations. Why is it said that to claim the Tathagata teaches the Dharma is to slander the Buddha? Therefore, the following passage states: As for the Tathagata’s teaching of the Dharma, in that teaching of the Dharma there is no Dharma that can be expounded. This makes clear that teaching the Dharma has two aspects:

1. The realized meaning that is the object expounded.

2. The verbal teaching that is the subject expounding it.

Here, although principle and teaching differ, root and branch arise from the same source. The principle itself admits no discriminative distinctions. If one supposes that the realized Dharma possesses names and characteristics and can be expounded, one has failed to understand the Sage’s intent; this is called slandering the Buddha. Upon hearing that the realized Dharma is without name or characteristic, if one immediately supposes that, apart from that realized Dharma, there separately exists a verbal teaching that can be expounded, one has likewise failed to understand the Sage’s intent; this too is slandering the Buddha.

+ There is no Dharma that can be expounded: This makes clear that the realized Dharma has no verbal teaching by which it can be expressed. Yet apart from the realized Dharma, there is likewise no verbal teaching that can be expounded.

+ This is called teaching the Dharma: To understand clearly that the realized Dharma has no names or characteristics that can be expounded, and that there is no verbal teaching apart from the realized Dharma, yet that it can be expounded in this way—only this is correct understanding and correct speech. Therefore it is said: This is called teaching the Dharma. It should also be said that this is called non-teaching of the Dharma. This makes clear that if one does not understand that within the realized Dharma there are no names or characteristics that can be expounded, yet that because of the realized Dharma there are names and characteristics by which it can be spoken, then this is non-teaching of the Dharma.

– The Treatise states: Again, a doubt arises, up to: If the characteristic is fully established, it cannot be seen: This reiterates the preceding passage of the sutra concerning the absence of form and characteristics.

+ Why is it said that the Tathagata teaches the Dharma?: This states the objection.

+ The sutra passage from here onward: This cites the sutra to clarify the elimination of the doubt.

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

+ The verse says: “As with the Buddha, so too with the Dharma”: This explains the sutra passage up to: “cannot understand what the Tathagata has taught.”

+ As with the Buddha: As the preceding sutra passage clarified through the meaning of identity and difference, and through the inseparability of the three kinds of Buddha, it shows that the Buddha’s Dharma-body possesses form and characteristics yet is without form and characteristics.

+ So too with the Dharma: Since this is so with the Buddha, the principle of identity and difference also applies to the teaching. This clarifies that the verbal teaching as the means by which realization is expressed and the realized meaning as the object expounded may, from this perspective, also be said to differ. Therefore the second line of the verse states: “What is spoken comprises two distinctions.” This explains the sutra’s repeated phrase “teaching the Dharma, that teaching of the Dharma” as two distinctions: principle and teaching are different. This clarifies the aspect of difference between the expounding subject and the expounded object. Yet likewise, they may also be said to be without difference. Therefore the following lines of the verse state:

Not apart from the Dharma-realm,

The teaching of the Dharma has no intrinsic characteristic.

This explains the sutra passage: “There is no Dharma that can be expounded. This is called teaching the Dharma.”

+ Not apart from the Dharma-realm: This explains that the Sage realizes the Dharma-realm of true suchness and then teaches that very true suchness. Thus one should know that the realized meaning, which is the object expounded, and the verbal teaching, which is the subject expounding it, cannot be separated from each other. This likewise clarifies the aspect of identity.

+ The teaching of the Dharma has no intrinsic characteristic: Since one speaks in accordance with realization, apart from the Dharma-realm of true suchness there is no intrinsic characteristic of verbal teaching that can be expressed. That is, the essence of realized wisdom is without name or characteristic, and therefore there is also no intrinsic characteristic of verbal teaching that can be expounded.

At the beginning of the prose section, the Treatise states: “Why is it said, ‘teaching the Dharma, that teaching of the Dharma’?” This cites the sutra as a question. It then points to the verse in reply: “What is spoken comprises two distinctions.”

+ What are the two, up to “the meaning presently existing”?: This identifies the repeated phrase in the sutra, “teaching the Dharma, that teaching of the Dharma,” as the two referred to in the verse.

+ Why is it said: “There is no Dharma that can be expounded”?: If there is verbal teaching on the part of the expounding subject, and there is also meaning as the object expounded, then there should indeed be an exposition. Why, then, is it said that there is no Dharma that can be expounded? The latter half of the verse answers:

Not apart from the Dharma-realm,

The teaching of the Dharma has no intrinsic characteristic.

+ What is the meaning of this?: This sets forth a question and answer to explain the verse.

8. At that time, the Venerable Subhuti addressed the Buddha: “World-Honored One! Will there be sentient beings in the future age who, upon hearing this sutra’s Dharma expounded, will give rise to a mind of faith?” and so forth: This passage of the sutra is the eighth scriptural passage in the Section on Eliminating Doubts.

It follows here because another doubt also arises.

In the preceding passage of the scripture, it was sometimes made clear that the essence of the Dharma-body does not possess the physical marks of the Reward-body and Transformation-body. At other times, it was said that the physical marks of the Reward-body and Transformation-body exist precisely upon the Dharma-body. Now, because one clings exclusively to the aspect of emptiness, a difficulty arises: If, according to the meaning of oneness or identity, the physical marks of the Reward-body and Transformation-body exist precisely upon the Dharma-body, and since the essence of the Buddha’s Dharma-body is like empty space and cannot be seen by means of physical marks, then those two Buddhas—the Reward-body and Transformation-body—being one with the Dharma-body, should likewise be empty.

Furthermore, the preceding section of the scripture made clear that the essence of the true Dharma-realm is utterly beyond names and marks and is distinct from verbal teachings. Yet it also said that, without departing from the true Dharma-realm, there are verbal teachings that can be expounded. If so, then the essence of that true Dharma-realm is also like empty space and contains no vocal teaching.

Since this vocal teaching is one in essence with the wisdom through which realization is attained, it should likewise be empty. Because the Dharma that is realized has neither names nor marks, these two passages sometimes explain that the Dharma-body and Dharma-realm have neither physical marks nor verbal teachings, yet also say that only without departing from the Dharma-body and Dharma-realm can those physical marks and verbal teachings exist.

The meaning of identity and difference in these two passages of scripture is extremely profound and difficult to understand. Are only the beings presently living able to believe it, or will there also be people in future ages who can believe it, or will absolutely no one be able to believe it?

Furthermore, if there are people capable of believing it, are those who can give rise to such a mind of faith ordinary beings or noble ones? Because this doubt arose, Venerable Subhuti asked: “If there are beings who hear this Dharma expounded, will they be able to give rise to a mind of faith?” The Buddha then replied: “Those beings are not beings, nor are they non-beings.”

The intent of this answer is to make clear that, although the principle of the scripture is profound, wondrous, and difficult to believe, it was not taught solely to benefit the beings presently at the Dharma assembly who give rise to faith; rather, it also explains that in future ages there will likewise be people capable of believing it. Who are those capable of believing it? They are precisely the two kinds of bodhisattvas, those below the grounds and those upon the grounds, who have long made offerings to the Buddhas, planted profound causes, and attained complete resolute understanding of the two kinds of selflessness; they are able to believe this scripture.

+ The scripture says: “Those beings are non-beings and are not non-beings”: This identifies the persons capable of believing. It should have answered directly: Bodhisattvas—that is, persons possessing wisdom—are capable of believing this scripture. Why, then, does it say: “Those beings are not beings, nor are they non-beings”? Here, however, noble ones understand the meaning together. Although the words are concealed, one can attain awakening through them.

+ “Those beings are not beings”: This makes clear that the beings who are capable of believing are not the kind of beings who lack wisdom, do not practice, and have never made offerings to the Buddhas, and who, upon hearing this scripture, do not give rise to faith.

+ “Nor are they non-beings”: This means that they are not other than the beings among the noble ones who are capable of believing. It makes clear that these people formerly made offerings to past Buddhas, practiced for a long time, and, upon hearing this profound and wondrous scripture, are immediately able to give rise to faith without doubt. Therefore, they are not beings who lack wisdom and faith, but beings who possess wisdom and are capable of believing. Thus, the following passage explains and clarifies this.

+ “Why is this?”: Here, before the Blessed One distinguishes and explains the matter, Venerable Subhuti should ask: “Why are those capable of believing called ‘non-beings’? Why are they also called ‘not non-beings’? I do not yet understand this meaning. May the Tathagata explain it for me.” The Blessed One then replied: “Subhuti! Beings, those beings”: This once again repeats the statement, “Those beings are non-beings and are not non-beings,” and only afterward explains it.

+ “The Tathagata says that they are not beings; therefore they are called beings”: This makes clear that those capable of believing are not the kind of inferior and ignorant ordinary beings who lack faith. They are called beings belonging to the rank of great bodhisattvas, who are capable of believing and delighting in the noble ones.

– The Treatise states: “A further doubt arises: If it is said that when the Buddhas expound the Dharma, there is no exposition of the Dharma, and that it does not depart from the Dharma-realm, which likewise has no existence”: This recalls the two preceding passages of scripture with their profound meanings: possessing physical marks and lacking physical marks; expounding the Dharma and not expounding the Dharma.

+ “Who are the persons capable of believing in that profound and wondrous Dharma-realm?”: This states the intent of the doubt.

+ “The scriptural passage from here onward”: This cites the scripture in order to explain it.

+ “The Dharma taught, the person teaching, are profound”: This verse is used to explain that passage of scripture. According to the sequence of the scripture, it should say: “The person teaching, the Dharma taught, are profound.” However, because in the Chanda Treatise the Dharma is closely joined with the words, it is written: “The Dharma taught, the person teaching, are profound.” It also follows the form of expression to clarify the meaning, thereby correctly explaining the matter of hearing and comprehending this scripture as described in the scripture.

+ “The Dharma taught”: This recalls the preceding statement in the scripture concerning the principle and teaching expounded by the Tathagata.

+ “The person teaching”: This recalls the preceding statement in the scripture, “The Tathagata cannot be seen by means of perfected physical marks,” and so forth, where the three kinds of Buddha were elucidated as the persons capable of teaching.

+ “Profound”: This clarifies the profound and wondrous principle of identity and difference in the two passages of scripture recalled above. It raises the doubt: Because the Buddha’s teaching in those two passages is exceedingly profound, will there be people in future ages who can believe it, or will there be no one capable of believing it? Therefore, the next line of the verse says: “It is not impossible to believe.”

+ This line makes clear that there are people capable of believing. One should then ask: Who are the people capable of believing? Therefore, the third line of the verse identifies them: “Non-beings, beings.”

This explains the statement in the scripture: “Those beings are non-beings and are not non-beings.”

+ “Non-beings”: This makes clear that they are not beings who lack faith.

+ “Beings”: This refers to beings who possess faith.

+ “Not noble ones” (the final line of the verse: “Not noble ones, not non-noble ones”): This explains the designation according to worldly usage. “Non-beings” means that they are not non-noble ones; they are precisely noble ones. Therefore, it says: “Not non-noble ones.” This identifies the people capable of believing.

+ “Why does it say: ‘Subhuti! Non-beings, not non-beings’?”: This cites the scripture as a question.

+ “From the words, ‘The verse says,’ onward”: This indicates that the following two lines of the verse provide the explanation.

+ “What is the meaning of this?”: This asks on account of what meaning that half-verse can explain the statement in the scripture, “Those beings are non-beings and are not non-beings,” as referring to people capable of believing.

It then explains: “If someone believes this scripture,” through “his essence is not that of an ordinary being,” which is the verse’s explanation of the scriptural statement: “Those beings are not beings.”

+ “If someone believes this scripture, that person is not a being”: This selects the meaning of being capable of believing from the two preceding lines of the verse.

+ “Non-being”: This states the meaning of “not a being” in the third line of the verse.

+ “In essence, he is not non-noble”: This uses the words “not noble” in the fourth line of the verse to explain the preceding phrase “non-being.”

+ Its essence is not non-noble; its essence is not that of an ordinary person: Here the author of the Treatise summarizes that the person capable of believing this sutra is a noble one, whose essence is not that of an ordinary person.

+ Nor are they not sentient beings: This cites the sutra in continuation.

+ Because they may be noble ones: This uses the three words “not non-noble” in the fourth line of the verse to explain. Such persons are not ordinary sentient beings, nor are they not sentient beings whose essence is noble: This summarizes that those capable of believing in this sutra are not ordinary persons but noble ones.

+ As the sutra says: “Why is this?” up to: “They are called sentient beings”: This cites the passage explained and confirmed by the Tathagata as proof.

+ The Tathagata says that they are not sentient beings: This means that they are not ordinary sentient beings; this is the author of the Treatise explaining the sutra.

+ Therefore, they are said to be sentient beings: This summarizes that those capable of believing this sutra are sentient beings belonging to the noble ones.

+ Sentient beings: This refers to sentient beings belonging to the noble ones.

+ Therefore, they are said not to be sentient beings: Because those capable of believing are sentient beings belonging to the noble ones, it is concluded that they are not sentient beings belonging to ordinary persons.

9. The Buddha said: “Subhuti! What do you think? Did the Tathagata realize the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi?” and so forth: This is the ninth scriptural passage in the Section on Dispelling Doubts.

Up to this point there have been five successive repetitions. Although the wording appears similar, the meanings differ; therefore, they are not redundant.

+ The reason this passage follows here: It is to explain a doubt. From where does this doubt arise? Up to this point, the text has extensively clarified that the essence of the Dharma body has always been perfect and complete and is not a dharma attained through cultivation.

Thus, at the beginning of the second passage in this Section on Dispelling Doubts, the sutra says: “There is no real dharma whereby the Tathagata attained the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi.” This clarifies that the bodhi of the Dharma body is not a conditioned dharma and therefore cannot be attained through conditioned characteristics. Yet it also says: “The Tathagata attained the fruit of unsurpassed perfect awakening,” clarifying that the essence of bodhi is an unconditioned dharma and that there is therefore bodhi that can be realized.

It further explains and confirms this by means of the analogy of the great body, elucidating that the Dharma body has always been perfect and complete, fully endowed with the two kinds of adornment, free from the two obstructions, and not attained through cultivation. This again gives rise to a doubt: If it is said that the Tathagata attained samyaksaṃbodhi, did he attain it through cultivation, or did he attain it without cultivation?

If the bodhi of the Dharma body has always been fixed, like empty space, perfect in its myriad virtues, and cannot be attained subsequently through the causes and conditions of cultivation, why is it said that practitioners pass through one asaṃkhyeya kalpa, cultivate to completeness, realize the first bhumi, and successively realize the next seven bhumis; that after passing through two asaṃkhyeya kalpas and cultivating to completeness, they proceed higher and higher, becoming increasingly supreme; and that after three asaṃkhyeya kalpas, they realize the bodhi of the fruit of Buddhahood?

From this it is evident that the Dharma body can be attained through the causes and conditions of cultivation and only afterward becomes perfect and complete. How, then, can it be said that the Tathagata’s Dharma body is like empty space, perfect in its myriad virtues, and not a dharma attained through cultivation?

If it is attained through cultivation, why, apart from the progressively higher stages and the attainment of the Reward Buddha, is a separate Tathagata Dharma body spoken of? This is an objection concerning the identity or difference between it and the Reward Buddha.

Moreover, the preceding sixth scriptural passage clarified that the Dharma body resembles empty space, that its essence is devoid of all characteristics, and that it is not a dharma attained through cultivation; therefore, it cannot be seen by means of the complete characteristics of form. This gives rise to the doubtful thought: If the Dharma body is not a dharma acquired through cultivation and has no characteristics of form that can be seen, why do bodhisattvas, through the causes and conditions of cultivation, successively attain the fruit of unsurpassed bodhi?

This doubt arose earlier but is only now dispelled because, within the question, other doubts arose in turn and had not yet been completely eliminated; therefore, it is explained only now. This is what is called the doubt. Hence, the reply in the sutra is intended to clarify that there are two kinds of Buddha:

1. The Dharma-body Buddha: His essential nature has always been quiescent, perfect, and complete, and is not a dharma attained through cultivation. This is the nirvana of intrinsically pure nature.

2. The Reward-body Buddha: He depends upon the skillful means of the ten bhumis as the causes and conditions of cultivation. When the originally existent nature manifests its wondrous function, it is called the Reward-body Buddha, or Reward Buddha. This is the nirvana of skillful means. The nirvana of intrinsically pure nature cannot be attained through cultivating the skillful means of the reward body; therefore, one should not suppose that the nirvana of intrinsically pure nature—the Buddha’s Dharma body—is also attained through cultivation. The following passage will elucidate this in order to explain that doubt.

This single scriptural passage consists of four separate statements. The first three clarify that the nirvana of intrinsically pure nature of the Dharma-body Buddha is perfect and complete in essence and characteristics and is not a dharma attained through cultivation. The final statement clarifies that the nirvana of skillful means of the Reward-body Buddha is likewise perfect in its myriad virtues and extensively manifests great functions, yet is a dharma that can be attained through cultivation.

+ There is not the slightest dharma whereby samyaksaṃbodhi is attained: This is the first separate statement. It clarifies that the Tathagata’s Dharma body is perfect in its myriad virtues, without the slightest deficiency. Although it is present amid the defiled dharmas of affliction, not a single dharma among its myriad virtues is lacking. It does not become complete only afterward through the causes and conditions of cultivation, and thus it is called unsurpassed bodhi. Therefore, it is written: “There is not the slightest dharma whereby samyaksaṃbodhi is attained.” This clarifies, from the perspective of its perfect essence, that the Dharma body is not a dharma attained through cultivation.

+ Furthermore, Subhuti, that Dharma is equal, without high or low; it is called samyaksaṃbodhi: This is the second separate statement, explaining the first. The reason the myriad virtues of the Dharma body are originally complete and do not become complete only through cultivation is that the Dharma body has always been fixed. It is not because a person possesses the causes and conditions of cultivation that, when it is present in a noble one, its myriad virtues increase within the mind and it is called “high.” Nor is it because a person lacks the causes and conditions of cultivation that, when it is present in an icchantika, its myriad virtues diminish within the mind and it is called “low.” This clarifies, with reference to practitioners,

that the essence of the Buddha’s Dharma body neither increases nor diminishes and is not attained through the practice of cultivation.

+ Because there is no sentient being, no self, no person, and no living being, equal samyaksaṃbodhi is attained: This is the third separate statement, explaining the preceding second statement. The reason the Dharma body is equal, without high or low, is to clarify that the essence and characteristics of the Dharma body in all sentient beings, together with its myriad virtues, are identical. It is not that one has many virtues while another has few.

It has always been quiescent; its intrinsic nature is free from obstructions; all is equal; and it is without such delusions as self, person, and so forth. This differs from the stages prior to the vajra-like concentration, for in the causal stage practices are profound or shallow, and afflictions are eliminated to a greater or lesser degree. Thus, superiority and equality are not identical, and there are distinctions of better and worse.

Consequently, one gives rise to an arrogant mind, thinking that one possesses many virtues and has also eliminated many afflictions, while another is inferior to oneself.

Such an arrogant and discriminating mind exists because previously existing afflictions have not yet been completely eliminated; hence, there remain views of self, person, and so forth. This thus clarifies that the Buddha-nature and Dharma body of all sentient beings have no superiority or inferiority. From time immemorial, their essence has always been pure and free from defiled delusions. Therefore, it is said that, because there is no self, person, sentient being, or living being, equal samyaksaṃbodhi is attained. The Srimala Sutra says: “A moment of wholesome mind is not an affliction or defilement. A moment of unwholesome mind is likewise not an affliction or defilement.”

According to the “Western Regions,” kṣaṇa has ten kinds of names. Here, kṣaṇa is said to be translated as emptiness. This makes clear: the wholesome mind is empty, and is not defiled by the afflictions. The wholesome mind is not empty, and likewise is not defiled by the afflictions.

+ The wholesome mind is empty: This makes clear that the Dharma-body, the Tathagata-garbha, has been fundamentally and definitively so from the beginning. Its essence is empty, being devoid of the myriad marks of birth and death within the twenty-five states of existence; therefore, it is said to be empty.

+ The wholesome mind is not empty: This makes clear that the self-nature of the Dharma-body is, in essence, fully endowed with the myriad virtues. It is wondrous existence, serene and not empty; therefore, as the sutra above states, it is the nonempty Tathagata-garbha.

The first two individual statements clarify the wondrous existence of the Dharma-body, namely, the nonempty Tathagata-garbha. This one statement clarifies the wondrous nonexistence of the Dharma-body, namely, the empty Tathagata-garbha.

This is based upon the pure and unobstructed path in order to elucidate that the Dharma-body is equal and complete and is not attained through cultivation. These first three statements successively explain the meaning of the intrinsically pure nirvana of the Buddha’s Dharma-body.

+ At this point, many people, hearing that the Dharma-body has been perfect from the beginning and is not a dharma attained through cultivation, consequently give rise to doubt: If that is so, then why do bodhisattvas arouse the aspiration for bodhi, pass through three great asaṃkhyeya kalpas, and complete the cultivation of the ten grounds? What is all this for? Therefore, the answer states: All wholesome dharmas attain Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi. This is the fourth statement, explaining the expedient nirvana of the Buddha’s Reward-body, which is attained through cultivation.

The reason this is explained on the basis of the Reward Buddha is to clarify that it is attained through cultivation. However, the Reward Buddha must be discussed in terms of practice and cultivated attainment, when its function becomes manifest. Since the discussion is based upon practice, there is the cause of cultivation, and through the complete fulfillment of the myriad conditions there is consequently a dharma that can be attained.

Previously, the discussion was based solely upon the originally inherent essential nature and did not distinguish its function. Now it is discussed on the basis of practice occurring at the appropriate time. Buddha-nature has function.

Because having function differs from lacking function, it may be spoken of as increasing or decreasing. Furthermore, when considered in terms of practitioners’ elimination of delusions, there are differences in quantity, superiority, and inferiority, and ordinary beings and sages are distinct. Because the Reward-body is revealed through practitioners, there is something attained through cultivation.

Therefore, it is said: All wholesome dharmas attain Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi. This then gives rise to a doubtful thought: If all wholesome dharmas attain Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi, then the word “all” seems indiscriminate, meaning that wholesome dharmas with outflows and without outflows, worldly and supramundane, are all included and can all attain bodhi. If they all attain it, why does the verse in the treatise above say: Merit is not directed toward bodhi?

In order to eliminate this doubt, the answer states: Subhūti! What are called wholesome dharmas, those wholesome dharmas the Tathagata says are not wholesome dharmas; therefore, they are called wholesome dharmas.

This makes clear that wholesome dharmas are of two kinds:

1. Wholesome dharmas with outflows.

2. Wholesome dharmas without outflows.

+ The Tathagata says they are not wholesome dharmas: This makes clear that the “all wholesome dharmas” just mentioned refers to all wholesome dharmas without outflows, not wholesome dharmas with outflows, which are not directed toward bodhi. Therefore, the following statement says: Therefore, they are called wholesome dharmas. This clarifies that they are called wholesome dharmas without outflows. It may also be said: Therefore, they are called non-wholesome dharmas, clarifying that what is without outflows is not what is with outflows.

– The treatise states: There is yet another doubt: If the Tathagata has not attained a single dharma by which to realize Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi: This sets forth the doubt concerning the succeeding section of the sutra.

+ Why, through progressively higher levels of realization, does one successively attain Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi?: This formulates the objection. The passage of the sutra from this point onward eliminates that doubt.

+ Manifesting that there is no dharma of realization is called attaining Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi: Here the author of the treatise briefly cites the purport of the sutra’s elimination of the doubt.

Here, the treatise uses two verses to explain this one passage of the sutra: The first verse explains the first three statements, clarifying that the Dharma-body is not attained through cultivation. The following verse explains the final statement, establishing that the Reward Buddha is attained through cultivation.

– The first verse states: In that locus no dharma is lacking; thus is unsurpassed bodhi known. These two lines explain the first individual statement.

+ Thus is unsurpassed bodhi known: Because it is known that the Dharma-body there is entirely complete in its essence and characteristics, without the slightest deficiency, it is called unsurpassed bodhi, the supremely excellent.

+ The Dharma-realm neither increases nor decreases: This explains the second individual statement. It shows that the Dharma-body does not become perfect through attainment by cultivation, which would be called increase. Nor does it become deficient through lack of cultivation, which would be called decrease.

+ Its own characteristics are pure and equal: This explains the third individual statement, clarifying that the essence of the Buddha’s Dharma-body has been pure from the beginning. It has never possessed delusions such as self, person, and so forth; therefore, it is called pure.

+ The second line, “Thus is unsurpassed bodhi known”: According to the subsequent prose of the treatise, this single line applies in meaning to all three preceding statements. Following each of the three statements above, one should likewise say, “Thus is unsurpassed bodhi known.”

– The second verse: There is an unsurpassed expedient means: This explains the fourth individual statement, clarifying that the Reward Buddha is attained through cultivation. From the standpoint of its function having become manifest, it is called increase; from the standpoint of its function not yet having become manifest, it is called decrease.

+ The following three lines:

Together they are free from dharmas with outflows;

Therefore, they are not pure dharmas;

They are precisely pure dharmas.

These explain the fourth individual statement.

+ Next: Subhūti! What are called wholesome dharmas, those wholesome dharmas, and so forth: This is the sutra passage that explains the doubt.

+ Together they are free from dharmas with outflows: This elucidates the expedient cause of the Reward Buddha. Wholesome dharmas without outflows are, in essence, free from all outflows and are not wholesome dharmas with outflows.

+ Therefore, they are not pure dharmas: This establishes that wholesome dharmas with outflows are not pure wholesome dharmas without outflows.

+ They are precisely pure dharmas: They are not wholesome dharmas with outflows such as these, but are the expedient cause consisting of pure, supramundane wholesome dharmas without outflows. How could one use wholesome dharmas with outflows, which provide no expedient cause for bodhi, to object that wholesome dharmas without outflows likewise provide no expedient cause?

+ From the words, “This clarifies what meaning?” onward, up to “The sutra states that all wholesome dharmas attain Anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi”: This explains the five lines above in the two verses, which together explain the four individual statements in the sutra. First, they are explained in sequence; afterward, the sutra is used to summarize them.

+ Other bodhi, in which wholesome dharmas are incomplete: This refers to the bodhi of expedient means within the causal stage, also called the bodhi of the Two Vehicles. Its essence is not yet complete and requires further cultivation; therefore, it is said to be other bodhi, in which wholesome dharmas are incomplete.

+ Subhūti! What are called wholesome dharmas, the Tathagata says are not wholesome dharmas, and so forth. Why is this said?: First, the doubt in the sutra is raised, and afterward it is answered. This is the question. It reiterates the final three lines of the second verse in order to explain them.

+ From “What is the reason for this?” onward: This poses another question.

+ Because those dharmas contain no dharmas with outflows, they are called not wholesome dharmas: This explains that wholesome dharmas without outflows are not wholesome dharmas with outflows; therefore, the Tathagata says they are not wholesome dharmas.

+ Because they contain no dharmas with outflows, they are therefore called wholesome dharmas: This explains that wholesome dharmas without outflows are wholesome dharmas.

+ Because they are definitively wholesome dharmas: This concludes the explanation of wholesome dharmas without outflows.

END OF SCROLL 8